Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Dev via use-livecode]

Roger

On your wife’s machine - if you right click the app and choose Open from the 
context menu, do you get more options about opening?

If you adjust settings in the Security and Privacy System Preferences can you 
downgrade standards to allow a one time opening?

If neither of these work, then it seems that the player app will need to be 
notarized and perhaps even stapled. If one of the already certified developers 
were to make such an app using their credentials, perhaps the rest of us could 
just download it from their site and play our own stacks with it. 

Interested in anyone else’s thoughts on work arounds to Apple’s security.

Kelly

> On 27 Mar, 2021, at 9:10 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Here is a report on the back door approach to opening a standalone on MAC OS 
> 11.2:
> 
> I built a stack precisely as Jacqueline specified and made a Mac standalone 
> of it. I checked to make sure it worked on my own computer. I then sent the 
> standalone to my wife’s computer – another Mac running the same OS 11.2. 
> Double-clicking the standalone on her computer, resulted is a simple screen 
> with this message: You do not have permission to open the application 
> “StackOmatic”. “Contact your computer or network administrator for 
> assistance” with a single “OK” button.
> 
> I then checked System Preferences - Security & Privacy - General Tab. There 
> was no “Open Anyway” button.
> 
> Dead in the water! 
> 
> I humbly submit that we need a LiveCodeLight app from a certified developer 
> that runs stacks without the IDE
> 
> Roge
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Roger Guay via use-livecode]

Here is a report on the back door approach to opening a standalone on MAC OS 
11.2:

I built a stack precisely as Jacqueline specified and made a Mac standalone of 
it. I checked to make sure it worked on my own computer. I then sent the 
standalone to my wife’s computer – another Mac running the same OS 11.2. 
Double-clicking the standalone on her computer, resulted is a simple screen 
with this message: You do not have permission to open the application 
“StackOmatic”. “Contact your computer or network administrator for assistance” 
with a single “OK” button.

 I then checked System Preferences - Security & Privacy - General Tab. There 
was no “Open Anyway” button.

Dead in the water! 

I humbly submit that we need a LiveCodeLight app from a certified developer 
that runs stacks without the IDE

Roge



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Roger Guay via use-livecode]

Thanks, Scott. I will be testing all this in the next day or so and will report.

Roger


> On Mar 27, 2021, at 4:56 PM, scott--- via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Roger,
> Yes, I believe it is on an individual app basis that occurs at the time the 
> app is being first opened.
> —
> Scott
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2021, at 4:15 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Jacque,
>> 
>> You always come thru with such great clarity and thoroughness. I remember 
>> going thru this process a few years ago, but I thought this back door 
>> approach was closed by Apple within the last couple of OS releases. Indeed, 
>> looking at my Security tab of System Preferences in OS 11.2, I do 
>> not see the “Open Anyway” button as illustrated in your link for Mac OS. Is 
>> it possible this button only appears if the OS senses that user is trying to 
>> open an unauthorized app?
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 27, 2021, at 3:22 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Roger Guay wrote:
 
 In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
 Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly.
>>> 
>>> On desktop you still can, sort of, if you don't mind instructing your users 
>>> how to get around the security blocks that both Windows and Mac OS have 
>>> adopted. If your users are just family and friends, this is viable. Someone 
>>> more familiar with Linux can say whether this method works there.
>>> 
>>> Here is a skeletal outline off the top of my head (so I may have missed 
>>> something,) but it should give you the idea. A "runner" app is easy to 
>>> make, basically a stack with one card and a single button. The button 
>>> script:
>>> 
>>> on mouseup
>>> answer file "Choose a stack to open:"
>>> if it is empty then exit to top
>>> go stack it
>>> end mouseup
>>> 
>>> Add an openStack handler on the card so that resources can be shared:
>>> 
>>> on openStack
>>> start using this stack
>>> end openStack
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's the whole stack. Now set up standalone settings for the desired 
>>> build platform. Include all extensions, libraries, widgets, etc. that your 
>>> stacks need, or you think they might need in the future. Your app will be 
>>> limited to the inclusions your license permits.
>>> 
>>> Build the app. Send it to friends along with your stacks.
>>> 
>>> Now the part where you do some explaining. Since the app isn't notarized by 
>>> Apple or authorized by Microsoft, explain to them how to bypass the 
>>> blockage and get the app to open. They only need to do this once on first 
>>> launch. There are lots of hits if you search for "how to open unnotarized 
>>> app on big sur" or "open unauthorized app on windows."
>>> 
>>> Here's one for Mac OS: 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> And one for Windows: 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This won't work for mobile apps, though with some adjustments you can build 
>>> a runner app for Android if you're willing to distribute from the internet.
>>> 
>>> Also note: The stacks you distribute cannot violate the LC license 
>>> agreement. They can't reproduce IDE features or allow users to do things 
>>> that only a licensed user can do. Please don't violate the license 
>>> agreement; we all want LC to prosper.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
>>> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Roger Guay via use-livecode]

