PSC Open Source

nor does it fit in any other (current) category.

Well, given that the focus was plugins for Eclipse, I might have put it in the OpenEdge Architect and Eclipse forum. I think the potential is broader than that, but that seems like a good place to focus initially.

My biggest issue with POSSE wasn't with how "monolithic" the code base

was, as much as it was that various aspects of the initiative raised the bar

to participation higher than I was willing to climb.

So, might you help out with a "we shouldn't do X" list?

Would you have any interest in a more interactive form of open sourcing your own code? I.e., something where other people might make improvements and where there might be a forum for questions and suggestions? Something structured enough that someone could tell whether or not they have the current version?

So, might you help out with a "we shouldn't do X" list?

I prefer to focus on "approach X causes problems Y, which can be resolved by doing Z." I don't believe in grumbling if I don't have some idea of a way to solve the problem.

Would you have any interest in a more interactive form of open sourcing your own code? I.e., something where other people might make improvements and where there might be a forum for questions and suggestions?

Sure.

Something structured enough that someone could tell whether or not they have the current version?

Absolutely.

I don't believe in grumbling if I don't have some idea of a way to solve the

problem.

OK, so grumble constructively!

Even if one is sure how to solve the problem, I do think there is some value in identifying what the problem was, so that one can at least try to think how it might be avoided in the future. Similarly, I think there is a value in identifying positive features from this and other experiences which one might want to be sure to include.

OK, so grumble constructively!

aye aye - grumbling constructively...

• Version control. I could get a copy of WinCVS, and download the code base. I never could figure out how to "check things out" or any of the other things one needs to do. A single document w/a step-by-step instruction on how to do various things in the process would've solved that.

• Forums - As I recall, outside of the Dynamics forums the POSSE forums of the time were completely dead. I know that at least one version of the forums was spammed by adult advertising, which was never removed. Questions / posts to such forums should never go more than 24 hrs w/out some kind of useful response.

Here on PSDN things have been pretty good, but I do have some outstanding threads where I was discussing something with a PSC employee - and then they stopped following up, even though they've posted to other subsequent threads. That kind of behavior wasn't good on POSSE, doesn't belong here, and shouldn't be part of any future open-source effort.

• Oversight / governance: PSC retained control over what got into the code. I don't know if any outside submissions were ever actually accepted or not - my impression is that such was not the case.

If the community is to participate in writing the code, then they also need to have some kind of representation in terms of what goes into the core product.

There also needs to be a place for non-core code to go.

• Funding / sponsorship: Currently there's not much monetary incentive to write and publish open source ABL code. PSC could sponsor developers with sufficient ability to write good open-source ABL code to do so. That could provide some initial momentum to help get things going.

• Organization / Documentation: No matter how useful the code is, if it can't be found, it's not going to get used. If it can't be figured out - it's not as likely to get modified and updated.

As an example, I'd love to redo the schema / db managment code. Unfortunately, the current code is based on some seriously old coding techniques dating back to when the tools were originally written. In order to modify it to get the functionality I'm thinking of almost certainly means a re-write. In that case, the code itself is an impediment to any easy open-source effort.

• Resources - One story I read about an open-source effort at Sun was they had 2 project managers dedicated to the effort. Perhaps PSC could consider something similar?

Basically, an open-source effort need to make things as easy as possible for people to participate in. There also needs to be a sufficient base of code with a high enough value to attract interest and participants.

Currently that's not the case. That needs to change.

See, doesn't that feel better!

Having not tried to do much of anything with POSSE at the time, let me ask a couple of questions.

For version control, I'm going to guess that there are two rather different needs. One is for the non-contributer to get/find the latest version or possibly an earlier version if there is some dependency issue. The other is for an active contributor who want to take the latest version and do something to it which can then be submitted as a potential change. Right?

Forums I would guess is just a matter of whether or not there is an active community. If no one is interested or paying attention, then no traffic. I suppose the way to have interest is to present interesting things.

Governance is a potential problem, of course. I would think that, if the sharing was about things not destined to be included in product, this would be easier. It would also be easier if there was a subdivision of responsibility, i.e., you are in charge of your stuff, unless you invite someone else to help you be in charge of it. Not someone deciding what is in and out over the whole site.

I wouldn't hold your breath on funding. As much as I would like to see PSC spending money, I'm not sure that I would be willing to accept the strings that are likely to go with it ... and I think it is wildly optimisiic that they would fund development by people outside the company.

One would hope that a real open source effort might help with the documentation. It is all a question of whether people will get interested enough to invest some effort.

• Version control - I'd see different contributor classes as:

a) someone downloading the latest .zip or .tar and updating their application / target area. No need for version control, check in/out.

Such a person probably wouldn't be changing the code, just using it.

b) someone who'se found & fixed a bug and is submitting a patch - I'd see that as a .zip file with files relative-pathed in it. This has no real need for version control, check in/out either.

c) Harder-core developers working on specific projects and doing frequent updates would need check out / check in capabilities.

• Forums would need sponsors or someone who was willing to watch and respond to people who post there. In the POSSE version, since PSC was sponsoring / running it, it was (should've been?) their responsibility.

• There's lots of possible governance roles. Since the code was going to be in PSC's product, that they took control in the POSSE initiative wasn't surprising since anything that went out with their product had to meet a certain level of quality.

For non-PSC "core" code, I'd be happy with "you write it, you run it."

• As for funding - since I was shooting for the moon, I threw it in since you don't get if you don't ask.

I would hope they'd support talent wherever they found it, even if it wasn't a "kept" employee. After all, an ABL open source effort could be as much a benefit to them as to their licensee user base. Why not put some $$ to make sure it's done right by the best and brightest?

