Farewell Livecode...?

[redfield]

Xfce has been the subject of some past discussion here as many of us have found it not usable due to a focus conflict between various elements of the Livecode interface.

That's strange, as far as I know everything worked fine for me (or actually still does so on my old machine).

I wonder what would happen if you were to install Livecode on a VM in a supported distro - where you can "expect" it to work - and then move the .runrev directory from the VM to your base machine. It's a bit of extra work but it may give you the result you want.

Well I tried to install LC in a Manjaro VM, however the installer stopped at some point with some "payload" message. Really frustrating. So I copied the .runrev folder from my old (RebornOS) machine but that doesn't do anything. Problem remains, that nothing Livecodish runs here under EndeavourOS.

So at the moment it looks like farewell Livecode. Up to now I am very pleased with EndeavourOS/Xfce and will not trade this OS for one single program that doesn't run. Thank you everybody for trying to help and don't feel too safe from future stupid questions from me (regarding Livecode programming), since I do have it running on the old machine .

[richmond62]

The only thing of any lasting value that seems to come out of this thread
is that LiveCode central might like to do something that I, among others,
have been wibbling on about for several years:

1. Install several smack-up-to-date distros of Linux (there are about 4 main 'lineages')
on a few computers.

1.1. Hire someone who "knows their stuff" re Linux.

2. Make sure that LiveCode runs on those distros without caveats.

3. Publish those distros that run LC without caveats.

4. Stop claiming is runs on 'Linux', because it doesn't run on 'Linux', it
runs on some Linux distros.

[stam]

Point 1 would be valid if we were talking about the new (paid) product, but as far as I can see we’re talking about freebies that are no longer supported (unless I misunderstood?).

So suggesting that LC should hire someone to fix issues in deprecated/unsupported software makes no sense.

My impression of Linux is that many apps only run on certain distros, is this not correct? Yet all these are classed as “Linux apps”. Not sure why LC should be the exception?
And as far as I know, LC do explicitly officially supported distros don’t they?

Assuming the OP doesn’t have a paid subscription, not sure if support will be available from LC but why not ask? At worst they’ll just say “no”, but so what?

[richmond62]

I was not referring specifically to the OP's situation, I was referring to LiveCode-on-Linux in general.

Obviously any work done by a Linux boffin for LiveCode would not 'trickle back' in some odd sort of way to the increasingly outdated open source versions, so would be financed by licensees.

The fact is that open source versions of LiveCode do run on a subset of the distros inwith the Linux cosmos, and if someone wants to try and run one of those versions on other Linux distros, they should not expect help from LiveCode central, but they are welcome to ask hereabouts, as, so far, the Forums have not been closed to people who don't have commercial LiveCode licences.

[stam]

The fact is that open source versions of LiveCode do run on a subset of the distros inwith the Linux cosmos, and if someone wants to try and run one of those versions on other Linux distros, they should not expect help from LiveCode central, but they are welcome to ask hereabouts, as, so far, the Forums have not been closed to people who don't have commercial LiveCode licences.

I might be wrong but am fairly sure the official guidance from LC was not to propagate discussions on the deprecated opensource versions on this forum? (Happy to be corrected…)

This is of course different from non-licences users asking coding questions which should be encouraged, but I have a recollection they made a point about the actual opensource IDE. Can anyone remember?

[richmond62]

I am not sure how that 'propagates' discussions re open source versions of LiveCode
as it is in a thread specifically about an open source version of LiveCode, and it was NOT
started by me.

What my last message did was make some observations re Linux versions of LiveCode,
and, very carefully make clear that my previous comments about sorting out aspects of
Linux versions of LiveCode was directed at forthcoming versions (which, unless I am
very much mistaken, will be commercial).

but I have a recollection they made a point about the actual opensource IDE

Err, who are 'they'?

And, Yes, let's have some clarification in that respect.

[wsamples]

This is of course different from non-licences users asking coding questions which should be encouraged, but I have a recollection they made a point about the actual opensource IDE. Can anyone remember?

Questions regarding why Livecode isn't running or behaving as expected and how to resolve these issues have to be considered appropriate in as much as they may be pertinent to other users, including those using current commercial versions, who encounter the same or similar issues. The version in question here was officially distributed by Livecode, it's not a forked version which has undergone independent development. I believe that we were asked to refrain from spamming the forum with debate and complaints about the decision to withdraw the open source project and also encouraged to take the project elsewhere, with its own channels for discussing future development and discussion, and neither of these things has been raised here. Richmond's suggestions are also very generic and applicable to future official releases. It's hard to see a problem here.

[FourthWorld]

I might be wrong but am fairly sure the official guidance from LC was not to propagate discussions on the deprecated opensource versions on this forum?

The most comprehensive post on this subject that I can recall was from Mark Waddingham to the use-livecode list shortly after their open source edition was discontinued, when discussions were springing up about forks maintained by others outside the company.

http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-l ... 65592.html

In my interpretation, Mark's request was to avoid discussions within LC Ltd-owned venues (such as that list and these forums) of forks made my anyone other than LC Ltd, to maintain clarity about support and copyright obligations for LC Ltd property.

I did not interpret that as a request to also avoid discussion of any older version of LC produced by the company, regardless of license it was released under.

This is my own personal interpretation. Of course if LC Ltd feels differently then clearer guidance would be helpful.

[stam]

Indeed. My interpretation was to basically to stop referring to the IDE as opensource, but that’s a very fine line when it comes to a Linux client I suppose…

[FourthWorld]

Indeed. My interpretation was to basically to stop referring to the IDE as opensource...

The open source editions they released remain open source. The license of a work is the one included with the distribution.