Script limit - clarify please - BRAVO!

[Ken Ray]

Kevin,

That was one heck of a post... thanks for making it all very clear that
it is and has always been RunRev's intent to do the best thing for its
customers.

Bravo!

Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Email: kray at sonsothunder.com
Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: metacard-admin at lists.runrev.com 
> [mailto:metacard-admin at lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Miller
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 1:24 PM
> To: metacard at lists.runrev.com
> Subject: Re: Script limit - clarify please
> 
> 
> On 7/8/03 11:07 pm, Ken Ray <kray at sonsothunder.com> wrote:
> 
> >> What exactly does all of this mean anyway? I cannot distinguish 
> >> between rumor and fact:
> >> 
> >> - Scott promises the MetaCard IDE will always work with the 
> >> Revolution engine. Is this his 'wish' or is this in writing 
> >> somewhere.
> > 
> > This is in writing; Rev has stated that publicly that they will 
> > continue to allow the MC IDE to continue to work with the new Rev 
> > engine.
> 
> Yes.  And I'll state it again here in case there is any confusion.
> 
> >> - Revolution promises that the Revolution engine will work 
> with the 
> >> MetaCard IDE. I see no time frame here. My MetaCard engine 
> could be 
> >> broken with the next update to Windows or OSX...maybe next week?
> > 
> > No, and there's no need for a time frame... it's the *same engine*, 
> > just given a new name. When they add features to it for the 
> benefit of 
> > Rev users, MC users who wish to continue with the MC IDE 
> can just drop 
> > in the new engine and go.
> 
> Right.  So this acquisition means we can, over a period of 
> time, gradually integrate the various language extensions 
> that Revolution has got, and make that available to people 
> who are still using MetaCard.  Thus, you can look forward to 
> database access, text to speech, XML, and all the other stuff 
> getting integrated neatly into the language.
> 
> >> - Scott promises that the MetaCard IDE is 'open source'. Wasn't it 
> >> always?
> > 
> > No, it was carefully controlled by Scott; any changes you made were 
> > for your self and you couldn't make a new version of the MC IDE 
> > available for people to download. Now as open source, a 
> number of us 
> > can work together to make changes to the IDE and post those changes 
> > for download and incorporation.
> 
> Right.  I would recommend that everyone switches over to 
> Revolution and works on providing feedback so we can meet 
> everyone's needs in the Rev IDE, if possible.  The reason for 
> this is that it allows as much experience and energy to be 
> directed in the one place.  Folks, that¹s why I'm suggesting 
> that.  This isn't a conspiracy, we aren't trying to be 
> difficult. Fragmentation simply isn't a good thing at this 
> early phase in the products development.  If you switch over 
> and provide feedback, tools and resources for Rev, Revolution 
> gets better faster, we are more successful, and everyone gets 
> a better tool as a result of our being able to upgrade it 
> faster - even people who only use the engine and little of the UI.
> 
> That said, again, in case there is any confusion, the MC IDE 
> is open source. You can use it now, or tomorrow.  We aren't 
> going to break it.
> 
> >> - Scott Raney works 'for' Revolution.
> >> I doubt that.
> > 
> > Well, his email address is now "scott at runrev.com". Sounds like he 
> > works for them to me.
> 
> Also true.
> 
> >> - Revolution takes orders from Scott.
> >> I doubt that too.
> > 
> > Scott is working with Tuviah at RunRev to increase the 
> capabilities of 
> > the product. The direction/marketing/etc. of the product is up to 
> > Kevin and others at RunRev.
> 
> The structure is simple: I'm the CEO, Tuviah is the CTO, and 
> Scott is a long term contractor who isn't going anywhere any 
> time soon.  Nothing has changed.  This deal has been in the 
> works for a long time.  Tuv has being doing a high percentage 
> of engine development for us for some time.  The only 
> difference is that Scott now has *substantially* more time to 
> do development, as our marketing and technical support *team* 
> are able to handle those aspects and leave our engineers free 
> to do what they do best. Scott is a super-programmer, and now 
> he has a lot more time to do just that.
> 
> >> There is NO upgrade path for current MetaCard users
> >> (current license).
> > 
> > Also wrong. You can switch over to Rev when it comes time to renew 
> > what would be your MC license; at the time of renewal, you get Rev 
> > instead. At that time, you can choose to use the Rev IDE, 
> or continue 