• For documentation - Linus ran Linux under the philosophy that there's always someone somewhere who likes to do the various things that need to be done. With something as big as Linux has become, it seems to work. However, I doubt ABL open source will ever reach that level of critical mass - which means it would need some help with the docs and organization.

Forums would need sponsors or someone who was willing to watch and

respond to people who post there.

For independent contributors, I'd expect the contributor to take this role ... unless, of course, he or she gets bored with it or moves on to other work or leaves ABL or something, then it is a potential orphan. I suspect this is a potential problem with PSC code since they may be unwilling to commit a resource to it. I suspect they are hoping for more of a over-the-transom kind of thing, which would require someone on the outside taking on the role.

But if the "initial contributor" is PSC?

Which is pretty well what the case is for all the current 4GL editor, schema management, etc. code.

I suspect this is a potential problem with PSC code since they may be unwilling to commit a resource to it. I suspect they are hoping for more of a over-the-transom kind of thing, which would require someone on the outside taking on the role.

That would be a rather unfortunate attitude to have.

Well, when you guys get the bit between your teeth there's no stopping you !!

In response to the, 'where do we discuss this', then it could have stayed in the OE Principles forum, but that's ok, I'm not too hurt. (At some point I think we need to split the forum to make the OE Principles aspect distinct from the OERA, as OE Principles is more than just OERA, but for now we live with what we have).

Obviously you've raised some great points, not all of which I can answer here and now. Like a lot of people, I too had issues with just getting an environment up and running to use POSSE, WinCVS, Briefcase, etc. In theory, this should be easier within OE Architect as it has a CVS client built in, and in fact this is what we used internally when working on the AutoEdge project, as we had developers split across continents, and it worked very well. The other way I've seen, is people using Eclipse and SubVersion or SubClipse which offers the same ability, which is to download code from a server directly into a project and run it.

Forums, yes they need to be active, which as Tim states, I think PSDN has been a lot better since the re-launch. Since being given ownership of an area, I know I've been a lot more active, and hopefully that will continue as more areas are given specific owners.

Oversight and governance is an interesting one. As Niel mentioned, what we'd be talking about here would certainly not be product. Whether something that came out of this process would ever be picked up and put into product is another issue, but lets assume for now that we're not talking product. This, certainly in my mind, makes things a whole lot easier, as there should be no real IP issues, and with the code being publicly available, then anyone should have the ability to modify, improve etc and submit back. Again, when something is submitted, in my mind I hadn't envisaged a whole huge process to then kick in to validate the submission. It would simply be posted 'as-is' which all the caveats that this would imply. It would be up to the developer submitting the code to offer as much supporting doc etc as possible. Talking of doc, one way I've seen recently that worked really well was the use of a Wiki, so maybe this could be a possible way to get some documentation without it being too much of an arduous task.

Funding & Sponsorship will always be a difficult topic, and is certainly one of the issue that can't be fixed by me alone in this answer All I can say is that it is one of the topics for discussion. The question from me would be, how much time could someone dedicate to an initiative like this, if there was some sponsorship, given no doubt that most people also have real jobs to do?

Finally resource, well this come down to a discussion of managing this as an initiative, should it become a reality

I'm not against open source but theres some things I want to pay for.

What I mean is that all the clients I've done work for over the years (more then a couple )

would, probably, tell me "stop wasting my time with those type of questions and just buy the damn thing"

if I told them I needed to buy some couple of hundred or more dollar util. It would be a non-issue.

Tim, if you had a util like smtpmail or pdfinclude I would go out of my way to try and incorporate them in my projects and if I'd recommend it, it would get bought.

Just off the type of my head there are many small'ish, useful utilities that many people could use or even really need. There's just alot of holes in the platform at the moment.

I mean it would get money circulating and allow people to spend more time on them, we would get better products etc. It does have some good points.

We've been playing around with open source for a while now, maybe we should give 3rd party developments a try ?

Another thing is that Progress is a niche and maybe an aging one at that and we don't have the millions and millions of developer in the community.

As for POSSE, 20/20 hind sight and all that, I think, it was doomed to fail.

Dynamics and ADM are extremely huge, complex frameworks that haven't catched on almost a decade later and are pretty much at a dead end.

It seemed to me like they opened up POSSE, dumped this ridiculously complex framework and expected to get a return in no time.

Maybe if POSSE was allowed to continue other things would have evolved, maybe ?

Another thing is that all this complicated tools and maybe even the OERA, maybe aren't for everyone.

I think efforts should be focused on simpler, practical goals that are useful for a wider range. Just my 2 cents.

Funding & Sponsorship ... The question from me would be, how much time could someone dedicate to an initiative like this, if there was some sponsorship, given no doubt that most people also have real jobs to do?

That why God made contractors. You hire them to wave their wand, they do magic, and then they "go away" until summoned forth again.

Tim, if you had a util like smtpmail or pdfinclude I would go out of my way to try and incorporate them in my projects and if I'd recommend it, it would get bought.

That would be one customer.

Just off the type of my head there are many small'ish, useful utilities that many people could use or even really need. There's just alot of holes in the platform at the moment.

Such as?

We've been playing around with open source for a while now, maybe we should give 3rd party developments a try ?

There are some 3rd party providers out there, but "I" don't hear much from them. Then again, where would I run into a 3rd party software developer outside of PSDN and PEG?

Having a software "'farmer'smarket" kind of idea could be interesting. The problem with writing commercial software is the amount of work you need to do to market it, and for small tools is there the kind of market base needed to make such an effort worthwhile?

Now if there was a way for a bunch of small developers to write something and sell it w/out having to deal with the marketing overhead...

That would be one customer.

