It appears to me that there's a general belief in this list that Spectra
somehow matters to Macromedia.
With all due respect to everyone who has worked so hard on Spectra for so
long, Macromedia's interest in Spectra and the community source model is in
placating a customer base that should be rightly angered by their investment
now being close to worthless. Macromedia is playing both sides of the fence:
they've announced that they will no longer build Spectra and in two years
they will no longer support Spectra; at the same time they are saying that
any fixes or enhancements that are provided by the community of users will
be their property. You never know when the community might do something
stunning and if they do, Macromedia will own all the stunning product of
that labor. Their investment in that possibility? One website.
I think Macromedia is acting in their best interest. I don't think Spectra
really serves that interest very well. If it did, it wouldn't have been
tossed to the side like it was. I think their plans for the COAPI and how
they will build their applications to integrate with it will trump all
efforts put into Spectra.
I can appreciate the efforts made by Ray Camden and Ben Elmore and all to
keep the Spectra flame burning. They've got their own interests and their
own businesses and their own client bases that are probably heavily reliant
on Spectra's future. As principal developers, I'm sure they've got a lot of
personal ties to the product as well.
I think other people that are looking at the community source for Spectra as
a stable foundation for the future might want to take a step back and think
about it.
>From: spike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: Spectra-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: SpectraSource is now live
>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:12:59 +0200
>
>I agree with this.
>
>Most bug fixes are a simple matter of a 1 or 2 line code change. I have no
>problem with _giving_ this to Macromedia.
>
>The problem with using the Developer's exchange is that it doesn't provide
>much scope for descriptions of complex applications. There is no way to
>know how good or bad the code is until you download and try it, and there
>is no facility for distributing or managing the distribution of updates of
>changes to the users other than hoping that they have checked the notify me
>box when they downloaded the tool. Since they don't know how good or bad
>the tool is before they download, it is unlikely that many people check
>this box by default.
>
>There should (IMHO) only be 1 version of Spectra which is sold by
>Macromedia, but that needn't preclude the centralization of many Spectra
>add-on products such as Alternative Webtop/admin interfaces, Custom
>Security, Custom Database Structures etc. Most people who have built
>multiple Spectra projects have made one or more of these modifications and
>have a toolbox which they would probably be prepared to share with the
>community for a price. Most would not, however be prepared to give
>ownership of those tools to Macromedia for free. I would like to see a
>centralized repository of mods, additions and so-on as well as the bug
>fixes. This could also include a facility for posting peer review comments
>on the code and a choice of licensing for the developers similar to the one
>in the developer's exchange.
>
>Without the facility to centralize these resources the onus is on the
>developers to make these available to the community and development
>companies do not have the resources or the inclination to create a site to
>do this as they would have to invest in the hardware, marketing,
>advertising etc. With a centralized resource this cost is greatly reduced
>and the community is better able to benefit from the tools and use Spectra
>to it's full potential.
>
>Spike
>
>At 16:26 13/07/2001 Friday, you wrote:
> >Personally, I don't mind that minor fixes become the property of
>Macromedia.
> >This is the way things were until now. However, I would think it wise if
> >Macromedia would have a more appealing approach around major mods. Let's
> >face it, the Spectra development process is now in the hands of the
> >community. It'll take up to two years for stuff to appear in the CF
>engine.
> >All those wonderful mods people might share with the world are now going
>to
> >stay hidden. That's a shame, particularly because a lot of Spectra could
> >benefit from some major changes (security, metadata for example).
> >
> >Not allowing forks is in my mind a bad idea. That's saying: it's perfect
>the
> >way it is with some minor issues. That's not the case in my opinion.
> >
> >Kind regards,
> >
> >Marc Schipperheyn
> ><theFactor.e>
> >
> >Premium Partner for Macromedia
> >
> >The future is technological, but it will not be a world of gray steel
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
