April 21, 2003
Chandler 0.1 available immediately
The first release of Chandler, release 0.1 is now available! While we're still very early in the design and implementation process, we intend for this 0.1 release to make us a more fully open project. We have made the release available for download, opened up our bug tracking database, and opened our source code repository. We have also spent quite a bit of time in the past few weeks focusing on improving our code and documentation.
We are focusing first on architectural issues, not end-user features, yet there are some interesting things to look at in this release. In particular, the outlines of the Chandler peer-to-peer sharing framework are visible. There are also the very crude beginnings of a calendar and contact manager to play with.
We haven't begun to focus on a polished user interface, the current user interface is a placeholder. So rest assured that future releases will bring dramatic improvement in this area as well.
The 0.1 release does have a fair amount of the framework for writing "viewer parcels" -- plug-ins that can be added to Chandler extremely easily. In fact, two of our sample viewer parcels were written by OSAF team members who were not hired as programmers and who were completely unfamiliar with the tools.
In future releases, we will improve both the architectural framework and user experience significantly, with a short-term emphasis on novel features over robustness or well-understood features. We need to incorporate our original features as early as possible so that we can explore their implications, and we need to make it as easy as possible to implement those original features.
Posted by firstname.lastname@example.org at April 21, 2003 04:10 PM
>... very crude beginnings of a calendar
(impatient me) yet to have a look at the code/docs asks:
*have you had a look at the W3C developer workshop for semantic calendaring? - see url below.
*can you export (rfc 2445, ical)?
> ... viewer parcels
*scriptability via python?
(url: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/dev_workshop_report_2/ )
Posted by: goon at April 22, 2003 11:22 PM
> scriptable via python
Posted by: goon at April 22, 2003 11:30 PM
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!!! I can't tell you how much this means to the world.
Posted by: Chris Pirillo at April 23, 2003 10:04 AM
I can't tell you how much this means if Chris Pirillo is excited. And when he gets excited, look out.
Posted by: Marc at April 23, 2003 07:29 PM
Posted by: GilbertZ at April 23, 2003 07:41 PM
Mitch, if I said we had a product and a vision that we can demonstrate now, that redefines the whole business software market would you be interested in backing us?
Are there any visionairies left? We could be the biggest thing the world has seen so far, just need some backing man! Jeez. E-mail me, lets do something wonderful.
Posted by: alan at April 24, 2003 06:40 AM
>*have you had a look at the W3C developer >workshop for semantic calendaring? - see url below.
*can you export (rfc 2445, ical)?
You will be able to, for sure
Posted by: Mitch Kapor at April 24, 2003 05:52 PM
>would you be interested in backing us?
I'm in "heads down" mode with OSAF work for the indefinitefuture, so I'm not looking at new startups. Sorry.
Posted by: Mitch Kapor at April 24, 2003 05:54 PM
This is terribly sad. Mitch Kapor, who made his fortune by writing software, now begins to publish software under the GPL -- a license specifically intended and designed to deprive other developers of the same opportunity (or even of the chance to make a decent living). I guess that once you make it, you don't feel like you have to care about others anymore. (Shades of Bill Gates....)
Posted by: Brett Glass at April 26, 2003 03:52 PM
"We also believe that our software may be of interest to commercial entities that will want to combine Chandler code with other software, which may be either open source or proprietary software. We want to encourage commercial use and distribution of Chandler since these activities may provide a wider market, additional functionality, more choices, and broader benefit for end users. Thus our software will also be available under a fee-based commercial license for those who wish to combine Chandler code with proprietary code. The potential revenue stream derived from the commercial licenses will be used to fund core development and maintenance of the open source code base."
We could not be more explicit that we want Chandler to be of help to commercial developers.
Posted by: Mitch Kapor at April 27, 2003 11:53 AM
GPLed software is not a help to commercial developers. The express purpose -- and function -- of the GPL is to destroy developers' livelihoods, and it has done so quite handily in market segments which it has invaded (e.g. C compilers). Mitch, your claim that releasing GPLed code will help developers is at worst disingenuous and at best misguided. And the offer of a "fee-based" commercial license is likewise destructive. If a developer must pay for code which users can already get for free (and, therefore, whose market value is zero), you are starting him out with a big loss. It's tough enough when there's NO fee; every penny that's paid to license code that's available to users at no cost is merely an additional millstone around the developer's neck. Rather than offering this "sucker bet" to developers who do not recognize this, GIVE them the code to work with. That's what freedom is about.
Posted by: Brett Glass at April 28, 2003 10:30 PM
Brett, please stop being a "TROLL". If you can't make a living doing "X" then do something else.
Posted by: ben at April 29, 2003 01:44 PM
How do you think Mitch would have felt if he was told that when he was thinking of starting Lotus?
Posted by: Brett Glass at April 29, 2003 03:38 PM
Wonderful...I have been using a similar product to get around using exchange, but there is no comparison as to the power that Chandler can offer long term.
Posted by: Steve at May 1, 2003 10:14 PM
A guys HAS to make a buck right?; and, Company's typically have MORE money to "waste" than individuals, am I still right?
So, if you ARE the developer that you obviously THINK you are, write yer own code and distribute it freely among commercial developers instead of harrassing a guy who is trying to help the individual and still make a buck from the company's...
I'll download it and use it and provide feedback on bugs for free, just 'cause I happen to agree with the licensing scheme.
Cheers Brett, I wish you all the best in your commercial developing!
Posted by: John at May 14, 2003 03:55 PM
> A guys HAS to make a buck right?
> and, Company's typically have MORE money to
> "waste" than individuals, am I still right?
Dead wrong. Small companies, especially, are very delicate things. (I am a company. And so are ALL small developers.) To deprive small developers of a livelihood by destroying their markets (who can compete with "free"?) and then attempting to extract money from them for code that has no market value (users get the use of it for free, and thus no one can be paid for the use of that code or equivalent code) is simply wrong. Its effect will be to harm all developers, everywhere. And Mitch apparently doesn't understand, or care, that the net effect is to destroy developers' livelihoods and job prospects. Mitch is demonstrating either an incredible lack of ethics or profound ignorance of basic economics.
Posted by: Brett Glass at July 9, 2003 01:46 AM
Quote: "Its effect will be to harm all developers, everywhere. And Mitch apparently doesn't understand, or care, that the net effect is to destroy developers' livelihoods and job prospects."
Yes, Brett. I hear that Mitch is also planning to poison the water supply and tie women to railroad tracks. You may want to mention those as well.
Posted by: M Cahill at July 11, 2003 04:42 AM