I'm a contractor. I've used smtpmail and pdfinclude, which are the perfect example of those types of useful utils, in somewhere around 20 customer sites and I don't think paying 200 or 250 dollar for any one of them would be a problem.

Per site license, not dev license/royalty-free license works best for me and a limited/free dev license so we could play around with them.

Such as?

If we're talking about pdfinclude.

Office has WordProcessML which is also compatible with Open Office (and others), just XML and has many advantages over ActiveX.

I'd love to see some WordProcessML utils that simplfiy the job, like, forms, graphics, pivot tables etc.

But there are so many well documented and open source document types out there to choose from today it's just one possibility.

That's something I could use at any customer site.

User Interface has always been a sour point with Progress and why wait for late 2007 or 2008.

If there was an adapter or something alike for ActiveX controls suites like CodeJock it would make our life much easier and it would also be backwards compatible.

But, I think, such a util would have to include or even based on resizable layouts something like layout managers or something else.

I think, that along with the Win95 look-and-feel, resizable layouts are the second biggest issue we've been struggling with and I'm very much afraid it won't get the attention it deserves in the New UI.

Having a software "'farmer'smarket" kind of idea could

be interesting. The problem with writing commercial

software is the amount of work you need to do to market

it, and for small tools is there the kind of market

base needed to make such an effort worthwhile?

It's worth a shot. It would atleast make a better excuse to find time to sepnd on them.

I don't know about advertisements for these types of utils but we're tight knitted community. All I need is a download link and paypal

I think, service oriented features and complex business logic tools are great but there are many other basic features much more people could use and frankly the only tool I'd like to see is an ABL reporting tool.

Just my 2 cents

Well, when you guys get the bit between your teeth there's no stopping you !!

Good thing, too!

I think PSDN has been a lot better since the re-launch.

Certainly has. I don't know what did it, but there is pretty much daily interesting traffic now and before nothing seemed to ever happen.

Whether something that came out of this process would ever be picked up

and put into product is another issue

It isn't impossible to fork an open source product and make one fork commercial, but it isn't easy either. Of course, there is no reason why PSC can't ship an open source plugin with OEA, either.

It would simply be posted 'as-is' which all the caveats that this would imply.

That's a bit wild and wooly for me. These things usually have three tiers of users -- the vast bulk of people just download and don't modify, a small group who might post an update from time to time, and a very small group who are the active ones moving the product forward. Only this latter group needs CVS access. The stuff from the middle group needs review before being incorporated.

how much time could someone dedicate to an initiative like this, if there was

some sponsorship, given no doubt that most people also have real jobs to

do?

There are at least three different kinds of activity that can use up time. One is the management of the site, especially if the site is hosting multiple projects. Another is handling the questions and such about any given product, which can vary from very, very little to a fair amount of effort depending on the nature of the product and how much it is used. The other is developing the product. That can be heavily front-loaded, often is. Once released, it can either be very little additional work or it can be an on-going major effort. I can think of some candidate products where one could easily spend full time for a year or more.

Tim, if you had a util like smtpmail or pdfinclude I would go out of my way

to try and incorporate them in my projects and if I'd recommend it, it would

get bought.

To be sure, there are some utilities .. and you have picked two good candidates ... which have potential as commercial products, but I think there are a lot more where there is much more of an uphill proposition, particularly if they are aimed at the developer instead of deployment. To be sure, developer productivity should be a good investment, but in the Progress world at least, it seems to be a hard sell.

Which said, it doesn't mean that one can't make voluntary payments for things which are appreciated and there is nothing to keep you from hiring the author as a consultant.

Which said, it doesn't mean that one can't make voluntary payments for things which are appreciated and there is nothing to keep you from hiring the author as a consultant.

PDF include was a great example of a good product with a lot of inherent value that failed to produce any reasonable revenue while it was "voluntary payment" open source.

The code I've released hasn't gotten many comments unless people had questions. I don't think there's even much liklihood of getting an ego-boost of knowing your code's being used by a lot of people.

The value could be getting you recognition so when you meet people at conferences on sales calls, you'll have a positive first impression to build on.

PDF include was a great example of a good product with a lot of inherent

value that failed to produce any reasonable revenue while it was "voluntary

payment" open source.

Which is why I would never go that route with the goal of making money. But, I am also skeptical about trying to sell it and make any reasonable amount of money. I suspect that, in most cases, the only way that any of these things produce serious money is when they lead to consulting work.

I do think that people get recognition and it has a very real value, like, consulting.

The same as with someone writing a book, forums, wiki's etc.

We all have experience and expertise with different technologies and solutions.

Maybe if someone did work or has experience with a certain technology he would put an extra effort to put together a util, and upgrades if he got payed for it.

And I do think it's worth the while, considerably more then consulting by the hour, there's a limit to how much one can charge hourly

It would probably be much more interesting then most of the same old, routine consulting gigs.

I think, that there is a very real need and maybe we should play with different models besides open source.

We'd all love to see more 3rd party developments and have more options.

Just to be clear I'm not proposing we pay for them but sell them to our clients.

I don't know about contractors or private developers paying for software but it's not an issue for most companies.

The history of third party tools for Progress development is a graveyard. Very few have survived. A few had a short promissing time in the sun, but it was short, often because they were addressing deficiencies in version N of Progress and when it got to N1 or N2, either PSC had a competing solution or had in some other way taken a branch which the tool vendor wasn't nimble enough to follow.

Not saying it is impossible, but it sure isn't easy.

Funny, I can't think of any, which ones ?

But maybe I'm trying too hard I remember the freeframework put together some utilities.

I don't know if things like pdfinclude would ever compete with Progress ?

Can't think of any that survived or can't think of any that failed to survive.

