For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Something you want to see in a LiveCode product? Want a new forum set up for a specific topic? Talk about it here.

Moderators: heatherlaine, Klaus, FourthWorld, robinmiller, kevinmiller

Which currently unsupported operating system would you like to be supported by RunRev?

Mac OS Classic Fat, PPC
6
9%
Windows 95, Windows 98
4
6%
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD
11
17%
HP-UX 11
1
2%
PPC Linux
4
6%
Solaris
6
9%
GNU Darwin
3
5%
Palm OS/iPhone/Android
19
30%
Haiku
3
5%
Other
7
11%
 
Total votes: 64

Mark
Livecode Opensource Backer
Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 5132
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:24 pm
Contact:

For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by Mark » Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:24 am

Hello,

This is a poll about operating systems currently unsupported by RunRev. For which operating system would you like to have a current version of RunRev available?

Approximately 5 yeas ago, RunRev, like it's predecessor MetaCard, was available for at least 11 different operating systems. Currently, RunRev is available for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux only. Following a discussion about operating systems on the use list, this poll now asks for your favorite operating system(s).

Included are only currently unsupported operating systems (although I'm not entirely sure about Win98). I haven't included any of the currently obsolete operating systems, but II have included the classic Mac OS and old Windows versions because these were the primarily supported systems in the past.

Please, indicate which of the operating systems listed below are essential for you. This can be essential for everyday use, but you may also think of commecial projects you never did because RunRev didn't support the required operating system or other reasons why an engine for a particular OS would be very important. You can select multiple items.

If you have a need for an engine for an OS that is not listed below, please mention the OS in a reply to this post. I wish I could include more operating systems, but only 10 options are allowed by the forum.

Disclaimer: do not expect this poll to lead to any results. The goal of this result is just to satisfy my curiosity. It would be wonderful if RunRev decided to act upon the results of this poll, but they might not even read this.

Kind regards,

Mark

TwistAWord supports Haiti
The biggest LiveCode group on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/livecode.developers
The book "Programming LiveCode for the Real Beginner"! Get it here! http://tinyurl.com/book-livecode

mwieder
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 2695
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:36 am
Location: Berkeley, CA, US
Contact:

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by mwieder » Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:33 am

There's no option for voting for "none of the above": I'm sure the vast majority of rev developers couldn't care less about the obsolete operating systems, but there's no way to voice that opinion other than adding a comment like this. That will have the effect of skewing your poll towards input from only those developers who feel the lack. It would be nice to see Solaris back in the fold again just for nostalgia, but with Oracle's buyout of Sun I don't know what the future holds for it.

I'd be happy to vote for "none of the above" if it were an option. The inclusion of Mac OS9 here is a laugh. There are, for example, no commercial C compilers currently in production for that OS.

Mark
Livecode Opensource Backer
Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 5132
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by Mark » Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:42 am

Hi Mark,

As I wrote in my previous post, the forum allows only 10 options. If I had had the posibility, I would have added many more options, including "none". You could select "Other" and indicate that you have no need for any engine besides those currently supported.

Best,

Mark
The biggest LiveCode group on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/livecode.developers
The book "Programming LiveCode for the Real Beginner"! Get it here! http://tinyurl.com/book-livecode

SoapDog
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Niterói, RJ
Contact:

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by SoapDog » Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:44 pm

Things I think we need, and by need I mean: those engines could make us ahead of the competition.

* an ARM linux engine. Netbooks are coming with shiny ARM processors, appliances such as the sheevaplug are also ARM based. There's no RAD tool for ARM linux stuff yet.
* BSD RevServer engine. There are many BSD based web servers out there that could benefit from RevServer. This is probably one compile away from the linux version, this should be easy.
http://www.andregarzia.com
http://fon.nu

mwieder
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 2695
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:36 am
Location: Berkeley, CA, US
Contact:

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by mwieder » Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:02 pm

rotfl - I completely missed your original comment about the poll only allowing ten options. I *do* have an eye appointment coming up next month <g>.

An any rate, I agree that ARM, BSD, and Solaris would be "nice to have" options in an ideal world with unlimited resources, but I don't (per the terms of your poll) feel strongly enough that they are "essential" for me, neither for everyday use nor for projects that I might have set aside. While it would be nice to be able to deploy on ARM processors, I don't have a strong enough business case to suggest that runrev should divert the resources to supporting Yet Another Platform.

Mark
Livecode Opensource Backer
Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 5132
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by Mark » Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:57 pm

Hi!

This is just a little kick up to get some attention for this thread again. Feel free to vote!