Thank you, Richard for these responses . . . some of which I will have to 
consider for a while to better understand. But I still think this idea has 
merit, is very easy to do and maintain and makes Livecode even more attractive 
to prospective customers, especially those who require easy collaboration with 
colleagues

And BTW, I don’t care who builds it, but it seems a natural for RunRev.

Roger

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 11:29 AM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Roger Guay wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 26, 2021, at 5:35 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> >
> >> What are you looking for?  When were these "good ol days"
> >> in which one could run stack files without an engine, and
> >> how did that work?
> >
> > In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
> > Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly. Now I have to
> > jump thru intolerable hoops (at least for the Mac) to give
> > someone my standalone. if someone (hint. . .hint) could build
> > a Livecode reader app for dirt cheap or even free w advertising
> > that would run LC standalones, everything would be right in the
> > world again!
> >
> > I think my martini is showing...
> 
> After I read that I poured myself two fingers of whiskey and sat back 
> enjoying the memories you conjured. Good thoughts. Thanks.
> 
> In those days we made software for single users to run on a single computer 
> running one brand of OS.
> 
> The web had barely been invented, the Internet not yet privatized for general 
> use, and "cloud" was still called "mainframe".
> 
> It was a much simpler time. I miss those days myself.
> 
> 
> The hoops we now jump through to deliver apps are OS vendors responding to an 
> evolving need to establish trust in hostile connected environments.
> 
> As software opportunities have expanded, they've for everyone, good and bad 
> actors alike.
> 
> My response to Alex was apparently too long to be read, but I touched on this 
> in third block, re "security", re implications for a player as well:
> http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2021-March/263948.html
> 
> 
> 
> > This conversation has given me some focus and clarification of the
> > basic idea. Here is what I would love to see: A LiveCodeLight
> > downloadable from the mother ship.
> 
> Why specifically from the mother ship?
> 
> Or to put it in business terms, which features/bug fixes would you be willing 
> to see dropped so the company could commit to making and maintaining yet 
> another project?
> 
> In addition to the opportunity cost to the company, there's also the segment 
> who would use it as an alternative to maintaining a current license, 
> resulting in at least some degree of revenue cannibalization.
> 
> And while the upside is non-zero, it's limited to a slender subset of 
> promotional value opportunities which could more easily be attained with 
> nearly any marketing strategy at lower cost, and in ways that more directly 
> feed their funnel.
> 
> Moreover, a player produces no direct revenue, but maintenance and support 
> obligations create immediate (if modest) direct payroll impact.
> 
> Free software isn't free to make and maintain.
> 
> 
> > LiveCodeLight would be a stripped down version of the community
> > edition that would not open the IDE, but would open and run stacks.
> >
> > Thanks, Brian for the idea.
> >
> > Is that a cool idea or what?
> 
> Also addressed in my earlier post (some day I'll learn to write less here).
> 
> The close of that post suggested this might make a good community project, 
> and described how simple it could be if anyone here really wanted something 
> that rudimentary.
> 
> But (for the reasons also described in that post) it would have to be with 
> Community, which raises two questions not yet answered in any subsequent 
> reply:
> 
> How many who would use a generic player would be willing to relicense their 
> works under GPL, as would be required if distributed via the GPL-governed 
> Community Edition.
> 
> And with Community's role in LC's business as a sort of freemium offer, how 
> many projects might one want to distribute with a player which use absolutely 
> none of any features found only in the proprietary editions, Indy and 
> Business?
> 
> -- 
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> 
> ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Alex Tweedly via use-livecode]

On 27/03/2021 02:43, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
This makes the Community Edition a natural fit for a generic player, 
since the proliferation the license explicitly encourages would be 
very much with the grain of its goals.