Note that I am thinking here more of companies that produced more complete and expensive tools. I can't think of anyone who produced small, inexpensive things as a main business.

With an enormous amount of email collaboration with Thomas Mercer-Hursh, for some time now Jurjen Dijkstra and I have been feverishly constructing a new site for freely hosting OE centric open source projects. It is comprehensive, with source control repositories, issue tracking, forums, product home pages... the whole works. It looks great already, and I'll be sure to post the URL here when we're ready for show and tell!

Proparse would be one example of a PSC-associated tools company.

FWIW, the company is Joanju and the product is Proparse.

While Joanju continues to exist, it also illustrates the principle. Why hasn't every ABL development shop on the planet acquired a license? I don't know how many licenses have been sold, but it can't be any more than a drop in that bucket.

The tools that I'd want would make our programs look better, let us create documents like pdf, open office, office, vml/svg graphs etc. and make them run faster.

And even more important would be simple enough that everyone could use.

So, there are two problems ... one is a place to find, share, and improve the tools that exist and the other is to cause tools to come into existence which no one has done yet. I think we know how to solve the first one. The second will take individual imagination and effort.

One of the dilemmas, of course, is that there are so many people stuck on old versions. If I make a tool that works in Eclipse, my audience is semi-limited to the people who have 10.1A. If I make a tool that create ABL class code from UML, my audience is definitely limited to people who have 10.1A.

I haven't yet come up with much of an answer to that problem.

There's another problem - namely publicity.

"Demand" or "I need this here" may cause tools to come to exist, but it won't get them widely due to the limited market awareness.

The tools themselves need to be written so they'll work back 1 or more version or so due to the limited audience cutting-edge releases have.

Someone recently turned my attention to SVG and I've seen some very impressive graphs done in SVG.

That's an example of a relatively small size util I could certainly use with Webspeed and I'd be happy to buy something like that (for a reasonable price).

"Demand" or "I need this here" may cause tools to come to exist, but it

won't get them widely due to the limited market awareness.

That certainly is a big problem and one where I am also short on ideas. A certain percentage of the Progress world pays attention to PEG, PSDN, and ProgressTalk and some subscribe to Progressions, but this has to be an incredibly small percentage of the total and I have no clue how one reaches the rest. Some of them certainly have no developers, but lots of them do have.

I find this a very interesting discussion. But when people talk about the non-popularity of Progress Software, we must question ourself why Progress isn't that popular as VB .NET .

The main reason is to me because Progress doesn't have cheap student- and other non-commercial working developer packs, as well as a free runtime client for those non-commerical issues.

I see above the example of sendsmtp. Well, I wrote an interface to it, so it's possible to HTML-based emails. I use this program at work, to do commercial mailings, but when I'm at home, I also use this program to send out the monthly newsletter of a youth organisation. I feel it's a shame that I can't give a copy of this program to my younger collegues of the youth club, just because the organisation hasn't the money to pay a license for a single mailing in a month...

If PSC makes it easier to use and develop in Progress, the language will gain some popularity, and open source may have a future... Don't forget that most of open-source contribiters are students, which have the time to develop some things.

It would also help us keep up and in touch with Progress, I think, it would certainly help more of us to upgrade.

There's not much sense in publishing whitepapers on OERA, MVC etc. if most of us will only have access to those features 5 years or more from now.

Test drive is a great step forward, but it doesn't really solve that problem.

I don't know what PSC concerns are but things like the Developer's Briefcase are pretty effective in not allowing us to do anything else besides know more about their products.

I've always felt that things like the NDA are just counter productive. We wouldn't need to look else where if we knew more about what PSC is working on.

The main reason is to me because Progress doesn't have cheap student- and other non-commercial working developer packs, as well as a free runtime client for those non-commerical issues.

Not entirely true - it's just not well known.

http://www.progress.com/progress_software/products/services/docs/pup_infosheet_final.pdf

Not entirely true - it's just not well known.

I just read the document. It' s a good start, but for the student of the school or university where Progress doesn't make a part of the education package, it still is very expensive to have : 650$ a year is not cheap for a poor student.

Microsoft offers their total package for a price of 200€ : that is cheap, and explains why MS is much more popular on universities. Also, don't forget that the current students are the developers, managers and the decisionmakers of the future.

Also, there is no opensource license scheme for the developer who wants to make opensource utilities.

An good situation would eg be where the Webclient version is totally free, instead of the cost of the appserver & database servers, combined with a license cost of 200€ for a single developer copy. And when the product gets copied a lot : don't worry, that means that Progress is getting popular

I believe the $650 / year is per bundle, per department. Not per student.

Great, that covers, maybe, ten universities that would actually teach OpenEdge as part of the curriculam.

Most shops that buy products based on OpenEdge even if they do pay for some sort of maintenaince, don't have a username/password to log into the ESD and download the latest release.

And realistically most private, young developers out there wouldn't even pay 50 dollars.

Around 4 grand, something like a decent second hand car is out of the question for most private developers, though, it's quite a reasonable price for companies.

The license states:

For an extraordinarily low annual fee of $650.00 per product bundle, eligible university departments can be licensed to download the software and documentation for the appropriate Progress product. The UMB SERL department will provide the administrative and order processing support, as well as installation support for 30 days and up to three enduser email technical support incidents per year. Students in participating departments will be licensed to use the software on their personal machines.

The license isn't per student, it's per department. $650 would get the OE bundle. If you wanted the other bundles (does M$ even offer them ESB, Replication, etc products?), it'd be another $650 / department.

Makes sense to teach Sonic, I don't know what use it has for OpenEdge ?

PUP has nothing to do with most of their users.