Mark
The biggest LiveCode group on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/livecode.developers
The book "Programming LiveCode for the Real Beginner"! Get it here! http://tinyurl.com/book-livecode

bogs
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:45 pm

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by bogs » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:03 am

Mark wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:57 pm
Hi!
This is just a little kick up to get some attention for this thread again. Feel free to vote!
Mark
Sorry I am so late to the party, but I actually find this relevant to some of my many projects and was in fact searching for information on just this topic, getting Lc to run on systems not actively used by a lot of the public.

Among systems I am currently running Mc 2.5 starter on would be Solaris, 2 *BSDs, Mac OS9, and others. I would love to be able to get either Lc or Mc OSS running on them as well, but no joy.

mweider made some interesting points, which I'll quote in one quote and emphasis the points I found particularly interesting -
mwieder wrote: There's no option for voting for "none of the above": [1] I'm sure the vast majority of rev developers couldn't care less about the obsolete operating systems, but there's no way to voice that opinion other than adding a comment like this. That will have the effect of skewing your poll towards input from only those developers who feel the lack. [2] It would be nice to see Solaris back in the fold again just for nostalgia, but with Oracle's buyout of Sun I don't know what the future holds for it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be happy to vote for "none of the above" if it were an option. [3] The inclusion of Mac OS9 here is a laugh. There are, for example, no commercial C compilers currently in production for that OS.
[4]I agree that ARM, BSD, and Solaris would be "nice to have" options in an ideal world with unlimited resources, but I don't (per the terms of your poll) feel strongly enough that they are "essential" for me, neither for everyday use nor for projects that I might have set aside. While it would be nice to be able to deploy on ARM processors, I don't have a strong enough business case to suggest that runrev should divert the resources to supporting Yet Another Platform.
  • [1] While this is certainly true, I think that serving niche markets, and especially ones that *were* originally there to begin with, does no harm. Livecode itself could be considered in many respects a 'niche' market, both as a language and platform, but I doubt that anyone here would say that just because the "vast majority of developers couldn't care less about it" would hardly qualify as a good reason to see it go down the tubes.
    ... We obviously care about it, and being in a niche ourselves (compared to other languages that have a far larger following), that makes it important enough to support in whatever way we are able to individually do, and just as obviously we devote great amounts of time and knowledge to these forums about it hoping to help people out using it despite far more developers being interested in C variants, or Java, or other scripting languages.
    ... If one person is using a feature, and that feature is possible to include for whatever reason, possibly as it was already there to begin with, then that feature is important enough to warrant consideration. I know this is a view not widely shared, but I assume it is a view shared by at least a few. You yourself shared this view in regards to Mc and getting it to work at one time, you might remember. Richard at that time took the argument you yourself put down here. In effect, you have shared "both" sides of this view :D

    [2] Posting from the future (as I am doing now) certainly has some advantages, not the least of which is that I know (now) that open solaris *is* not only being developed by Oracle, who has sought to make it less open but no less available, but it is also being developed and distributed in a true OSS form in the version open Indianna (and many others) since the source was forked back in the day. No matter what Oracle does, there is a fairly vibrant (although again, in the minority of OS'es) community surrounding projects such as IllumOs, Hipster, etc. and under pretty liberal licenses.
    ... All of those could be used as a target platform just from the original Sun engine working on them, again if you had a need for it. The engine was already there, already developed, and would not stop the developer from developing for other OS'es they consider important, any more than my not developing for mobile stops me from not making standalones for it.

    [3] I agree that there are no commercial C compilers for Mac OS9, but fail to see how this makes it 'laughable' for inclusion, since there are C compilers available for it. Yes they are old, but they work and have not died, for people that actually need and use them. I can only point to myself in these situations, but again I really doubt I am alone.
    ... There may not be as many people that look for using this type of setup, but again including it shouldn't bother those that do not require it to have it included.

    [4] I think ARM would be a nice platform, as well as Arduino (and its clones), Pi, and a whole slew of the more portable processors / platforms out there using something similar to the embedded architecture that was included in the OLD Mc. Can you imagine the number of devices that could be created much more easily with a small base code just in the automotive field, especially for features in current cars that were likely never thought of being able to bring back to older cars? Just off the top of my head with such a thing, you could do rearview camera and nav systems using relatively cheap hardware that you assemble yourself, sensors of all types with real processing power to back them up in vehicles that had no such available at the time, but could be retrofitted.
    ... The above doesn't even touch on in home automation, or the various experiments sphere was doing with multiple touch large screen tv projects, or..........
The hardest part of your points was, for me, not having a strong enough case for RR / Lc diverting resources to 'support another platform'. However, in all of the cases in this poll, those 'resources' were already existing, and should require little in the area of 'extra efforts' to bring back and even extend the use of.