But then we have to ask: how many of those who might enjoy a generic 
player embrace the GPL with the stacks they'd like to distribute it with? 


hmmm - I don't get that bit.

The generic player would be built with Community Edition - and hence 
must be GPL-compliant.


However, the stacks it "plays" are merely documents. GPL is (afaiu) 
clear that documents viewed (or indeed created) by GPL apps are not 
covered by the GPL - i.e. it does not proliferate into the stacks. The 
stacks are not in any way derivative of the player.


So I could build a stack with my Indy license, and distribute that under 
any restrictive licensing terms I choose, but use the CE/GPL compliant 
player app to run them.


Of course, the source of the stacks would be visible, but there wouldn't 
seem to be any requirement on which licensing terms I apply to that stack.


Or, I may be misunderstanding GPL again - I have done on many occasions 
since I first hired a developer to work on gcc back in the mid-80s :-)


Alex.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[scott--- via use-livecode]

Roger,
Yes, I believe it is on an individual app basis that occurs at the time the app 
is being first opened.
—
Scott

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 4:15 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Jacque,
> 
> You always come thru with such great clarity and thoroughness. I remember 
> going thru this process a few years ago, but I thought this back door 
> approach was closed by Apple within the last couple of OS releases. Indeed, 
> looking at my Security tab of System Preferences in OS 11.2, I do not 
> see the “Open Anyway” button as illustrated in your link for Mac OS. Is it 
> possible this button only appears if the OS senses that user is trying to 
> open an unauthorized app?
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2021, at 3:22 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Roger Guay wrote:
>>> 
>>> In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
>>> Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly.
>> 
>> On desktop you still can, sort of, if you don't mind instructing your users 
>> how to get around the security blocks that both Windows and Mac OS have 
>> adopted. If your users are just family and friends, this is viable. Someone 
>> more familiar with Linux can say whether this method works there.
>> 
>> Here is a skeletal outline off the top of my head (so I may have missed 
>> something,) but it should give you the idea. A "runner" app is easy to make, 
>> basically a stack with one card and a single button. The button script:
>> 
>> on mouseup
>> answer file "Choose a stack to open:"
>> if it is empty then exit to top
>> go stack it
>> end mouseup
>> 
>> Add an openStack handler on the card so that resources can be shared:
>> 
>> on openStack
>> start using this stack
>> end openStack
>> 
>> 
>> That's the whole stack. Now set up standalone settings for the desired build 
>> platform. Include all extensions, libraries, widgets, etc. that your stacks 
>> need, or you think they might need in the future. Your app will be limited 
>> to the inclusions your license permits.
>> 
>> Build the app. Send it to friends along with your stacks.
>> 
>> Now the part where you do some explaining. Since the app isn't notarized by 
>> Apple or authorized by Microsoft, explain to them how to bypass the blockage 
>> and get the app to open. They only need to do this once on first launch. 
>> There are lots of hits if you search for "how to open unnotarized app on big 
>> sur" or "open unauthorized app on windows."
>> 
>> Here's one for Mac OS: 
>> 
>> 
>> And one for Windows: 
>> 
>> 
>> This won't work for mobile apps, though with some adjustments you can build 
>> a runner app for Android if you're willing to distribute from the internet.
>> 
>> Also note: The stacks you distribute cannot violate the LC license 
>> agreement. They can't reproduce IDE features or allow users to do things 
>> that only a licensed user can do. Please don't violate the license 
>> agreement; we all want LC to prosper.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
>> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Roger Guay via use-livecode]

Jacque,

You always come thru with such great clarity and thoroughness. I remember going 
thru this process a few years ago, but I thought this back door approach was 
closed by Apple within the last couple of OS releases. Indeed, looking at my 
Security tab of System Preferences in OS 11.2, I do not see the “Open 
Anyway” button as illustrated in your link for Mac OS. Is it possible this 
button only appears if the OS senses that user is trying to open an 
unauthorized app?