I always find it curious when this topic comes up because it seems to me such a strange notion that someone would think a free or cheap development environment would suddenly transform ABL into a language that competed with Java and VB. It wouldn't. It might mean that people who worked in V8 shops during the day could hone their OE10 skills on the weekend in the hopes of getting a job in a more interesting place, but it isn't going to cause vast hordes of developers currently using other languages to suddenly move to ABL. They aren't interested enough in ABL to even ask whether there is a free development environment.

Moreover, vast hordes of developers creating games or desktop apps isn't PSC's market. Their market is enterprise class applications - serious, large, mission critical stuff. I.e., an environment in which a couple of thousand dollars one time purchase to enable a programmer is no big deal ... it is just like having to buy him or her a PC to work on.

It is a bit like thinking that Ferrari would sell more cars if they only made a deal with the car rental companies so that one could rent one at the price of a sub-compact.

Ferrari ??

It sure makes you wonder why Oracle and everyone else has free versions

Message was edited by:

Alon Blich

Well, no, not everyone else. Some do; some don't; and it usually makes sense in relation to the product and the position of the company in the market. They same marketing approach is not appropriate to every company.

You should read Geoffrey Moore's Dealing with Darwin. He does a really good job of laying out the different kinds of business there are and the different positions that various companies are relative to product maturity and competion and then shows how very different marketing techniques and positions need to be used according to where a company fits within this matrix ... including the realization that what is exactly right for one company in one state can be exactly wrong for a different company in a different state.

I promised to post here when the name of our new open-source project hosting site was public. It is:

oehive.org

I hope you'll visit, and see what it's all about.

See http://www.psdn.com/library/thread.jspa?threadID=2362&tstart=0 for a little blurb on the new site.

This is a really very nice initiative. With a bit of luck, it can become the OE sourceforge. However, I still feel it a pity that there is no very cheap (or preferable free) compiler & runtime environment of openedge. I understand the position of Progress as a company, where this is not seen as a core business, but the market of 'fresh' software engineers is very small, and such an initiative can help client to recruit some semi experienced people.

The OpenEdge Evaluation Kit is free. It should help people going.

http://www.psdn.com/library/entry.jspa?entryID=1131

WebClient is free also. It needs to be used with OpenEdge Application Server (which is not).

As the appserver isn't free, the webclient isn't free neither. If you use the Webclient without any appserver-license, you're in violance. So it's forbidden to use the webclient if you don't pay for another product.

It's like saying that the new car is for free, but the key to start him isn't...

And indeed, with the evaluation version you can play around. For 60 days. I guess most students need more than 60 days to graduate.

Just my opinion...

For students there is an especial offering, the Progress University Program (PUP):

http://www.progress.com/progress_software/products/services/docs/pup_infosheet_final.pdf

That may be the case, but it's not free.

How many students do you know that'll shell out those kinds of $$$ for something they haven't heard of before?

How many would bother to get it, even if free, if they had never heard of it before?

There is no cost to the individual students.

The OpenEdge Evaluation Kit is free. It should help people going.

Do you really believe it does ?!

Not only that but alot of people download trial versions and only really get around to use them a couple of month later.

I think, the Developer's Briefcase or something even more restrictive is a much better overall solution. Personally I'd be happy to pay upto $500 if there was a consumer end version or even for limited version like the Briefcase just so I can keep up.

The bottom line is that the way things are most of us won't have access to OE Architect many, many years from now.

While a free or low cost developer's version would make a lot of consultants happy, along with people employed to work on older versions who wanted to update their skills, I can't imagine it doing anything significant for sales. Even free, it just isn't going to attract broad attention in the marketplace until broad interest has already been generated, interest that seems unlikely to ever come about. If there was ever a chance for this it was probably in the late 1980's when there was a peak in interest in 4GLs and the OO tidal wave had not yet hit. Any company who gets a significant interest can probably talk their way into an eval license in order to do their proof of concept testing.

There is no cost to the individual students.

If their department's paid the license, fee, and it's during the course (semester?) in question. That money comes from somewhere, so the student's paying for part of that license.

This isn't a way for a student - on their own outside of some school's department shelling out license fees - to play with and learn PSC's technology.

• server double post

Message was edited by:

Alon Blich

It's not enough to have great software you need great developers, developers that really know your software. Right now what purpose does Test Drive fulfill besides giving a very small taste, for a very short time of what's to come.

It's not a problem for companies or rock star consultants but it completely cuts off almost all of their developers. What's the use of bending over backwards to release web event after web event, white papers, documentation etc. if we're cut off. We can't learn just by reading white papers.

Maybe the question should be, what are the dangers in having a limited, inhibiting, non commercial etc. etc. version ?

I see the 20min server delays are back. Here's a real life example, its not enough to go out and buy jive and there are many large scale successful installations, you need people who know how to use it

It's not a problem for companies or rock star consultants but it completely cuts off

almost all of their developers. What's the use of bending over backwards to release

web event after web event, white papers, documentation etc. if we're cut off. We

can't learn just by reading white papers.

Who are these "almost all developers"?

If they are a consultant or contract programmer who makes their living providing services, then what is so horrible about having to buy the tools of the trade and keep up the maintenance? Do you have any idea what a auto mechanic has to spend on tools? Or a carpenter?

I understand that it is a bit different if you work full time for an employer who insists on being stuck with some older release and that there are all too many such employers who are too shortsighted to have a current version or too for keeping their programmers sharp and exploring new ideas. But, again, either one is planning on sticking with the employer or one isn't. If one is staying, then perhaps there is no need to stay current. If one wants to move on, then think about many professions where one needs to take continuing education classes or purchase one's own tools, etc. in order to be qualified for the next job. It really isn't that overwhelming a one time expense and on-going support price given that this one license enables one to earn a good living. And, think how much more impressed the future employer is going to be that one has one's own license for keeping current.