I especially loved SoapDog's points -
SoapDog wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:44 pm
* an ARM linux engine. Netbooks are coming with shiny ARM processors, appliances such as the sheevaplug are also ARM based. There's no RAD tool for ARM linux stuff yet.
* BSD RevServer engine. There are many BSD based web servers out there that could benefit from RevServer. This is probably one compile away from the linux version, this should be easy.
To me, the possibilities for new markets not even thought of are endless, and could bring this little used language to the fore in a great number of areas touched on by a relatively few better known languages.

Someone I admire a lot made a lot of good points in the Mc IDE forum, and shockingly, his name reminds me a lot of you :twisted:
Image

FourthWorld
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 6174
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by FourthWorld » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:11 am

In 2010 when this thread was started, there was no open source edition, so any platform additions had to come at expense to others the company is supporting.

But now that it's 2018 and the free and open Community Edition is available at GitHub, any sufficiently motivated person can grab the code, work out the dependencies, and recompile for any platform they want.
Richard Gaskin
Community volunteer LiveCode Community Liaison

LiveCode development, training, and consulting services: Fourth World Systems: http://FourthWorld.com
LiveCode User Group on Facebook : http://FaceBook.com/groups/LiveCodeUsers/

mwieder
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 2695
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:36 am
Location: Berkeley, CA, US
Contact:

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by mwieder » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:59 am

Oooo... I hate it when someone finds something I said eight years previously and then throws it back in my face. I disremember and disavow anything I might have said in the pre-OSS days. And actually, anything more than about five minutes ago, for that matter. :P

The snipe about MacOS (the pre-OSX Mac operating system) is based on the fact that the LiveCode source itself has to be compiled on a native system, and at some point in the past the existing compilers (Metrowerks) stopped being supported and eventually were not up to the task of compiling the source. So in addition to the maintenance tasks of making the changes necessary to modify the C code for the engine to keep supporting the obsolete OS, there are no compilers for OS9 that are up to the task of compiling the source.

That, of course, is in addition to Cocoa/Carbon issues, the fact that Apple end-of-lifed OS9 quite some time ago, the lack of any 68000-based computers in the marketplace any more...

That goes, to a greater or lesser degree, for any other platform we might wish for. The ARM platform is still a work in progress, although it's backburnered since there's less of a revenue stream possibility for the company, but with a bit of luck we'll have a new Raspberry Pi engine soon.

bogs
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:45 pm

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by bogs » Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:08 am

FourthWorld wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:11 am
In 2010 when this thread was started, there was no open source edition, so any platform additions had to come at expense to others the company is supporting.
... But now that it's 2018 and the free and open Community Edition is available at GitHub, any sufficiently motivated person can grab the code, work out the dependencies, and recompile for any platform they want.
Well, we know I'm motivated, but this project may be a bit beyond my capabilities (at this point). Currently I am actually using Mc 2.5 starter kits on the systems I can't get going, but collecting the various Mc engines was no easy task. I found no way to find the Lc engines to do this, the work around I use there is VM's for all except OS9, which I currently have running in (yep) a VM :D
mwieder wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:59 am
Oooo... I hate it when someone finds something I said eight years previously and then throws it back in my face. I disremember and disavow anything I might have said in the pre-OSS days. And actually, anything more than about five minutes ago, for that matter. :P
Oh my friend, I never want you to think I remembered that to "throw it in your face", that is never my intention. Attitudes always change over time, as it is necessary, but sometimes it is good to keep in mind that what applies to one person doesn't always apply to all. I used to have an open mind, but it fell out and I haven't seen it since :wink:

While no commercial compilers target OS9, I am currently looking at GNU and Oss ones to see what holds it up. Unfortunately, the Lc Oss requirements as you say are pretty compiler specific (I would have thought any ansi compatible would work, I found that was incorrect), and pretty tough to overcome when you don't have time yourself to do it. I haven't touched any VS IDE in decades, since 5-6. I'd have a long steep curve to overcome in addition to everything else.

However, I'm not sure that is enough to stop or even put a lot of top worry on resources in this case, since as I say, there are already engines that 'work' for OS9. You wouldn't get every latest feature supported, but I know from playing around in Mc that the latest IDE engine supports a great deal of the form used all the way back to 2.4. stacks, and having the stacks saved back to then shouldn't be a 'big' thing to sort through.

No you wouldn't have the 'latest features' available to you, but you would have features that the OS your targeting would support, and a legitimate dev environment. This is why I say it should be 'no big drain', but of course, this thought process is always relative and not necessarily correct.