Roger



> On Mar 27, 2021, at 3:22 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Roger Guay wrote:
>> 
>> In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
>> Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly.
> 
> On desktop you still can, sort of, if you don't mind instructing your users 
> how to get around the security blocks that both Windows and Mac OS have 
> adopted. If your users are just family and friends, this is viable. Someone 
> more familiar with Linux can say whether this method works there.
> 
> Here is a skeletal outline off the top of my head (so I may have missed 
> something,) but it should give you the idea. A "runner" app is easy to make, 
> basically a stack with one card and a single button. The button script:
> 
> on mouseup
>  answer file "Choose a stack to open:"
>  if it is empty then exit to top
>  go stack it
> end mouseup
> 
> Add an openStack handler on the card so that resources can be shared:
> 
> on openStack
>  start using this stack
> end openStack
> 
> 
> That's the whole stack. Now set up standalone settings for the desired build 
> platform. Include all extensions, libraries, widgets, etc. that your stacks 
> need, or you think they might need in the future. Your app will be limited to 
> the inclusions your license permits.
> 
> Build the app. Send it to friends along with your stacks.
> 
> Now the part where you do some explaining. Since the app isn't notarized by 
> Apple or authorized by Microsoft, explain to them how to bypass the blockage 
> and get the app to open. They only need to do this once on first launch. 
> There are lots of hits if you search for "how to open unnotarized app on big 
> sur" or "open unauthorized app on windows."
> 
> Here's one for Mac OS: 
> 
> 
> And one for Windows: 
> 
> 
> This won't work for mobile apps, though with some adjustments you can build a 
> runner app for Android if you're willing to distribute from the internet.
> 
> Also note: The stacks you distribute cannot violate the LC license agreement. 
> They can't reproduce IDE features or allow users to do things that only a 
> licensed user can do. Please don't violate the license agreement; we all want 
> LC to prosper.
> 
> -- 
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

Roger Guay wrote:


In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly.


On desktop you still can, sort of, if you don't mind instructing your users how to get around 
the security blocks that both Windows and Mac OS have adopted. If your users are just family 
and friends, this is viable. Someone more familiar with Linux can say whether this method works 
there.


Here is a skeletal outline off the top of my head (so I may have missed something,) but it 
should give you the idea. A "runner" app is easy to make, basically a stack with one card and a 
single button. The button script:


on mouseup
  answer file "Choose a stack to open:"
  if it is empty then exit to top
  go stack it
end mouseup

Add an openStack handler on the card so that resources can be shared:

on openStack
  start using this stack
end openStack


That's the whole stack. Now set up standalone settings for the desired build platform. Include 
all extensions, libraries, widgets, etc. that your stacks need, or you think they might need in 
the future. Your app will be limited to the inclusions your license permits.


Build the app. Send it to friends along with your stacks.

Now the part where you do some explaining. Since the app isn't notarized by Apple or authorized 
by Microsoft, explain to them how to bypass the blockage and get the app to open. They only 
need to do this once on first launch. There are lots of hits if you search for "how to open 
unnotarized app on big sur" or "open unauthorized app on windows."


Here's one for Mac OS: 



And one for Windows: 



This won't work for mobile apps, though with some adjustments you can build a runner app for 
Android if you're willing to distribute from the internet.


Also note: The stacks you distribute cannot violate the LC license agreement. They can't 
reproduce IDE features or allow users to do things that only a licensed user can do. Please 
don't violate the license agreement; we all want LC to prosper.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Alex Tweedly via use-livecode]

On 27/03/2021 18:29, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
My response to Alex was apparently too long to be read, but I touched 
on this in third block, re "security", re implications for a player as 
well:

http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2021-March/263948.html

Not at all "too long to be read";  just too long to take in quickly and 
make coherent responses.


I won't even start on that until I've finished fulminating over your 
misspelling of whisky - but a response (or two) will come.


Alex.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Richmond via use-livecode]

I despair . . . how could one lower oneself to two fingers of 'whiskey'?

Just now I am enjoying a glass of whisky (without the offending 'e').

Richmond.

On 27.03.21 20:29, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:

Roger Guay wrote:


On Mar 26, 2021, at 5:35 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:


What are you looking for?  When were these "good ol days"
in which one could run stack files without an engine, and
how did that work?


In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly. Now I have to
jump thru intolerable hoops (at least for the Mac) to give
someone my standalone. if someone (hint. . .hint) could build
a Livecode reader app for dirt cheap or even free w advertising
that would run LC standalones, everything would be right in the
world again!

I think my martini is showing...


After I read that I poured myself two fingers of whiskey and sat back 
enjoying the memories you conjured. Good thoughts. Thanks.


In those days we made software for single users to run on a single 
computer running one brand of OS.


The web had barely been invented, the Internet not yet privatized for 
general use, and "cloud" was still called "mainframe".


