----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:43 PM
Subject: [REBOL] does REBOL run on Palm or not? Re:(11)
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > We could at least get REBOL much more accepted and popular if /Browse
> > > would exist for IE and Mozillla/Netscape at least, or just making
> > > agreement with MS or AOL to include REBOL/View amongst their install
> > > options. Of course /View capabilities (e.g.) VID are not still set in
> > > stone, but ....
> >
> > I doubt that MS would like to support a new way to bypass their
technologies
> > unless is was forced on them.
>
> Hmm, their technologies? What do you mean by "their" here? HTML is not
their,
> although they are trying to introduce new stuff even here sometimes ....
Their technologies = all the software they have written that goes into
turning pixels on your monitor on and off after you have pushed the power
button and hit a few keys or clicked the mouse with the purpose of reading
the latest at the Olympics. Some of the major components being OS stuff, GUI
stuff, Development tools, Productivity applications, etc. They want to get
as much money for these things as possible.
And yes, they might even think of HTML as theirs since they would like to
believe they own the platform :)
>
> > Even then they would be squirming. Consider
> > their response to Java and the JVM. Even before that they were not
> > interested in the web - no - more likely hating the thought of what HTML
> > could do to the use of the Windows API. Why because, roughly, both are
GUI
> > descriptions.
> >
>
> OK, I thought REBOL/View could be concidered plug-in rather than JAVA like
> competitor. And there's plenty of plug-ins delivered with browsers - just
look
> at Netscape help/about-plug-ins menu ....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the plug-ins are not smart in the sense
that a Rebol or Java program is. That is they tend to add a specific
capability within the context of browsing as opposed to having an ability to
provide an alternative to browsing. I'm not disputing the desirability of
having a Rebol plugin - I think it would be great and would probably help in
the adoption of Rebol. I just don't think it will be necessarily received
with open arms by other software vendors.
> > Now we have RT producing Rebol/View. View will compete with HTML, Java,
>
> Hmm, do we really want to compete at current initial state of things? I
thought
> we are thinking about REBOL being complementary or supportive technology,
rather
> than competitive one ...
As a developer I think of it complementing other technologies that I have
access to. If you are a software vendor however, you are thinking "I want
the next developer to choose my product over that other one when he goes to
write his next application, e-commerce thingy or whatever". That is the
competition that View is entered into by default. No choice of want to or
not - just is. The vendor (say MS) will ask the question - is this Rebol
thing a threat to any of my revenues? If yes, don't help, bag-out, crush,
ignore, whatever. If no - "oh yeah we luv these guys".
>
> > Windows API, etc. Ambitious, but timely. In the marketing speak, the
> > impression is formed that View is aimed at a niche, but that niche is
the
> > same one the rest of the world is aiming at as well.
> >
>
> Well, I just don't believe today is another way than thru public presence.
True enough.
> /Express will surely bring RT some money, but not enough popularity. I
don't
> believe in such kind of marketing going thru big and reach companies only.
> Look at ICQ, Gnutella, Napster - all becoming stars thru public use, not
corporate
> one ...
I agree that the popularity issue is the key to success (defines success?).
How much money does Napster, etc make for a corporate? = minus millions
Who extracts money from people in order to pay for technologies? =
corporates (or maybe govts)
I would like the money aspect to be not important but the isms like
capitalism, consumerism, etc ain't finished yet.
> ...
> That's why I proposed RT should concentrate more on core technology, and
> bringing in more mechanisms for media stuff, effects etc.
Maybe you are right. PHP has become popular because it is useful, not
necessarily for its internal beauty (as far as I can tell).
>
> > All these languages and technologies are fighting for mindshare.
>
> I dare to consider REBOL being more platform than "just" language or
technology
If I put my suit on and walk out the door tommorrow looking for a paying
contract for Rebol work, I am very unlikely to find one. If I look for an
Oracle (or ASP or Java, etc) contract I'll have plenty to shoot for. That is
what I meant by mindshare.
But yes, Rebol has the feel of being more than a programming language or
narrow technology. I struggle with trying to get my head around the true
possibilities of Rebol. [Any Guru got a "expand your mind" article I can
read? :)]
> ....
>
> > MS wants
> > first retain mindshare, then to keep converting that mindshare to
dollars in
> > the most extractive way possible. Same for all commercial technologies.
> >
>
> MS? So try with others - Opera, Mozilla, Netscape, etc ... we need
REBOL/View
> bundled ....
It is a good idea.
>
> > Look at some of the competition.
> > HTML. Today's standard - for applications delivers similar performance
to a
> > green screen 20 years ago but with more complexity. For designers, HTML
is
> > not a medium to work with it is a beast that has to be tamed -
repeatedly
> > for each browser, each version, each new W3C inspired "good idea ... at
the
> > time".
> >
>
> OK, you are right, but I still think we have to fill gapes, complement
current
> technologies, not go against them ...
>
> > JAVA. As far as I'm concerned, a nice 3GL. In computing terms about 10
years
> > too late - would have been great when client server became the rage.
> > Windows API. Well not really part of today's scene since everyone is
talking
> > the Net - who wants to develop for one machine/platform any more?
> >
>
> .Net is FUD. The are stealing from others. Look at what is amiga doing
with Tao
> technology .... Much cooler and will win.
By Net I meant internet not MS.NET.
I pray for times where good
> technologies wins over commerce ....
Same here, I hope one day it happens. Actually I think it did once - DEC a
while ago, but then Compaq bought them...<shudder>.
>...
> > P.S. When I first saw that Rebol was destined for the Palm I thought
Coool -
> > 'cause I've got one 'em. But I can understand the limitations. Now what
I'm
> > really interested in is how can Rebol work with the Crusoe chip. I
suspect
> > it could make some really nice uses of this chip. Though I'm guessing
that
> > it might be a while yet to see what opportunities open up with it.
>
> What has to do REBOL with Crusoe chip? REBOL is hosted, so it has to live
upon
> existing OS infrastructure. Once you've got some OS running upon Crusoe
chip
> (which is X86 compatible anyway), you can ask RT to support your OS. Or
you
> thought about Crusou containing REBOL instead of X86 code? :-) Sci-fi :-)
Sorry if I'm saying something you know, but, Crusoe is "compatible" with X86
because the Transmeta software reads the X86 instructions as data. So it is
doing a sophisticated hardware-enhanced emulation of X86 codes. My
understanding is that this technology is not limited to X86 instructions.
Hence yes I was thinking the "sci-fi" idea or something like it. Yes, Rebol
is hosted now, which is why I (not very clearly) said it may be a while
before the opportunities appeared.
Least I made you smile :)
Brett.