Fair or not, but yes almost all developers wouldn't get a loan to buy a development version they'll endup either left behind or doing something else. I work part time and go to school, 4 grand is alot of money.

Maybe it sounds completely crazy but there are some big, industry leading, in the enterprise market that also have consumer end and limited versions.

Why do you think it would be so hurtful ?

It isn't a question of it being hurtful ... it is a question of it not having any real point relative to the business that PSC is in. If one makes a Java toolkit, then giving away a limited version is a good way to get people interested in and using the product so that the serious ones will buy the full license. But, people just aren't going to do that for Progress. The only way that I can see this making sense is if PSC were to decide that the lack of availability of trained developers was holding back the growth of sales. Instead, one of the big problems they face is customers who end up sticking with old versions, meaning that they don't buy new licenses for new products.

I'm not saying it would make it more popular then Java over night.

But on a smaller scale maybe it will get more people and companies to try their products. There are many, many cases with clients and fellow developers that I could setup and get them started using Progress and more then a few companies started out with an eval or test drive version and one reason was because it was available and handy.

It would certainly help more developers keep up and write better and more up to date code. We shouldn't be surprised that there are developers who are still using shared variables. It could be years until a substantial part of developers get to use the object oriented extensions for the first time or any other new features for that matter. This request is certainly nothing new and developers have been calling for a limited version for as long as I can remember.

And still maintain some relationship and keep companies who've dropped support or have out dated versions in the loop, sort of speak.

I'm not saying it would make it more popular then Java over night.

Or even cause any perceptible change in market share ...

There are many, many cases with clients and fellow developers that I could setup and

get them started using Progress and more then a few companies started out with an

eval or test drive version and one reason was because it was available and handy.

And eval licenses can still be arranged and are, afaik, a fairly standard Progress sales tool. There are two big differences between a free or cheap downloadable kit and an eval license. One is that one has a lot more control with an eval license, a fixed time in which one knows that the company will be paying attention and they will decide one way or the other by the end. The other is that, since one has to ask for the eval license, one knows that there is a significantly higher level of commitment. Both of these are things that sales people like. I know there are companies that started with Test Drive ... I was one of them ... but the Test Drive for me was no different than an eval license because I was already seriously interested and would have asked about an eval license if the Test Drive hadn't been there.

We shouldn't be surprised that there are developers who are still using shared variables.

Especially since the current manuals even still don't tell them not to in a strong and consistent fashion.

It could be years until a substantial part of developers get to use the object

oriented extensions for the first time or any other new features for that matter.

So, what happens when this developer who works for a company that is running a V6 application on 9.1A gets this free or low cost kit to play with? The first problem is that he or she has to commit a lot of time to working with it. A few would do it, but I am skeptical that lots would. If there were that much enthusiasm, some of them would be plunking down the $3,600 for a copy of OEA ... after all, they may well have spent that much for their television. And then what happens? Chances are that the forces which are keeping the employer at the V6 level of code are not going to be reversed by an enthusiastic home-schooled programmer. Instead, the programmer gets fed up and uses the new knowledge to get a job in a shop that is already doing OE10 stuff. Net gain for the programmer, but nothing happened to the underlying problem of companies running on old versions.

And still maintain some relationship and keep companies who've dropped support or

have out dated versions in the loop, sort of speak.

I can't imagine why you think some company that is no longer paying maintenance is going to allow programmers to spend work time fiddling with a new version.

How many would bother to get it, even if free, if

they had never heard of it before?

Exactly! When I graduated 15 years ago in the Netherlands I never heard of Progress. I got a training course when I started working for a company who used the tool. Being vendor specific is a problem for a 4GL. Unless you want to specialize, it's not a very usefull educational environment. Add the lack of database independence of the (old) ABL and the "non-standardized" database access API (foreach) and you have some reasons why it might be hard to sell at schools. And a 3GL requires a better understanding of what's going on under the covers thus provides a more generic insight in software implementation. Schools also pay more attention to the software development process.

Sorry guys but accept for picking at every possible case I don't see what point you're trying to make and I've yet to hear anything but positive points, at the very least a more open approach would help improve developers attitude towards Progress.

I don't think that private developers and college kids should or can pay the same prices as corporate customers or at least be given other alternatives. The companies can pay for it, leave private people alone.

Obviously we have very different experiences but from my point of view its almost a univeral problem for Progress developers, especially for developers trying to improve their skills because they don't have that option even if they wanted to.

I'm guessing the main reason is that we're not part of the equation, Progress sells to ISV's. Helpful or not developers don't really play a factor in it.

it's not 650$ per student, it's 650$ per product bundle (e.g. all OpenEdge products) for ALL students at one University so ALL students can install product on their local machines if the University (or any of their sponsors ) pays the annual 650$.

But, we're currently evaluating the Progress University Program (PUP) so let us know how you think we could improve the program

More info:

http://www.progress.com/progress_software/products/services/docs/pup_infosheet_final.pdf and http://www.serl.org/pup/

Right now we're looking into what to do next with the evaluation kits, potential changes to the evaluation versions, what other products, tours, tutorials, etc.

So, any feedback is more then welcome and the timing is right as we are in the planning to update for 10.1B and beyond!

My idea for non-commerical use:

- make the Eclipse (Architect) develop environment totaly open source

- make the several compilers free

- let everybody pay for the Appbuilder (Studio)

- Create a free runtime version, but without db-connection possibility. However, a sql connection to eg mysql must be possible.

- Make a small db very cheap

- Use the current commercial fees for make some publicity to students instead of universities. Let the students taste the Progress world, let them see that there a many job vacancies availaible!