It was a much simpler time. I miss those days myself.


The hoops we now jump through to deliver apps are OS vendors 
responding to an evolving need to establish trust in hostile connected 
environments.


As software opportunities have expanded, they've for everyone, good 
and bad actors alike.


My response to Alex was apparently too long to be read, but I touched 
on this in third block, re "security", re implications for a player as 
well:

http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2021-March/263948.html




This conversation has given me some focus and clarification of the
basic idea. Here is what I would love to see: A LiveCodeLight
downloadable from the mother ship.


Why specifically from the mother ship?

Or to put it in business terms, which features/bug fixes would you be 
willing to see dropped so the company could commit to making and 
maintaining yet another project?


In addition to the opportunity cost to the company, there's also the 
segment who would use it as an alternative to maintaining a current 
license, resulting in at least some degree of revenue cannibalization.


And while the upside is non-zero, it's limited to a slender subset of 
promotional value opportunities which could more easily be attained 
with nearly any marketing strategy at lower cost, and in ways that 
more directly feed their funnel.


Moreover, a player produces no direct revenue, but maintenance and 
support obligations create immediate (if modest) direct payroll impact.


Free software isn't free to make and maintain.



LiveCodeLight would be a stripped down version of the community
edition that would not open the IDE, but would open and run stacks.

Thanks, Brian for the idea.

Is that a cool idea or what?


Also addressed in my earlier post (some day I'll learn to write less 
here).


The close of that post suggested this might make a good community 
project, and described how simple it could be if anyone here really 
wanted something that rudimentary.


But (for the reasons also described in that post) it would have to be 
with Community, which raises two questions not yet answered in any 
subsequent reply:


How many who would use a generic player would be willing to relicense 
their works under GPL, as would be required if distributed via the 
GPL-governed Community Edition.


And with Community's role in LC's business as a sort of freemium 
offer, how many projects might one want to distribute with a player 
which use absolutely none of any features found only in the 
proprietary editions, Indy and Business?





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Roger Guay wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2021, at 5:35 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> What are you looking for?  When were these "good ol days"
>> in which one could run stack files without an engine, and
>> how did that work?
>
> In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
> Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly. Now I have to
> jump thru intolerable hoops (at least for the Mac) to give
> someone my standalone. if someone (hint. . .hint) could build
> a Livecode reader app for dirt cheap or even free w advertising
> that would run LC standalones, everything would be right in the
> world again!
>
> I think my martini is showing...

After I read that I poured myself two fingers of whiskey and sat back 
enjoying the memories you conjured. Good thoughts. Thanks.


In those days we made software for single users to run on a single 
computer running one brand of OS.


The web had barely been invented, the Internet not yet privatized for 
general use, and "cloud" was still called "mainframe".


It was a much simpler time. I miss those days myself.


The hoops we now jump through to deliver apps are OS vendors responding 
to an evolving need to establish trust in hostile connected environments.


As software opportunities have expanded, they've for everyone, good and 
bad actors alike.


My response to Alex was apparently too long to be read, but I touched on 
this in third block, re "security", re implications for a player as well:

http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2021-March/263948.html



> This conversation has given me some focus and clarification of the
> basic idea. Here is what I would love to see: A LiveCodeLight
> downloadable from the mother ship.

Why specifically from the mother ship?

Or to put it in business terms, which features/bug fixes would you be 
willing to see dropped so the company could commit to making and 
maintaining yet another project?


In addition to the opportunity cost to the company, there's also the 
segment who would use it as an alternative to maintaining a current 
license, resulting in at least some degree of revenue cannibalization.


And while the upside is non-zero, it's limited to a slender subset of 
promotional value opportunities which could more easily be attained with 
nearly any marketing strategy at lower cost, and in ways that more 
directly feed their funnel.


Moreover, a player produces no direct revenue, but maintenance and 
support obligations create immediate (if modest) direct payroll impact.


Free software isn't free to make and maintain.


> LiveCodeLight would be a stripped down version of the community
> edition that would not open the IDE, but would open and run stacks.
>
> Thanks, Brian for the idea.
>
> Is that a cool idea or what?

Also addressed in my earlier post (some day I'll learn to write less here).

The close of that post suggested this might make a good community 
project, and described how simple it could be if anyone here really 
wanted something that rudimentary.