All the above of course is only my take on it, and I was only aiming for food for thought.
Image

mwieder
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 2695
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:36 am
Location: Berkeley, CA, US
Contact:

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by mwieder » Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:49 pm

Oh my friend, I never want you to think I remembered that to "throw it in your face", that is never my intention.
Heh. No worries. I did have a :P at the end of that.

There are compilers and compilers. My favorite thing about the C standard is the pragma definition: "causes the implementation to behave in an implementation-defined manner". While you may someday uncover a compiler for OS9 that supports templates, is SheepShaver-compatible, and fully supports backporting modern OS calls into old-school Mac Toolbox calls, you'd have to give up the latest LiveCode features. Essentially you'd be limiting yourself to something resembling the last LC version that did fully support OS9.

Allowing older ("obsolete", if I may say so) operating systems to fall by the wayside has allowed the team to (a) remove some very gnarly code from the engine and (b) move ahead with implementing some features that were not possible before. LiveCode 7 was really a major rewrite of the engine code, and LC9 is again a major step.

Sorry I don't have an OS9 engine to throw your way, but I finally recycled all my OS9 computers a while back. But you might make a plea for an older copy, and I'm (reasonably) sure someone has one squirreled away.

SparkOut
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:58 pm

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by SparkOut » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:41 pm

FWIW I think that an ARM build is the one that could bring most additional benefit from the development investment. We have already had a version for the Raspberry Pi which worked up to 7.0.4 and if Pi could be included as a properly supported platform it could be positioned to spread the word.

Pi is cheap and therefore accessible to a very large user base where people are interested in experimentation but not necessarily familiar with the intricacies. A default package of Raspbian NOOBS has a selection of development tools, from Scratch (basic and childish) to Python and MatLab for experienced and expert users. If LiveCode could be presented for Pi as a squarely in the middle development tool, which the user *doesn't grow out of* then this could garner a whole lot more support for LiveCode across different platforms.

LiveCode has already had a version successfully usable on Pi - which would hopefully mean it could be continued with a smaller overhead than picking another niche version to develop.

FourthWorld
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 6174
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by FourthWorld » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:58 pm

Pi is slated for inclusion among supported builds, but not as early as v9.

When it is, we'll face a question of whether a simpler, lighter IDE may be most useful on that platform, given how slow and RAM-constrained it is relative to other desktop platforms.
Richard Gaskin
Community volunteer LiveCode Community Liaison

LiveCode development, training, and consulting services: Fourth World Systems: http://FourthWorld.com
LiveCode User Group on Facebook : http://FaceBook.com/groups/LiveCodeUsers/

bogs
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:45 pm

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by bogs » Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:38 am

FourthWorld wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:58 pm
we'll face a question of whether a simpler, lighter IDE may be most useful on that platform, given how slow and RAM-constrained it is relative to other desktop platforms.
I'd vote for a simpler and lighter IDE regardless of platform, but then, I'm weird that way. I don't consider my system a powerhouse, but I don't consider it a dog either. The newer IDE sure makes me feel like I'm working with 64k memory on a 486 though, compared to any of the older versions of the IDE.

@ mwieder, I actually wasn't looking for them to make or update an engine for OS9, I would assume the last ones worked (since all the others I tried worked). I would just like to see them included with whatever else works at that time. Most of this would be on the developer, not on LC as a company.

Let us say you want to develop for 'x' platform that you used to develop for. The engines already existed for that platform. You as a developer could have that engine, and gear your code in the newer IDE but target format version x.whatever so that the code would work with that engine. You would get no 'new features', per se, but it is unlikely any newer features would work on those systems anyway. Cocoa or Carbon or GDI+, for instance are non starters.

As I said before, agreeing with you to a certain degree, it is a very small segment that would require this, but it should be available since it already was. No further development is being asked, other than re-including it as a target platform. I hope you see the difference.

I really agree with SparkOut on arm and Pi, and as I mentioned, it would be nice to get arduino in there as well somehow imho.
Image

mwieder
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 2695
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:36 am
Location: Berkeley, CA, US
Contact:

Re: For which operating system do you need RunRev?

Post by mwieder » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:33 am

Well, I'm a wee bit confused then. The downloads page offers LC/RR versions going back to 4.5.0. Does that version not run on OS9? I can't remember. If not, do you or anyone else remember what the last version was that supported OS9?

But also keep in mind that the IDE that wraps the engine may (and does) make calls into the engine that may not exist in earlier versions, so you'd probably be sticking with a stripped-down MC or the IDE that matches the engine version, which would place you many years in arrears.

Post Reply

Return to “Feature Requests”