- Use the current commercial fees for make some publicity to students instead

of universities. Let the students taste the Progress world, let them see that there

a many job vacancies availaible!

We're also looking into potential changes to the PUP as we speak so thanks but I like the idea of a monster.com alike on PSDN Online and/or Progress.com

There are many jobs/vacancies, several are posted on the peg but I know there's many, many more out there.

Keep the sugestions coming, also think about the Tour (and the get-it tutorial within).

it's not 650$ per student, it's 650$ per product

bundle (e.g. all OpenEdge products) for ALL students

at one University so ALL students can install product

on their local machines if the University (or any of

their sponsors ) pays the annual 650$.

That's not what the web page says - it's per department, and only students enrolled in a program in that department can use the products.

Looking at the license, 'funded academic research' is also excluded. What academic research isn't funded? And not necessarily at a level where a license fee is viable?

Some of the langage used in the description of the PUP might need clarification (what is meant by a department, funded academic research, etc) but don't worry, if a university wants our software for their students to learn, we never been too difficult in the past. We're just careful the license does not get obused for commercial purposes. If they explain the case to us and we are convinced of the right intentions with what they want to do with our IP, it's likely we allow them to use (within the same 650$ per "department").

But this is good feedback, we're looking at potential improvements to the PUP so keep them coming!

Some of the langage used in the description of the

PUP might need clarification (what is meant by a

department, funded academic research, etc) but don't

worry, if a university wants our software for their

students to learn, we never been too difficult in the

past.

Then your docs need to indicate that. Right now even the FAQ says "Q:Can I use another department's license? A:NO." not "A: Not under the standard license, but exceptions will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis."

We're just careful the license does not get

obused for commercial purposes.

Understood.

If they explain the

case to us and we are convinced of the right

intentions with what they want to do with our IP,

it's likely we allow them to use (within the same

650$ per "department").

Then your public information needs to indicate that.

But this is good feedback, we're looking at potential

improvements to the PUP so keep them coming!

I'm beginning to think PSC should hire some "outsiders" to review their docs, license agreements, and such and provide some honest, uncensored feedback.

I'm beginning to think PSC should hire some "outsiders" to review their docs,

license agreements, and such and provide some honest, uncensored feedback.

I believe you do already and you do it so well

Anyway, I hope everyone understands that we have no intention to put barriers up if a university wants to use our development products for learning purposes. The whole goal with providing evaluation versions, university programs, PSDN Online, etc is to make it easier for anyone to get started with Progress products.

I'm guessing the main reason is that we're not part of the equation, Progress sells to

ISV's. Helpful or not developers don't really play a factor in it.

Actually, the last time I saw a figure, which was a while back, only about 60% of the sales were through partners and the rest was direct. Of course, there are a lot of ways those numbers could be packaged, but my impression is that the percentage has declined some from earlier peaks.

Still, of course, you are right ... the sales are either to partners or to direct sales which are typically large companies. The developers work for the partner, the partner's customers, and the direct customers. They are very rarely the people who make buying decisions.

I'm beginning to think PSC should hire some

"outsiders" to review their docs,

license agreements, and such and provide some

honest, uncensored feedback.

I believe you do already and you do it so well

In other words, if you can get the milk for free, why buy the cow? Do you really want to rely on the goodwill of others to make your product communication - and hence PSC's profit margin - better?

Anyway, I hope everyone understands that we have no

intention to put barriers up if a university wants to

use our development products for learning purposes.

That only happens if your generally-available material makes that clear.

In other words, if you can get the milk for free, why buy the cow?

Do you really

want to rely on the goodwill of others to make your product communication

- and hence PSC's profit margin - better?

No, but feedback from the community is always appreciated, therefore, thank you.

I think, this is one of the most encouraging statements we've heard from Progress.

It certainly makes you want to get more involved.

We drifted a bit from the orignial discussion on "Open Source" but we touched on the PUP and Evaluation Kits that I am involved in within Progress.

These (and more) are related to several initiatives around OE 10 adoption where we try to make it easier for anyone to get started with OpenEdge.

So, yes, any feedback is appreciated, knowing your opinions, potential improvements/additions, etc helps in our decision process and our drive to make things better/easier for you or anyone not part of the community yet.

I'll start new threads in "OpenEdge Migration and Adoption" forum on the Evaluation Kits.

I think you're missing the point on the PUP program. You're talking about how you won't stand in the way of a University that shows up at the door and wants to use the product in house. No University in their right mind is going to be coming to you - they have all the power and Progress needs to proactively go after them.

Today a university professor has 5-10 CD's a DAY show up on their desk - all for free. No $650 charge, and no need to get on the phone to have to do some paperwork to get it. Although I can't say you'd ever get someone to admit to it, but there are those in the field that say certain big competitors actually pay the university to use the product, not the other way around.

Progress needs to simply proactively send out licenses to universities if they ever expect to have any real usage of the PUP program. If you get some takers after that, then some kind of small maintenance fee for support isn't such a big deal. But still even $650 times maybe 4-5 (minimum needed to be using Progress) compared to being paid by others is a no sale in a university budget.

I suspect the number of PUP adoptions is minimal and would remain so even if the whole program were free.

Just sending CD usually doesn't work, did that, didn't work, it becomes shelf or bin ware.

We do go proactively go after them (the local Progress sub together with AP, SI, etc), I havent seen the list but I am told there's a good amount of universities in the pup (but varies per country), we done lectures, trainings and even had programs with students on the payroll who were mentored by our services in real projects and after that they could chose to work for the AP, SI or Progress (there's a couple who are now a Progress employee, the others went to AP'and SI).