But (for the reasons also described in that post) it would have to be 
with Community, which raises two questions not yet answered in any 
subsequent reply:


How many who would use a generic player would be willing to relicense 
their works under GPL, as would be required if distributed via the 
GPL-governed Community Edition.


And with Community's role in LC's business as a sort of freemium offer, 
how many projects might one want to distribute with a player which use 
absolutely none of any features found only in the proprietary editions, 
Indy and Business?


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Unreliable File Deletion

[Peter Reid via use-livecode]

Hi

Has anyone had problems with file deletion by LC under Windows 10?

According to the docs the following commands should delete a file:

delete file pathname

open file pathname for write

Also the shell() command sequence:

put UnixToWinPath(pFile) into pWinFile
put "del " & quote & pWinFile & quote into tCmd
set the hideConsoleWindows to true
put shell(tCmd) into tRes

With various versions of LC including the latest 9.6.2 RC3 I get the following 
behaviour:

1. The file is deleted correctly.

2. The file appears to be deleted but any new version written to the same 
folder is actually the old version.

3. The deletion fails with a failure comment returned in the Result.

4. The deletion seems to work but the next attempt to save a file of the same 
name fails, reported by the Result.

I'm getting this problem when tested on a brand new up-to-date virtual Windows 
10 Home 64-bit and a similar PC laptop. It's not a problem on the Mac.

Any ideas please?

Thanks

Peter
--
Peter Reid
Loughborough, UK


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Unreliable File Deletion

[Peter Reid via use-livecode]

Hi

Has anyone had problems with file deletion by LC under Windows 10?

According to the docs the following commands should delete a file:

delete file pathname

open file pathname for write

Also the shell() command sequence:

put UnixToWinPath(pFile) into pWinFile
put "del " & quote & pWinFile & quote into tCmd
set the hideConsoleWindows to true
put shell(tCmd) into tRes

With various versions of LC including the latest 9.6.2 RC3 I get the following 
behaviour:

1. The file is deleted correctly.

2. The file appears to be deleted but any new version written to the same 
folder is actually the old version.

3. The deletion fails with a failure comment returned in the Result.

4. The deletion seems to work but the next attempt to save a file of the same 
name fails, reported by the Result.

I'm getting this problem when tested on a brand new up-to-date virtual Windows 
10 Home 64-bit and a similar PC laptop. It's not a problem on the Mac.

Any ideas please?

Thanks

Peter
--
Peter Reid
Loughborough, UK


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Roger Guay via use-livecode]

A couple of things. The developer is not even required to build a standalone, 
and presumably it would be easier to strip out or hide the IDE of 
LiveCodeLight. Otherwise, either way is good.

Roger

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Richmond via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but what would be the advantage of using stack 
> runner
> over a standalone?
> 
> Richmond.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Richmond via use-livecode]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what would be the advantage of using 
stack runner

over a standalone?

Richmond.

On 27.03.21 19:27, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:

Could be, but that requires you to be an Apple Developer. Too much hassle! A 
LiveCodeLight from RunRev that runs stacks without the IDE would be easier.

Roger



On Mar 27, 2021, at 10:18 AM, ELS Prothero via use-livecode 
 wrote:

I thought that if you set up beta testers, with the id of the device an app 
would be run on, others could run your app as a beta tester. But, perhaps,you 
need an apple license to do even that?
Bill

William Prothero
https://earthlearningsolutions.org


On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:10 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
 wrote:

Thanks for the confirmation.
Dave


On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:05 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
 wrote:

You’re right, David. I was specifically addressing standalones for Mac, Windows 
and Linux. They are easily created without licenses etc. for use on your own 
computer, but cannot be distributed w/o licenses etc

Roger


On Mar 26, 2021, at 9:39 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
 wrote:

It was my understanding that iOS apps can’t even be created without a license 
from Apple. Mostly what I would want to share would be games I made for my 
grandson and he only uses iOS devices.

I’ve never tried making a standalone for iOS, even for testing, because I 
didn’t think I could. Is that not the case?

Dave


On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:54 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
 wrote:

Roger Guay wrote:

Has anyone thought of building a “legal” and “blessed" app for
Mac, WIndows and Linux that would open standalones for for each
of those platforms? Why put each of us through the agony (and
expense) of shifting/changing requirements to be able to easily
distribute standalones? Just as Microsoft Word is required to
open .doc files why not have something like LCreader app open
.livecode files


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Roger Guay via use-livecode]

Could be, but that requires you to be an Apple Developer. Too much hassle! A 
LiveCodeLight from RunRev that runs stacks without the IDE would be easier.