> > to use the MC IDE... your choice.
> 
> Right.
> 
> Another important point to note here: existing customers 
> aren't going to be required to jump through hoops to change 
> over to the new pay per upgrade model where you have to 
> choose what platform you want, etc.  You will be able to do 
> that (and if you do you won't be able to come back) but if 
> you prefer, you can stick with the subscription model in 
> largely unmodified form.  We will be tougher on allowing 
> people letting their subscriptions lapse, and the price is 
> going to be slightly adjusted together with the support 
> options, but other than that, you'll be able to get both MC 
> and Rev for the one price, and do as you have always done.  
> The cross-grade is available from our online store.
> 
> >> Scott Raney is on a beach
> >> somewhere...never to be heard from again.
> > 
> > Nope; he's working on the MC/Rev engine, and has posted to the list 
> > several times.
> 
> I can assure you he is very much present.
> 
> >> Am I close?
> > 
> > Sorry, not by a long shot...
> 
> Excuse my copying two posts together here:
> 
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
> 
> > Fortunately none of this seems likely to be necessary:  with a near 
> > 100% consensus against this move I'd be surprised if the 
> proposal is 
> > enacted.
> 
> I clearly misjudged just how controversial this proposal was 
> going to be. There was *never* any question of existing 
> customers being unable to access an engine that allowed this 
> if they were already used to it.  I thought that sentiment 
> was clear from my original post.
> 
> That said, Richard is reading my like a book - we clearly 
> won't be enacting it any time soon.  And...if we do enact it 
> in the future, we'll work out *special arrangements for 
> existing customers* with standalones that are going to break. 
>  Note that, as indicated from in my original email, we were, 
> and will continue, to find ways to ensure that existing 
> customers don't lose out.  You are the people that have 
> supported us from the start, and as we change the model here 
> and there to take on new markets, you can expect: more 
> features faster, more support options, and a lot of effort in 
> making our policies backward compatible.
> 
> Folks, I really want to urge everyone to move over to 
> Revolution if at all possible.  Its much easier if everyone 
> is using and providing feedback on the same tool, and its the 
> same engine.  If you really don't want to pay the cross-grade 
> charge (which gets you a renewal running to a year after 
> whenever your current one does, so you have nothing to lose), 
> contact our support team at support at runrev.com and tell them 
> how valuable you are and make a fuss and we'll try to make 
> you happy, as we always do.
> 
> That said, if you want to stay with the MC IDE, you can.  We 
> won't be doing anything to deliberately break the IDE with 
> future version of the engine.
> 
> So, I'm going to put the scriptLimits proposal on the 
> backburner for the moment.  One of the primary reasons for it 
> is that it is something of a security hole at the engine 
> level.  I'm fundamentally opposed to the Starter Kit, it has 
> never worked well, our research clearly shows that the 30 day 
> trial is a much more effective way to go.  We'll come back to 
> the scriptLimits proposal if any open source IDE starts to 
> get used as a useful tool that helps *circumvents* people 
> from buying an engine license.  Even then, existing customers 
> can expect not to be burned.
> 
> Finally folks, this has been an incredibly busy time for all 
> of us here at Runtime.  My ability to keep up with the 
> mailing lists isn't as good as I would like, it can take me a 
> couple of days before I read them.  Bear with us, comment to 
> me off list if you don't like something, and everything will 
> settle down in a little while.  Right now, I'm going to 
> concentrate on trying to ensure as few surprises for you folk 
> as possible for the next little while.  Everything is going 
> just fine, you're getting more features, more resources, the 
> same tool you always loved, and a company that has, can, 
> does, and always will, listen to what you have to say and 
> accommodate when it is practical and reasonable to do so.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Kevin
> 
> Kevin Miller <kevin at runrev.com> <http://www.runrev.com/> 
> Runtime Revolution Limited: Software at the Speed of Thought
> Tel: +44 (0) 870 747 1165.  Fax: +44 (0)1639 830 707.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> metacard mailing list
> metacard at lists.runrev.com 
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metac> ard
>