Your saying the 650$ might be a perceived barrier, if so, we should clarify or maybe even take out. No student ever paid anything, there is no minimum or maximum number of students and the fee is a one time 650$ per year per university "departments" regardless if 1 or 100 students so NOT 4-5 times 650$. Somehow, someone paid the the 650$ or was sponsored, just never was an issue or barrier.

But, point taken, I will discuss with the people responsible for the PUP within Progress, we are reviewing/updating the PUP as we speak.

it's not minimal but could always be better, the more students knowing Progress (which is more then just OE), the better. So, maybe a few reference cases makes sense?

I'd be very interested in some kind of profile of numbers of institutions and students by country.

In other words, if you can get the milk for free,

why buy the cow?

Do you really

want to rely on the goodwill of others to make your

product communication

- and hence PSC's profit margin - better?

No, but feedback from the community is always

appreciated, therefore, thank you.

You're missing the point - eventually people like myself are going to get tired of providing "feedback" when there's paying work to be done elsewhere.

I'd like to elaborate a bit on what Bernard mentioned ...

In Belgium we have a University Program running for quite a couple of years now. That program focuses on three levels. To start with you have the PUP as described before. The universities can get licenses at a low cost.

Secondly we, the people from the services department, give lectures in several of the universities during the academic year for the graduate students. This way we try to make students recognize Progress Software and the different technologies we stand for (with a strong focus on OpenEdge and Sonic). Some universities take it further than just lectures. The university in Antwerp for example links assignments to these lectures and makes the students create papers, presentations and a workshop on the subject of the lectures they attended. The workshop is given to the other students that attended lectures on other topics. So we have students teaching students about Progress technology with practical examples. The papers and presentations are defended in front of an academic and business jury, in which we participate as well of course.

Finally we provide the possibility for graduate student to attend a summer school in our offices. We provide them with training and guided practical experience with our products during the summer holidays. After completing this training these students are sent out to ISVs and direct customers who are in need of new Progress-trained resources. The students remain on our pay roll for one year during which they are entitled to additional training, depending on what they need for their assignment with the customer. After that year they are fully trained and skilled developers and the company they worked with for a year can get them on their own payroll.

The very proof that this program works is in the fact that is has successfully helped out many Belgian ISVs and direct customers to fill up vacancies on their payrolls with fresh, skilled resources. As Bernard already mentioned two of these graduate students joined Progress Software Belgium as well. That would be Tom Vanpol (services department Belgium, focused on OpenEdge and Sonic, for 6 years and now account manager for the direct channel in Belgium) and yours truely (services department Belgium, focused on OpenEdge and Sonic, for 4 years now).

I know the Belgian system quite well, as we at TVH have experience with the system.

The idea is very good, but not all students are very motivated to learn much about Progress (I was once on a cource where some students also joined the samen course as I did, and some of them didn't seem very interested at all - other students are then again very motivated!!) Perhaps you should do a better screening of the candidates, on a way that the participants are really motivated to build a Progress-career...

What I also do miss in the discussion lately, is the question for a general policy instead of the pup-policy. I would broaden the total licence from pup to "non-commercial use", so that graduated students, or self-learners can improce their progress-skills without the licence-worries.

The idea is very good, but not all students are very motivated...

True however you might not want to exclude them at first as once they understand the full power of the platform AND find out there's plenty of jobs and carreer potential for them, they might get motivated again.

also...

We have started a thread in "migration and adoption" forum on the evaluation kit and the tour that also touches on maybe have the evaluation period "longer" then 60 days...

Somehow it is hard for me to imagine this sort of program happening on this side of the pond. Does it?

Don't know what type of programs are being run in NA but I'll check. I know Latin America (also on the other side of the pond for us ) is doing extremely well with universities.

Jiri mentions the cooperation between the Progress Sub and her AP/SI, I believe that's the key to success. Progress can throw in such as licenses, tech support and training (materials, sometimes people), SI/AP might already have relationships with the university, might have (to come up with) projects for these people, maybe some on site or web support specific to the projects (during or after their study), maybe a temporary contract, etc.

Also, think beyond OpenEdge too, some might also be interested in SOA and ESB, some in event stream processing, some in object oriented databases, etc.

Let me know if there are any universities participating in the SF Bay Area ... I might be able to come up with some projects.

if you want to do something specific with a university, best would be to contact the services director in NA. Even better, see if other SI/AP/EU need young students too and go together with Progress with a proposal to the university (e.g. "we have 20 jobs for talent provided they are trained on xyz, we will train/support them, assign them projects and mentor them", that's how some of the countries approached them in the past).

I'll also do some asking around in Bedford, see if there are plans or already doing in the SF Bay Area.

It isn't as if I have a big program in mind, but thought that I might have a possibility of nibbling about the edges if there were one underway already. There are so many universities in the Bay Area, one wouldn't have any idea where to start, although UC Berekely might be ideal since I had an academic research appointment there once upon a time, back in the Jurassic.

I understand that's well and good in a tiny market like Belgium, but with over 5000 universities in the US, the kind of program you're talking about is far more difficult to arrange. They are not doing this proactively, and at least judging by what Don Fournier had explained to most of the Progress PUG Presidents, the numbers of who is in the program is relatively low compared to the opportunity. In addition, any involvement from any AP/ISV/IS partners is not part of these type of programs. There is nothing at all like the Belgium program at all here.

The point about the fee is the market here is totally different. With over 5000 players, if you want your product in the University, you have to pay the university, not the other way around. Some of these places are so big they hold all the cards and have people fighting over them to get their products placed in the university. Compare "I'll pay you to use my product" to "For an extraordinarily low $650". That is the exact marketing phrase PSC chose to put on the program. That may be low in comparison to what PSC wants to charge an end user, but otherwise this is a complete lack of understanding of the University market.