Roger


> On Mar 27, 2021, at 10:18 AM, ELS Prothero via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I thought that if you set up beta testers, with the id of the device an app 
> would be run on, others could run your app as a beta tester. But, perhaps,you 
> need an apple license to do even that?
> Bill
> 
> William Prothero
> https://earthlearningsolutions.org
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:10 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for the confirmation.
>> Dave
>> 
>>> On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:05 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> You’re right, David. I was specifically addressing standalones for Mac, 
>>> Windows and Linux. They are easily created without licenses etc. for use on 
>>> your own computer, but cannot be distributed w/o licenses etc
>>> 
>>> Roger
>>> 
> On Mar 26, 2021, at 9:39 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
 
 It was my understanding that iOS apps can’t even be created without a 
 license from Apple. Mostly what I would want to share would be games I 
 made for my grandson and he only uses iOS devices.
 
 I’ve never tried making a standalone for iOS, even for testing, because I 
 didn’t think I could. Is that not the case?
 
 Dave
 
> On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:54 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Roger Guay wrote:
>> Has anyone thought of building a “legal” and “blessed" app for
>> Mac, WIndows and Linux that would open standalones for for each
>> of those platforms? Why put each of us through the agony (and
>> expense) of shifting/changing requirements to be able to easily
>> distribute standalones? Just as Microsoft Word is required to
>> open .doc files why not have something like LCreader app open
>> .livecode files
> 
 
 
 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Roger Guay via use-livecode]

A few days ago, a very impressive post came in here from a researcher at an 
accelerator lab somewhere. I’ve lost the post and may have some details wrong. 
As I recall he was very complimentary of LiveCode as a tool for his work but 
was lamenting that he could no longer easily share his work with colleagues. 
The idea of a LiveCodeLight downloadable from RunRev that opens and runs stacks 
without the IDE, would go a long way to solving his problem. Much better than a 
web served approach, IMHO. 

But, what do I know?

Roger

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 9:34 AM, Robert J. Earp via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> But going back to you suggestion, as you know I think LC has totally lost 
> focus on what its heritage was, except maybe LC Server, if that still exists. 
>  If it does, you should be able to develop on whatever, deliver on a web 
> server with LC Server loaded, and anybody could run the project anywhere 
> there is a browser.  Or along with willy and nilly have I totally lost it, 
> which has been known on occasion !!

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[ELS Prothero via use-livecode]

I thought that if you set up beta testers, with the id of the device an app 
would be run on, others could run your app as a beta tester. But, perhaps,you 
need an apple license to do even that?
Bill

William Prothero
https://earthlearningsolutions.org

> On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:10 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation.
> Dave
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2021, at 10:05 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> You’re right, David. I was specifically addressing standalones for Mac, 
>> Windows and Linux. They are easily created without licenses etc. for use on 
>> your own computer, but cannot be distributed w/o licenses etc
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
 On Mar 26, 2021, at 9:39 PM, David Squance via use-livecode 
  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It was my understanding that iOS apps can’t even be created without a 
>>> license from Apple. Mostly what I would want to share would be games I made 
>>> for my grandson and he only uses iOS devices.
>>> 
>>> I’ve never tried making a standalone for iOS, even for testing, because I 
>>> didn’t think I could. Is that not the case?
>>> 
>>> Dave
>>> 
 On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:54 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
  wrote:
 
 Roger Guay wrote:
> Has anyone thought of building a “legal” and “blessed" app for
> Mac, WIndows and Linux that would open standalones for for each
> of those platforms? Why put each of us through the agony (and
> expense) of shifting/changing requirements to be able to easily
> distribute standalones? Just as Microsoft Word is required to
> open .doc files why not have something like LCreader app open
> .livecode files
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

LC and Websockets

[Dan Friedman via use-livecode]

Greetings!

I've been looking around the boards and whatnot and see there has been some 
discussion about implementing web sockets in LiveCode.  Has anyone come up with 
a library or a way to do this effectively for the Big 4 (Windows, Mac, iOS and 
Android)?

Thanks in advance,
Dan

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Robert J. Earp via use-livecode]

I too remember the good ‘ol days Roger and in fact still have one of my 
eLearning shell projects that still runs stand-alone on both Catalina and 
Windows, although I’d have to check which version of Windows.  The project has 
stacks calling stacks and external media.  The MacOS stand-alone version is 
just a single file that I’ve shared without having to license from anybody, 
with what I’ve always assumed is  a runtime engine packaged in it some how.  
The Windows version has an .exe and the media and externals are in separate 
folders and again I assume it has the Rev engine.   I haven’t tried this with 
Big Sur.

But going back to you suggestion, as you know I think LC has totally lost focus 
on what its heritage was, except maybe LC Server, if that still exists.  If it 
does, you should be able to develop on whatever, deliver on a web server with 
LC Server loaded, and anybody could run the project anywhere there is a 
browser.  Or along with willy and nilly have I totally lost it, which has been 
known on occasion !!

best, Bob...

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 09:00, use-livecode-requ...@lists.runrev.com wrote:
> 
> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 19:45:21 -0700
> From: Roger Guay mailto:i...@mac.com>>
> To: How to use LiveCode  >
> Subject: Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones
> Message-ID:  >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac, Windows and 
> Linux and distribute it willy-nilly. Now I have to jump thru intolerable 
> hoops (at least for the Mac) to give someone my standalone. if someone (hint. 
> . .hint) could build a Livecode reader app for dirt cheap or even free w 
> advertising that would run LC standalones, everything would be right in the 
> world again! 
> 
> I think my martini is showing...
> 
> Roger
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2021, at 5:35 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
>> mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> What are you looking for?  When were these "good ol days" in which one could 
>> run stack files without an engine, and how did that work?
> 

Robert (Bob) Earp
White Rock
British Columbia
Canada

m: +1 604 612 6688





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Roger Guay via use-livecode]

This conversation has given me some focus and clarification of the basic idea. 
Here is what I would love to see: A LiveCodeLight downloadable from the mother 
ship. LiveCodeLight would be a stripped down version of the community edition 
that would not open the IDE, but would open and run stacks. 

Thanks, Brian for the idea.

Is that a cool idea or what?


Roger 
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

You could do that on Android because Android allows private distribution. 
The stacks would have to be downloaded from the internet though. For iOS, 
no way.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On March 26, 2021 8:34:20 PM Alex Tweedly via use-livecode 
 wrote:


I'd like to be able to develop a stack and give it to a friends or
family, and have them run it on their iOS or Android devices. I don't
want to get involved in building iOS standalones (or even installing
xCode), so ideally I would give them a simple app (i.e. stackRunner kind
of thing), and then my "app" as a document to load into that 'runner' app.





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

I don't think what you want is possible unless your target users are on 
very old operating systems. On Mac OS at least, every standalone now has to 
be notarized . You could build a standalone that launches other 
standalones, but each of those would also have to be notarized or the Mac 
won't open it. Windows has some similar limitations too, though there are 
ways around it if you know how, or at least there used to be. I don't know 
how Linux manages such things.


However, you *can* build a standalone that opens stacks. Those don't need 
to be certified, notarized, stapled, verified, or anything else. Only 
executables need that.


When you get to mobile, it's trickier. For Android, you can distribute 
standalones without limitations, though users have been taught not to trust 
third-party distributions unless they know the author (which in your case 
they probably would.) But you can't build an Android standalone that opens 
other Android standalones because every app is sandboxed and can't access 
anything outside of its own box. And for iOS, you can't distribute from 
anywhere but the App Store, period., which requires a developer account and 
lots of bureaucratic rigamarole.


But like desktop apps, you can build a single Android app that opens other 
stacks; typically from a server because unless the app is designed with 
specific permissions (bestowed by Google review I believe, but not sure) it 
can't access other files on the device. On iOS, assuming your app is in the 
App Store, Apple may or may not allow it to download stacks depending on 
whether their review team views that as a security issue.


If you are building a standalone only for your own use, you are free and 
clear because anything you create on your own machine is available without 
restriction.


I think the good old days are over.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On March 26, 2021 9:47:26 PM Roger Guay via use-livecode 
 wrote:


In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac, Windows and 
Linux and distribute it willy-nilly. Now I have to jump thru intolerable 
hoops (at least for the Mac) to give someone my standalone. if someone 
(hint. . .hint) could build a Livecode reader app for dirt cheap or even 
free w advertising that would run LC standalones, everything would be right 
in the world again!





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode