Announcement

#2 · 10-16-04, 07:58 PM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

Open Source and making money are not incompatible.

People can and do make money every day off of open source
products.

Open source is not about free software, it is about freely
available source code. And there are lots of different variations
on what people mean when they say Open Source.

Hopefully we, or somebody else, will free up some resources
eventually and get an Open Source, or Open Source organization
for Miva script started, and then once it gets moving people will
join in because it will be useful to do so.

- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jegenye 2001 Bt
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 6:44 PM
To: 'Miva Users List'
Subject: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

> "the others", meaning us, are, because we are too busy doing
our own
stuff.
> It is a sad fact that MvOPENSOURCE never saw the light of the
day. Maybe
it
> could have changed something about it.

I think Miva(script) just doesn't fit the open source paradigm.
People want
to make money with Miva, it's not really about fun.
(There could be exceptions.) This is definetely true about me: I
do
contribute to open source projects (Python stuff) with pleasure
but
I don't think I would consider doing that with MivaScript.
Unfortunately,
the overall community feel is not just like that would encourage
real
mindshare.
I think the advent of compiled Miva makes that an ultimate fact.
(And perhaps this will doom Miva Merchant in the long run unless
Miva Corp.
will provide MUCH better developer documentation.)

Best,
Mikl=F3s

#3 · 10-16-04, 08:05 PM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

------=_NextPart_000_006E_01C4B3C3.D0DCC360
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_006F_01C4B3C3.D0DCC360"

------=_NextPart_001_006F_01C4B3C3.D0DCC360
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Open Source for Miva will just never happen... with the $ for the =
compiler, why? Just too many other freely and more readily available =
solutions out there. Miva Corp has pretty much killed Miva as a =
developers language. Miva Corp only does what is good for Merchant, and =
why not, it's their bread and butter. The only reason the compiler was =
developed is so they can stop people from stealing their Merchant code.

I'll probably always do my rapid development in Miva 3.9x... but as for =
bringing on new talent to Miva as a developers language, it ain't going =
to happen. And us old timers are too busy for an Open Source project. =
I've pretty much proved that by trying to donate a complete Store =
solution to the program a couple of times. A few people take the code =
for their benefit, but no one has EVER, in the several years it's been =
available, given anything back.

Sincerely,
Greg Mazurek=20
=20
=20
www.A1HostCo.com
a better flavor in hosting
East Coast: 1.877.767.6932
West Coast: 1.866.629.9986 =20
=20
----- Original Message -----=20

From: Jeff Huber - Listmail=20
To: 'Jegenye 2001 Bt' ; 'Miva Users List'=20
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

Open Source and making money are not incompatible.

People can and do make money every day off of open source
products.

Open source is not about free software, it is about freely
available source code. And there are lots of different variations
on what people mean when they say Open Source.

Hopefully we, or somebody else, will free up some resources
eventually and get an Open Source, or Open Source organization
for Miva script started, and then once it gets moving people will
join in because it will be useful to do so.

- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jegenye 2001 Bt
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 6:44 PM
To: 'Miva Users List'
Subject: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

> "the others", meaning us, are, because we are too busy doing
our own
stuff.
> It is a sad fact that MvOPENSOURCE never saw the light of the
day. Maybe
it
> could have changed something about it.

I think Miva(script) just doesn't fit the open source paradigm.
People want
to make money with Miva, it's not really about fun.
(There could be exceptions.) This is definetely true about me: I
do
contribute to open source projects (Python stuff) with pleasure
but
I don't think I would consider doing that with MivaScript.
Unfortunately,
the overall community feel is not just like that would encourage
real
mindshare.
I think the advent of compiled Miva makes that an ultimate fact.
(And perhaps this will doom Miva Merchant in the long run unless
Miva Corp.
will provide MUCH better developer documentation.)

Best,
Mikl=F3s

#4 · 10-16-04, 08:44 PM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

------=_NextPart_000_021B_01C4B3C9.46EAD510
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greg, I think you should know that saying Miva developed the
compiler to stop people from stealing Miva Merchant source code
is completely untrue. Miva built the compiler for many reasons,
the most critical of which was to improve performance.=20
=20
To my knowledge the thought of somebody stealing Miva Merchant
source code never entered the decision making process related to
compiler development at all.
=20
The "feature" of being able to hide source code through
obfuscation by compiling was considered a benefit to the
developers, like yourself.
=20
The idea was that you buy the compiler (that's what Miva gets out
of it) as a one time fee, and then you can compile applications
and distribute them with the FREE Miva Virtual Machine.
=20
This means you can crate and distribute your applications to
anyone with cgi-bin access and the only cost that gets paid to
Miva is that single one time fee you paid. As opposed to if you
used the un complied code and tried to sell it, you would have to
have each end user pay for an interpreter unless they happened to
be on a Miva enabled host.
=20
It's pretty hard to convince an end user to pay the $600 for the
Empresa interpreter so they can run a $100 application, but it is
easy to sell a $100 application, and after a half dozen sales of
one application you have earned back your entire investment in
the compiler.
=20
In fact I know that our company has earned many times more than
the cost of the compiler from sales of software that is
completely unrelated to Miva Merchant.
=20
A good investment as far as I am concerned.
=20
- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
<http://4thebest.com/> http://4TheBest.com
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454
=20
=20
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 9:05 PM
To: Jeff Huber - Listmail; 'Jegenye 2001 Bt'; 'Miva Users List'
Subject: Re: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode
base64

Open Source for Miva will just never happen... with the $ for the
compiler, why? Just too many other freely and more readily
available solutions out there. Miva Corp has pretty much killed
Miva as a developers language. Miva Corp only does what is good
for Merchant, and why not, it's their bread and butter. The only
reason the compiler was developed is so they can stop people from
stealing their Merchant code.
=20
I'll probably always do my rapid development in Miva 3.9x... but
as for bringing on new talent to Miva as a developers language,
it ain't going to happen. And us old timers are too busy for an
Open Source project. I've pretty much proved that by trying to
donate a complete Store solution to the program a couple of
times. A few people take the code for their benefit, but no one
has EVER, in the several years it's been available, given
anything back.

Sincerely,
Greg Mazurek <<A HREF ="http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif>=20">http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif>=20</A>
<<A HREF ="http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/z-email.gif> =09">http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/z-email.gif> =09</A>
<<A HREF ="http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif> =09">http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif> =09</A>
<<A HREF ="http://www.A1HostCo.com> www.A1HostCo.com">http://www.A1HostCo.com> www.A1HostCo.com</A>
a better flavor in hosting
East Coast: 1.877.767.6932
West Coast: 1.866.629.9986 =09
=20

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Jeff Huber <mailto:[email protected]> - Listmail=20
To: 'Jegenye 2001 Bt' <mailto:[email protected]> ; 'Miva Users
<mailto:[email protected]> List'=20
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode
base64

Open Source and making money are not incompatible.

People can and do make money every day off of open source
products.

Open source is not about free software, it is about freely
available source code. And there are lots of different variations
on what people mean when they say Open Source.

Hopefully we, or somebody else, will free up some resources
eventually and get an Open Source, or Open Source organization
for Miva script started, and then once it gets moving people will
join in because it will be useful to do so.

- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jegenye 2001 Bt
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 6:44 PM
To: 'Miva Users List'
Subject: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

> "the others", meaning us, are, because we are too busy doing
our own
stuff.
> It is a sad fact that MvOPENSOURCE never saw the light of the
day. Maybe
it
> could have changed something about it.

I think Miva(script) just doesn't fit the open source paradigm.
People want
to make money with Miva, it's not really about fun.
(There could be exceptions.) This is definetely true about me: I
do
contribute to open source projects (Python stuff) with pleasure
but
I don't think I would consider doing that with MivaScript.
Unfortunately,
the overall community feel is not just like that would encourage
real
mindshare.
I think the advent of compiled Miva makes that an ultimate fact.
(And perhaps this will doom Miva Merchant in the long run unless
Miva Corp.
will provide MUCH better developer documentation.)

Best,
Mikl=F3s

#5 · 10-17-04, 07:44 AM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

------=_NextPart_000_010B_01C4B425.85F852D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

MessageI NEVER said the compiler isn't a good investment, or that it was =
a bad idea... I'm ONLY saying Miva is dead as far as being a choice for =
new developers... and as far as starting an Open Source project for =
Miva, it will never happen. You NEED a large pool of developers, and =
Miva has killed the language for new developers.

You can talk until you're spitting up blood and you'll never convince me =
that the compiler wasn't developed to stop people from stealing merchant =
code. Sure it speeds things up too... but if they were so concerned =
about speed, why didn't that make MySQL native?

Sincerely,
Greg Mazurek=20
=20
=20
www.A1HostCo.com
a better flavor in hosting
East Coast: 1.877.767.6932
West Coast: 1.866.629.9986 =20
=20
----- Original Message -----=20

From: Jeff Huber - Listmail=20
To: 'Greg' ; 'Jegenye 2001 Bt' ; 'Miva Users List'=20
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 9:44 PM
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

Greg, I think you should know that saying Miva developed the compiler =
to stop people from stealing Miva Merchant source code is completely =
untrue. Miva built the compiler for many reasons, the most critical of =
which was to improve performance.=20

To my knowledge the thought of somebody stealing Miva Merchant source =
code never entered the decision making process related to compiler =
development at all.

The "feature" of being able to hide source code through obfuscation by =
compiling was considered a benefit to the developers, like yourself.

The idea was that you buy the compiler (that's what Miva gets out of =
it) as a one time fee, and then you can compile applications and =
distribute them with the FREE Miva Virtual Machine.

This means you can crate and distribute your applications to anyone =
with cgi-bin access and the only cost that gets paid to Miva is that =
single one time fee you paid. As opposed to if you used the un complied =
code and tried to sell it, you would have to have each end user pay for =
an interpreter unless they happened to be on a Miva enabled host.

It's pretty hard to convince an end user to pay the $600 for the =
Empresa interpreter so they can run a $100 application, but it is easy =
to sell a $100 application, and after a half dozen sales of one =
application you have earned back your entire investment in the compiler.

In fact I know that our company has earned many times more than the =
cost of the compiler from sales of software that is completely unrelated =
to Miva Merchant.

A good investment as far as I am concerned.

- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On =
Behalf Of Greg
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 9:05 PM
To: Jeff Huber - Listmail; 'Jegenye 2001 Bt'; 'Miva Users List'
Subject: Re: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

Open Source for Miva will just never happen... with the $ for the =
compiler, why? Just too many other freely and more readily available =
solutions out there. Miva Corp has pretty much killed Miva as a =
developers language. Miva Corp only does what is good for Merchant, and =
why not, it's their bread and butter. The only reason the compiler was =
developed is so they can stop people from stealing their Merchant code.

I'll probably always do my rapid development in Miva 3.9x... but as =
for bringing on new talent to Miva as a developers language, it ain't =
going to happen. And us old timers are too busy for an Open Source =
project. I've pretty much proved that by trying to donate a complete =
Store solution to the program a couple of times. A few people take the =
code for their benefit, but no one has EVER, in the several years it's =
been available, given anything back.

Sincerely,
Greg Mazurek=20
=20
=20
www.A1HostCo.com
a better flavor in hosting
East Coast: 1.877.767.6932
West Coast: 1.866.629.9986 =20
=20
----- Original Message -----=20

From: Jeff Huber - Listmail=20
To: 'Jegenye 2001 Bt' ; 'Miva Users List'=20
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

Open Source and making money are not incompatible.

People can and do make money every day off of open source
products.

Open source is not about free software, it is about freely
available source code. And there are lots of different variations
on what people mean when they say Open Source.

Hopefully we, or somebody else, will free up some resources
eventually and get an Open Source, or Open Source organization
for Miva script started, and then once it gets moving people will
join in because it will be useful to do so.

- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jegenye 2001 Bt
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 6:44 PM
To: 'Miva Users List'
Subject: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

> "the others", meaning us, are, because we are too busy doing
our own
stuff.
> It is a sad fact that MvOPENSOURCE never saw the light of the
day. Maybe
it
> could have changed something about it.

I think Miva(script) just doesn't fit the open source paradigm.
People want
to make money with Miva, it's not really about fun.
(There could be exceptions.) This is definetely true about me: I
do
contribute to open source projects (Python stuff) with pleasure
but
I don't think I would consider doing that with MivaScript.
Unfortunately,
the overall community feel is not just like that would encourage
real
mindshare.
I think the advent of compiled Miva makes that an ultimate fact.
(And perhaps this will doom Miva Merchant in the long run unless
Miva Corp.
will provide MUCH better developer documentation.)

Best,
Mikl=F3s

#6 · 10-17-04, 09:24 AM

Open source and Miva

MessageGreg wrote:
>I NEVER said the compiler isn't a good investment, or that it was a bad
idea... I'm ONLY saying Miva is dead as >far as being a choice for new
developers... and as far as starting an Open Source project for Miva, it
will never >happen. You NEED a large pool of developers, and Miva has kil=
led
the language for new developers.

Yes, this is my opinion exactly, too.
I might add MivaScript was not a nice welcome-mat for new developers befo=
re.

Jeff wrote:
>Open Source and making money are not incompatible.
>People can and do make money every day off of open source products.
>Open source is not about free software, it is about freely available sou=
rce
code

I know these very well. I'm doing Python and Zope stuff otherwise and the=
re
being open source causes little trouble
(even though you can hide your stuff by shipping byte code only or freezi=
ng
code into executable if you really want to)
On the contrary, meritocracy works wonders along with business interests.
(Btw, I've just learned that Civilization IV
will be scriptable with Python! :-)) )

All in all, open source works only with a large pool of developers and on=
ly
if there is a 'community feel' for sharing. Neither is true for MivaScri=
pt.
And I don't think either of these conditions will ever change.

Best,
Mikl=F3s

#7 · 10-17-04, 11:46 AM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

Not contending with you Jeff, but if there was no goal of protecting
Merchant's source code then why did they cut off even developer access to
the source as of the very first compiled release?

If the goals had been entirely performance oriented the source would remain
available for -- at least -- registered developers. When I asked Joe
Austin (couple of years ago) about when developers would be able to access
the entire source again I was told "It will never happen. Never. No
way." I remember it because it was such a blanket, firm statement. I just
cannot believe that his perspective was never discussed, never intended as
part of the whole compiler development process.

While removal of source code access might not have been the primary
development goal, it sure ended up being one of the first intentional
attributes of the compiled series releases. Maybe not with you present,
but -somebody- at Miva Corp had it as a one of core goals for the
compiler. I cannot believe they decided to block all access to the source
-- even to their own registered developers -- on some passing whim. It was
well thought about, well talked about, and definately an intentional plan
before Merchant was ever compiled.

It also was the only "feature" not mentioned before compiled Merchant was
released. Prior to then we were told that a source code kit would be
available for developers; but no mention that it would comprise only maybe
25% of the source. That was no accident...

What am I missing here?

Jonathan
Driftwood Network Services

At 11:44 PM 10/16/2004, Jeff Huber - Listmail wrote:
>Greg, I think you should know that saying Miva developed the
>compiler to stop people from stealing Miva Merchant source code
>is completely untrue. Miva built the compiler for many reasons,
>the most critical of which was to improve performance.
>
>To my knowledge the thought of somebody stealing Miva Merchant
>source code never entered the decision making process related to
>compiler development at all.
>
>The "feature" of being able to hide source code through
>obfuscation by compiling was considered a benefit to the
>developers, like yourself.
>
>The idea was that you buy the compiler (that's what Miva gets out
>of it) as a one time fee, and then you can compile applications
>and distribute them with the FREE Miva Virtual Machine.
>
>This means you can crate and distribute your applications to
>anyone with cgi-bin access and the only cost that gets paid to
>Miva is that single one time fee you paid. As opposed to if you
>used the un complied code and tried to sell it, you would have to
>have each end user pay for an interpreter unless they happened to
>be on a Miva enabled host.
>
>It's pretty hard to convince an end user to pay the $600 for the
>Empresa interpreter so they can run a $100 application, but it is
>easy to sell a $100 application, and after a half dozen sales of
>one application you have earned back your entire investment in
>the compiler.
>
>In fact I know that our company has earned many times more than
>the cost of the compiler from sales of software that is
>completely unrelated to Miva Merchant.
>
>A good investment as far as I am concerned.
>
>- Jeff Huber
>President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
> <http://4thebest.com/> http://4TheBest.com
> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>Office: 760-742-1469
>Cell: 760-445-8454
>

#8 · 10-17-04, 01:49 PM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

Jonathan,

As I said there were numerous reasons the compiler project was
begun the most important of which was performance. And I said the
"theft" of the Miva Merchant source code was not part of the
"decision" to create the compiler at all as far as I know.

As for not releasing the source code, that's a completely
different issue related to software integrity.=20

Once the compiler was a reality it was decided that Miva would
release the portions of the source code that they felt competent
developers should change, and they decided to sell that source
code kit for two reasons, it would represent a small additional
revenue stream gathered from would be developers that wanted to
build from Miva's existing code, and would act as a bar that
people have to reach (By paying the money) before they can muck
with the code at all. Meaning Bob the 12 year old code hacker
isn't as likely to get the source code change it all around and
cause a support headache.

And the portions of the code that Miva feels/felt developers
should simply never ever change were made inaccessible even to
partners, so that they couldn't change it.

It isn't about fear of someone stealing the source code, it is
fear of well intentioned developers mucking with the code,
screwing up peoples sites, and then making Miva look bad, and/or
causing enormous headaches for the support staff. Fear of someone
changing the core of the software to the point of existing in a
highly mutated and unstable state, for example a state making it
impossible to upgrade from and thus costing Miva upgrade
revenues. This protecting the end user from ending up in with
unstable core software state WAS considered a significant
side-benefit of the code obfuscation feature of the compiler.

I hope that clears it up.

Also obviously I am not a Miva employee, haven't been one for
years, and do not speak for Miva in any way. I was just trying to
clear up a shocking misconception.

- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan - Driftwood [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:47 PM
To: Jeff Huber - Listmail; 'Miva Users List'
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode
base64

Not contending with you Jeff, but if there was no goal of
protecting=20
Merchant's source code then why did they cut off even developer
access to=20
the source as of the very first compiled release?

If the goals had been entirely performance oriented the source
would remain=20
available for -- at least -- registered developers. When I asked
Joe=20
Austin (couple of years ago) about when developers would be able
to access=20
the entire source again I was told "It will never happen. Never.
No=20
way." I remember it because it was such a blanket, firm
statement. I just=20
cannot believe that his perspective was never discussed, never
intended as=20
part of the whole compiler development process.

While removal of source code access might not have been the
primary=20
development goal, it sure ended up being one of the first
intentional=20
attributes of the compiled series releases. Maybe not with you
present,=20
but -somebody- at Miva Corp had it as a one of core goals for the

compiler. I cannot believe they decided to block all access to
the source=20
-- even to their own registered developers -- on some passing
whim. It was=20
well thought about, well talked about, and definately an
intentional plan=20
before Merchant was ever compiled.

It also was the only "feature" not mentioned before compiled
Merchant was=20
released. Prior to then we were told that a source code kit
would be=20
available for developers; but no mention that it would comprise
only maybe=20
25% of the source. That was no accident...

What am I missing here?

Jonathan
Driftwood Network Services

At 11:44 PM 10/16/2004, Jeff Huber - Listmail wrote:
>Greg, I think you should know that saying Miva developed the
>compiler to stop people from stealing Miva Merchant source code
>is completely untrue. Miva built the compiler for many reasons,
>the most critical of which was to improve performance.
>
>To my knowledge the thought of somebody stealing Miva Merchant
>source code never entered the decision making process related to
>compiler development at all.
>
>The "feature" of being able to hide source code through
>obfuscation by compiling was considered a benefit to the
>developers, like yourself.
>
>The idea was that you buy the compiler (that's what Miva gets
out
>of it) as a one time fee, and then you can compile applications
>and distribute them with the FREE Miva Virtual Machine.
>
>This means you can crate and distribute your applications to
>anyone with cgi-bin access and the only cost that gets paid to
>Miva is that single one time fee you paid. As opposed to if you
>used the un complied code and tried to sell it, you would have
to
>have each end user pay for an interpreter unless they happened
to
>be on a Miva enabled host.
>
>It's pretty hard to convince an end user to pay the $600 for the
>Empresa interpreter so they can run a $100 application, but it
is
>easy to sell a $100 application, and after a half dozen sales of
>one application you have earned back your entire investment in
>the compiler.
>
>In fact I know that our company has earned many times more than
>the cost of the compiler from sales of software that is
>completely unrelated to Miva Merchant.
>
>A good investment as far as I am concerned.
>
>- Jeff Huber
>President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
> <http://4thebest.com/> http://4TheBest.com
> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>Office: 760-742-1469
>Cell: 760-445-8454
>

#9 · 10-17-04, 02:05 PM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

Well, I'm not certain if it's all about someone hacking a store, causing
support problems, and making Miva corp and/or Merchant look bad. If Miva
Corp were worried about that, they would have had some sort of
mivascript or module certification system in the works a long time ago.

There are still modules out there that have no business even being on
the market because of how much they mess with things in the store. I
don't even work on Merchant any longer and I still get support queries,
sometimes angry ones, describing merchant problems that have to do with
poorly designed and/or coded modules. I can't remember how many times
messages have come in where the person was so fed up they wanted to know
if I could just fix things or if they should try a different platform,
all because of bad modules.

No, if Miva Corp really was worried about their image being tarnished by
support problems, they'd at the very least put little gold stars on
modules that have passed some sort of criteria so that customers knew
which modules they could trust.

Scot

Jeff Huber - Listmail wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> As I said there were numerous reasons the compiler project was
> begun the most important of which was performance. And I said the
> "theft" of the Miva Merchant source code was not part of the
> "decision" to create the compiler at all as far as I know.
>
> As for not releasing the source code, that's a completely
> different issue related to software integrity.
>
> Once the compiler was a reality it was decided that Miva would
> release the portions of the source code that they felt competent
> developers should change, and they decided to sell that source
> code kit for two reasons, it would represent a small additional
> revenue stream gathered from would be developers that wanted to
> build from Miva's existing code, and would act as a bar that
> people have to reach (By paying the money) before they can muck
> with the code at all. Meaning Bob the 12 year old code hacker
> isn't as likely to get the source code change it all around and
> cause a support headache.
>
> And the portions of the code that Miva feels/felt developers
> should simply never ever change were made inaccessible even to
> partners, so that they couldn't change it.
>
> It isn't about fear of someone stealing the source code, it is
> fear of well intentioned developers mucking with the code,
> screwing up peoples sites, and then making Miva look bad, and/or
> causing enormous headaches for the support staff. Fear of someone
> changing the core of the software to the point of existing in a
> highly mutated and unstable state, for example a state making it
> impossible to upgrade from and thus costing Miva upgrade
> revenues. This protecting the end user from ending up in with
> unstable core software state WAS considered a significant
> side-benefit of the code obfuscation feature of the compiler.
>
> I hope that clears it up.
>
> Also obviously I am not a Miva employee, haven't been one for
> years, and do not speak for Miva in any way. I was just trying to
> clear up a shocking misconception.
>
> - Jeff Huber
> President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
> http://4TheBest.com
> [email protected]
> Office: 760-742-1469
> Cell: 760-445-8454
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan - Driftwood [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:47 PM
> To: Jeff Huber - Listmail; 'Miva Users List'
> Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode
> base64
>
>
> Not contending with you Jeff, but if there was no goal of
> protecting
> Merchant's source code then why did they cut off even developer
> access to
> the source as of the very first compiled release?
>
> If the goals had been entirely performance oriented the source
> would remain
> available for -- at least -- registered developers. When I asked
> Joe
> Austin (couple of years ago) about when developers would be able
> to access
> the entire source again I was told "It will never happen. Never.
> No
> way." I remember it because it was such a blanket, firm
> statement. I just
> cannot believe that his perspective was never discussed, never
> intended as
> part of the whole compiler development process.
>
> While removal of source code access might not have been the
> primary
> development goal, it sure ended up being one of the first
> intentional
> attributes of the compiled series releases. Maybe not with you
> present,
> but -somebody- at Miva Corp had it as a one of core goals for the
>
> compiler. I cannot believe they decided to block all access to
> the source
> -- even to their own registered developers -- on some passing
> whim. It was
> well thought about, well talked about, and definately an
> intentional plan
> before Merchant was ever compiled.
>
> It also was the only "feature" not mentioned before compiled
> Merchant was
> released. Prior to then we were told that a source code kit
> would be
> available for developers; but no mention that it would comprise
> only maybe
> 25% of the source. That was no accident...
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> Jonathan
> Driftwood Network Services
>
>
>
> At 11:44 PM 10/16/2004, Jeff Huber - Listmail wrote:
>
>>Greg, I think you should know that saying Miva developed the
>>compiler to stop people from stealing Miva Merchant source code
>>is completely untrue. Miva built the compiler for many reasons,
>>the most critical of which was to improve performance.
>>
>>To my knowledge the thought of somebody stealing Miva Merchant
>>source code never entered the decision making process related to
>>compiler development at all.
>>
>>The "feature" of being able to hide source code through
>>obfuscation by compiling was considered a benefit to the
>>developers, like yourself.
>>
>>The idea was that you buy the compiler (that's what Miva gets
>
> out
>
>>of it) as a one time fee, and then you can compile applications
>>and distribute them with the FREE Miva Virtual Machine.
>>
>>This means you can crate and distribute your applications to
>>anyone with cgi-bin access and the only cost that gets paid to
>>Miva is that single one time fee you paid. As opposed to if you
>>used the un complied code and tried to sell it, you would have
>
> to
>
>>have each end user pay for an interpreter unless they happened
>
> to
>
>>be on a Miva enabled host.
>>
>>It's pretty hard to convince an end user to pay the $600 for the
>>Empresa interpreter so they can run a $100 application, but it
>
> is
>
>>easy to sell a $100 application, and after a half dozen sales of
>>one application you have earned back your entire investment in
>>the compiler.
>>
>>In fact I know that our company has earned many times more than
>>the cost of the compiler from sales of software that is
>>completely unrelated to Miva Merchant.
>>
>>A good investment as far as I am concerned.
>>
>>- Jeff Huber
>>President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
>> <http://4thebest.com/> http://4TheBest.com
>> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>>Office: 760-742-1469
>>Cell: 760-445-8454
>>
>
>
>
>

#10 · 10-17-04, 04:57 PM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

------=_NextPart_000_0172_01C4B472.B88398C0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0173_01C4B472.B88398C0"

------=_NextPart_001_0173_01C4B472.B88398C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I just can't believe a word of this... as NOT supporting non-standard =
installations is a common place among software support companies. As for =
causing Miva headaches... I mumble "bull****" under my breath. The first =
thing we test for when supporting software is if it's in "as is" =
condition. If not, it is not supported... we don't "hide" portions of =
the code from installation sites... and I'm talking about BIG and small =
companies, like MSA, IBM, Coca-Cola... I'm sure Miva can handle their =
distribution base without having to resort to not releasing source code =
"for your own good".

So I really can't believe you want us to believe Miva did this just so =
they can support their software better. I've eaten some big piles of =
"you know what" in my days... but I just can't swallow that! :)

Sincerely,
Greg Mazurek=20
=20
=20
www.A1HostCo.com
a better flavor in hosting
East Coast: 1.877.767.6932
West Coast: 1.866.629.9986 =20
=20
----- Original Message -----=20

From: Jeff Huber - Listmail=20
To: 'Jonathan - Driftwood' ; 'Miva Users List'=20
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

Jonathan,

As I said there were numerous reasons the compiler project was
begun the most important of which was performance. And I said the
"theft" of the Miva Merchant source code was not part of the
"decision" to create the compiler at all as far as I know.

As for not releasing the source code, that's a completely
different issue related to software integrity.=20

Once the compiler was a reality it was decided that Miva would
release the portions of the source code that they felt competent
developers should change, and they decided to sell that source
code kit for two reasons, it would represent a small additional
revenue stream gathered from would be developers that wanted to
build from Miva's existing code, and would act as a bar that
people have to reach (By paying the money) before they can muck
with the code at all. Meaning Bob the 12 year old code hacker
isn't as likely to get the source code change it all around and
cause a support headache.

And the portions of the code that Miva feels/felt developers
should simply never ever change were made inaccessible even to
partners, so that they couldn't change it.

It isn't about fear of someone stealing the source code, it is
fear of well intentioned developers mucking with the code,
screwing up peoples sites, and then making Miva look bad, and/or
causing enormous headaches for the support staff. Fear of someone
changing the core of the software to the point of existing in a
highly mutated and unstable state, for example a state making it
impossible to upgrade from and thus costing Miva upgrade
revenues. This protecting the end user from ending up in with
unstable core software state WAS considered a significant
side-benefit of the code obfuscation feature of the compiler.

I hope that clears it up.

Also obviously I am not a Miva employee, haven't been one for
years, and do not speak for Miva in any way. I was just trying to
clear up a shocking misconception.

- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan - Driftwood [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:47 PM
To: Jeff Huber - Listmail; 'Miva Users List'
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode
base64

Not contending with you Jeff, but if there was no goal of
protecting=20
Merchant's source code then why did they cut off even developer
access to=20
the source as of the very first compiled release?

If the goals had been entirely performance oriented the source
would remain=20
available for -- at least -- registered developers. When I asked
Joe=20
Austin (couple of years ago) about when developers would be able
to access=20
the entire source again I was told "It will never happen. Never.
No=20
way." I remember it because it was such a blanket, firm
statement. I just=20
cannot believe that his perspective was never discussed, never
intended as=20
part of the whole compiler development process.

While removal of source code access might not have been the
primary=20
development goal, it sure ended up being one of the first
intentional=20
attributes of the compiled series releases. Maybe not with you
present,=20
but -somebody- at Miva Corp had it as a one of core goals for the

compiler. I cannot believe they decided to block all access to
the source=20
-- even to their own registered developers -- on some passing
whim. It was=20
well thought about, well talked about, and definately an
intentional plan=20
before Merchant was ever compiled.

It also was the only "feature" not mentioned before compiled
Merchant was=20
released. Prior to then we were told that a source code kit
would be=20
available for developers; but no mention that it would comprise
only maybe=20
25% of the source. That was no accident...

What am I missing here?

Jonathan
Driftwood Network Services

At 11:44 PM 10/16/2004, Jeff Huber - Listmail wrote:
>Greg, I think you should know that saying Miva developed the
>compiler to stop people from stealing Miva Merchant source code
>is completely untrue. Miva built the compiler for many reasons,
>the most critical of which was to improve performance.
>
>To my knowledge the thought of somebody stealing Miva Merchant
>source code never entered the decision making process related to
>compiler development at all.
>
>The "feature" of being able to hide source code through
>obfuscation by compiling was considered a benefit to the
>developers, like yourself.
>
>The idea was that you buy the compiler (that's what Miva gets
out
>of it) as a one time fee, and then you can compile applications
>and distribute them with the FREE Miva Virtual Machine.
>
>This means you can crate and distribute your applications to
>anyone with cgi-bin access and the only cost that gets paid to
>Miva is that single one time fee you paid. As opposed to if you
>used the un complied code and tried to sell it, you would have
to
>have each end user pay for an interpreter unless they happened
to
>be on a Miva enabled host.
>
>It's pretty hard to convince an end user to pay the $600 for the
>Empresa interpreter so they can run a $100 application, but it
is
>easy to sell a $100 application, and after a half dozen sales of
>one application you have earned back your entire investment in
>the compiler.
>
>In fact I know that our company has earned many times more than
>the cost of the compiler from sales of software that is
>completely unrelated to Miva Merchant.
>
>A good investment as far as I am concerned.
>
>- Jeff Huber
>President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
> <http://4thebest.com/> http://4TheBest.com
> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>Office: 760-742-1469
>Cell: 760-445-8454
>

#11 · 10-17-04, 06:09 PM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C4B48D.9261FC20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I know RedHat, debian, MySQL and others rarely sleep, thanks to their
worries about someone modifying their code and making them look bad. Not.

I've always disliked the fact that Miva withheld large portions of their
code from third party developers (ala the LIMITED source kit), but I've
always been put in my place by others who felt a need to defend Miva's
position on the matter. Then again, who am I to question the decisions of a
multi-million dollar corporation?

It is somewhat amusing that the several example modules
(paymentexample.mvc, systemexample.mvc, and utilexample.mvc) didn't get
included in the MMLSK. Perhaps they're secret examples.

FWIW, the Miva newsletter from April 2002 mentions obscured source as a
selling point for the compiler:
"Build cross-platform, royalty-free, database-driven, web applications.
Compile any Miva Script 4 syntax compatible application into an executable
that runs under the Miva Virtual Machine. You can distribute the Miva
Virtual Machine, royalty free and deliver fast database enabled code to your
customers without revealing your source codes."

Anyway, on to other issues...

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Greg
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 7:57 PM
To: Jeff Huber - Listmail; 'Jonathan - Driftwood'; 'Miva Users List'
Subject: Re: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

I just can't believe a word of this... as NOT supporting non-standard
installations is a common place among software support companies. As for
causing Miva headaches... I mumble "bull****" under my breath. The first
thing we test for when supporting software is if it's in "as is" condition.
If not, it is not supported... we don't "hide" portions of the code from
installation sites... and I'm talking about BIG and small companies, like
MSA, IBM, Coca-Cola... I'm sure Miva can handle their distribution base
without having to resort to not releasing source code "for your own good".

So I really can't believe you want us to believe Miva did this just so
they can support their software better. I've eaten some big piles of "you
know what" in my days... but I just can't swallow that! :)

Sincerely,
Greg Mazurek

www.A1HostCo.com
a better flavor in hosting
East Coast: 1.877.767.6932
West Coast: 1.866.629.9986

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Huber - Listmail
To: 'Jonathan - Driftwood' ; 'Miva Users List'
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

Jonathan,

As I said there were numerous reasons the compiler project was
begun the most important of which was performance. And I said the
"theft" of the Miva Merchant source code was not part of the
"decision" to create the compiler at all as far as I know.

As for not releasing the source code, that's a completely
different issue related to software integrity.

Once the compiler was a reality it was decided that Miva would
release the portions of the source code that they felt competent
developers should change, and they decided to sell that source
code kit for two reasons, it would represent a small additional
revenue stream gathered from would be developers that wanted to
build from Miva's existing code, and would act as a bar that
people have to reach (By paying the money) before they can muck
with the code at all. Meaning Bob the 12 year old code hacker
isn't as likely to get the source code change it all around and
cause a support headache.

And the portions of the code that Miva feels/felt developers
should simply never ever change were made inaccessible even to
partners, so that they couldn't change it.

It isn't about fear of someone stealing the source code, it is
fear of well intentioned developers mucking with the code,
screwing up peoples sites, and then making Miva look bad, and/or
causing enormous headaches for the support staff. Fear of someone
changing the core of the software to the point of existing in a
highly mutated and unstable state, for example a state making it
impossible to upgrade from and thus costing Miva upgrade
revenues. This protecting the end user from ending up in with
unstable core software state WAS considered a significant
side-benefit of the code obfuscation feature of the compiler.

I hope that clears it up.

Also obviously I am not a Miva employee, haven't been one for
years, and do not speak for Miva in any way. I was just trying to
clear up a shocking misconception.

- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan - Driftwood [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:47 PM
To: Jeff Huber - Listmail; 'Miva Users List'
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode
base64

Not contending with you Jeff, but if there was no goal of
protecting
Merchant's source code then why did they cut off even developer
access to
the source as of the very first compiled release?

If the goals had been entirely performance oriented the source
would remain
available for -- at least -- registered developers. When I asked
Joe
Austin (couple of years ago) about when developers would be able
to access
the entire source again I was told "It will never happen. Never.
No
way." I remember it because it was such a blanket, firm
statement. I just
cannot believe that his perspective was never discussed, never
intended as
part of the whole compiler development process.

While removal of source code access might not have been the
primary
development goal, it sure ended up being one of the first
intentional
attributes of the compiled series releases. Maybe not with you
present,
but -somebody- at Miva Corp had it as a one of core goals for the

compiler. I cannot believe they decided to block all access to
the source
-- even to their own registered developers -- on some passing
whim. It was
well thought about, well talked about, and definately an
intentional plan
before Merchant was ever compiled.

It also was the only "feature" not mentioned before compiled
Merchant was
released. Prior to then we were told that a source code kit
would be
available for developers; but no mention that it would comprise
only maybe
25% of the source. That was no accident...

What am I missing here?

Jonathan
Driftwood Network Services

At 11:44 PM 10/16/2004, Jeff Huber - Listmail wrote:
>Greg, I think you should know that saying Miva developed the
>compiler to stop people from stealing Miva Merchant source code
>is completely untrue. Miva built the compiler for many reasons,
>the most critical of which was to improve performance.
>
>To my knowledge the thought of somebody stealing Miva Merchant
>source code never entered the decision making process related to
>compiler development at all.
>
>The "feature" of being able to hide source code through
>obfuscation by compiling was considered a benefit to the
>developers, like yourself.
>
>The idea was that you buy the compiler (that's what Miva gets
out
>of it) as a one time fee, and then you can compile applications
>and distribute them with the FREE Miva Virtual Machine.
>
>This means you can crate and distribute your applications to
>anyone with cgi-bin access and the only cost that gets paid to
>Miva is that single one time fee you paid. As opposed to if you
>used the un complied code and tried to sell it, you would have
to
>have each end user pay for an interpreter unless they happened
to
>be on a Miva enabled host.
>
>It's pretty hard to convince an end user to pay the $600 for the
>Empresa interpreter so they can run a $100 application, but it
is
>easy to sell a $100 application, and after a half dozen sales of
>one application you have earned back your entire investment in
>the compiler.
>
>In fact I know that our company has earned many times more than
>the cost of the compiler from sales of software that is
>completely unrelated to Miva Merchant.
>
>A good investment as far as I am concerned.
>
>- Jeff Huber
>President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
> <http://4thebest.com/> http://4TheBest.com
> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>Office: 760-742-1469
>Cell: 760-445-8454
>

#12 · 10-17-04, 06:50 PM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

I really don't understand what the issue is. A few years back everybody was
shouting to get a compiler. Now we got it, Miva closes Merchants source code
and a few dozen professional module developer make money without going
through too many hassles with licensing and theft. There is still OUI, but
after all, with a very small number of exceptions, hardly any Merchant user
is even remotely interested in even learning Mivascripting. Heck, it is
common practice today that even requests for standalone apps are answered
with PHP scripts, even when free Miva applications exist. That I think is
sad.

One the other hand, MivaCorp needs the module developers to break ground and
to do what they don't want to do. From a business perspective it makes
perfect sense and it does make support and forward compatability easier,
especially since it is quite a difference if you have to support 10 or 20
clients or 35,000, either directly or through ISPs/partners. And we all know
how knowledgeable most hosting companies are when it comes to Miva.

Miva Corp might loose a handful clients here and there because it's
proprietary, but statistically I don't think that this really matters
compared to those who have not the slightest intention to ever mess with the
sources.

Markus

To Greg: IBM, Coca Cola is not really comparable with the typical Miva
Merchant sites
To Greg again: Jeff is the messenger, so why do you insult him and not
MivaCorp? Write a petition! Call for a Miva boycott! Buy FindWhat stock and
fire the board!

________________________________

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Greg
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 2:57 AM
To: Jeff Huber - Listmail; 'Jonathan - Driftwood'; 'Miva Users List'
Subject: Re: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

I just can't believe a word of this... as NOT supporting non-standard
installations is a common place among software support companies. As for
causing Miva headaches... I mumble "bull****" under my breath. The first
thing we test for when supporting software is if it's in "as is" condition.
If not, it is not supported... we don't "hide" portions of the code from
installation sites... and I'm talking about BIG and small companies, like
MSA, IBM, Coca-Cola... I'm sure Miva can handle their distribution base
without having to resort to not releasing source code "for your own good".

So I really can't believe you want us to believe Miva did this just so they
can support their software better. I've eaten some big piles of "you know
what" in my days... but I just can't swallow that! :)

Sincerely,
Greg Mazurek <<A HREF ="http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif> ">http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif> </A>
<<A HREF ="http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/z-email.gif> ">http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/z-email.gif> </A>
<<A HREF ="http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif> ">http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif> </A>
www.A1HostCo.com <<A HREF ="http://www.A1HostCo.com> ">http://www.A1HostCo.com> </A>
a better flavor in hosting
East Coast: 1.877.767.6932
West Coast: 1.866.629.9986

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Huber - Listmail <mailto:[email protected]>
To: 'Jonathan - Driftwood' <mailto:[email protected]> ; 'Miva
Users List' <mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode base64

Jonathan,

As I said there were numerous reasons the compiler project was
begun the most important of which was performance. And I said the
"theft" of the Miva Merchant source code was not part of the
"decision" to create the compiler at all as far as I know.

As for not releasing the source code, that's a completely
different issue related to software integrity.

Once the compiler was a reality it was decided that Miva would
release the portions of the source code that they felt competent
developers should change, and they decided to sell that source
code kit for two reasons, it would represent a small additional
revenue stream gathered from would be developers that wanted to
build from Miva's existing code, and would act as a bar that
people have to reach (By paying the money) before they can muck
with the code at all. Meaning Bob the 12 year old code hacker
isn't as likely to get the source code change it all around and
cause a support headache.

And the portions of the code that Miva feels/felt developers
should simply never ever change were made inaccessible even to
partners, so that they couldn't change it.

It isn't about fear of someone stealing the source code, it is
fear of well intentioned developers mucking with the code,
screwing up peoples sites, and then making Miva look bad, and/or
causing enormous headaches for the support staff. Fear of someone
changing the core of the software to the point of existing in a
highly mutated and unstable state, for example a state making it
impossible to upgrade from and thus costing Miva upgrade
revenues. This protecting the end user from ending up in with
unstable core software state WAS considered a significant
side-benefit of the code obfuscation feature of the compiler.

I hope that clears it up.

Also obviously I am not a Miva employee, haven't been one for
years, and do not speak for Miva in any way. I was just trying to
clear up a shocking misconception.

- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan - Driftwood [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:47 PM
To: Jeff Huber - Listmail; 'Miva Users List'
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode
base64

Not contending with you Jeff, but if there was no goal of
protecting
Merchant's source code then why did they cut off even developer
access to
the source as of the very first compiled release?

If the goals had been entirely performance oriented the source
would remain
available for -- at least -- registered developers. When I asked
Joe
Austin (couple of years ago) about when developers would be able
to access
the entire source again I was told "It will never happen. Never.
No
way." I remember it because it was such a blanket, firm
statement. I just
cannot believe that his perspective was never discussed, never
intended as
part of the whole compiler development process.

While removal of source code access might not have been the
primary
development goal, it sure ended up being one of the first
intentional
attributes of the compiled series releases. Maybe not with you
present,
but -somebody- at Miva Corp had it as a one of core goals for the

compiler. I cannot believe they decided to block all access to
the source
-- even to their own registered developers -- on some passing
whim. It was
well thought about, well talked about, and definately an
intentional plan
before Merchant was ever compiled.

It also was the only "feature" not mentioned before compiled
Merchant was
released. Prior to then we were told that a source code kit
would be
available for developers; but no mention that it would comprise
only maybe
25% of the source. That was no accident...

What am I missing here?

Jonathan
Driftwood Network Services

At 11:44 PM 10/16/2004, Jeff Huber - Listmail wrote:
>Greg, I think you should know that saying Miva developed the
>compiler to stop people from stealing Miva Merchant source code
>is completely untrue. Miva built the compiler for many reasons,
>the most critical of which was to improve performance.
>
>To my knowledge the thought of somebody stealing Miva Merchant
>source code never entered the decision making process related to
>compiler development at all.
>
>The "feature" of being able to hide source code through
>obfuscation by compiling was considered a benefit to the
>developers, like yourself.
>
>The idea was that you buy the compiler (that's what Miva gets
out
>of it) as a one time fee, and then you can compile applications
>and distribute them with the FREE Miva Virtual Machine.
>
>This means you can crate and distribute your applications to
>anyone with cgi-bin access and the only cost that gets paid to
>Miva is that single one time fee you paid. As opposed to if you
>used the un complied code and tried to sell it, you would have
to
>have each end user pay for an interpreter unless they happened
to
>be on a Miva enabled host.
>
>It's pretty hard to convince an end user to pay the $600 for the
>Empresa interpreter so they can run a $100 application, but it
is
>easy to sell a $100 application, and after a half dozen sales of
>one application you have earned back your entire investment in
>the compiler.
>
>In fact I know that our company has earned many times more than
>the cost of the compiler from sales of software that is
>completely unrelated to Miva Merchant.
>
>A good investment as far as I am concerned.
>
>- Jeff Huber
>President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
> <http://4thebest.com/> http://4TheBest.com
> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>Office: 760-742-1469
>Cell: 760-445-8454
>

#13 · 10-17-04, 07:34 PM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

This is so off-topic for this list at this point.

I will respond to what Scot said on the merchant-coders list.

- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454

#14 · 10-17-04, 07:44 PM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

Well, it seems nearly everybody agrees that the real point in compiled
MivaScript is code hiding.
(Sorry, Jeff, but you seemingly couldn't convice any other people, includ=
ing
me, that is not the case.)
Ok, let's move on, that's a good reason if it's about money, now even PHP
have these code scramblers, etc.

What I find worrysome is that now you can still read up about how things
work in the last non-compiled version 4.13 and remedy the quirks since th=
ere
couldn't be much change.
But how will this work with version 5, taking into account what quality
documentation we have? No way, I'm afraid.
So Miva will have to choices: provide top quality, all-comprehensive
documentation and developer support or disclose the source to select
developers for good money.
I bet we'll see the second possibility.

Best,
Mikl=F3s

#15 · 10-17-04, 08:11 PM

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

Markus you are wrong and are either lying, or been deceived, no
respectable Miva script developer would ever want a compiler or
VM.

OR, it is possible, that in fact you are correct.

Maybe in fact there is more to it than that, Maybe numerous Miva
employees were stressed out, and worried and upset that we
couldn't get the finished compiler and VM out as soon as it was
thought it would be released, and that during that same time
there were pressures from other directions to do other things
that some said were more important and yet developers on this
very list were ragging on Miva left right, up, down and side-ways
saying Miva sucked and didn't give a crap about Miva script
developers and only cared about their Miva Merchant software
because if the really cared about Miva script as a language they
would get the promised compiler and VM with all the new features
finished.

And maybe Miva finally released the software late, and buggy, and
then kept trying to improve it but by the time it became a truly
powerful and valuable tool for Miva script developers most of
those developers went away because Miva didn't get it done in
time, and then a new breed of developer showed up that had no
interest in the compiler or VM and so now they can bitch about
the fact that it exists.

<shrug>

It sure does seem to be my week for stirring up the pot doesn't
it. It's amazing how willing everyone is to expend effort on
discussions like this, and how little willingness to actually
discuss Miva script usage :) Apparently myself included.

- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MvMarkus
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 7:51 PM
To: 'Greg'; 'Jeff Huber - Listmail'; 'Jonathan - Driftwood';
'Miva Users List'
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode
base64

I really don't understand what the issue is. A few years back
everybody was
shouting to get a compiler. Now we got it, Miva closes Merchants
source code
and a few dozen professional module developer make money without
going
through too many hassles with licensing and theft. There is still
OUI, but
after all, with a very small number of exceptions, hardly any
Merchant user
is even remotely interested in even learning Mivascripting. Heck,
it is
common practice today that even requests for standalone apps are
answered
with PHP scripts, even when free Miva applications exist. That I
think is
sad.
=20
One the other hand, MivaCorp needs the module developers to break
ground and
to do what they don't want to do. From a business perspective it
makes
perfect sense and it does make support and forward compatability
easier,
especially since it is quite a difference if you have to support
10 or 20
clients or 35,000, either directly or through ISPs/partners. And
we all know
how knowledgeable most hosting companies are when it comes to
Miva.=20

Miva Corp might loose a handful clients here and there because
it's
proprietary, but statistically I don't think that this really
matters
compared to those who have not the slightest intention to ever
mess with the
sources.=20
=20
Markus
=20
To Greg: IBM, Coca Cola is not really comparable with the typical
Miva
Merchant sites=20
To Greg again: Jeff is the messenger, so why do you insult him
and not
MivaCorp? Write a petition! Call for a Miva boycott! Buy FindWhat
stock and
fire the board!=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20

________________________________

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Greg
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 2:57 AM
To: Jeff Huber - Listmail; 'Jonathan - Driftwood'; 'Miva Users
List'
Subject: Re: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu] encode
base64

I just can't believe a word of this... as NOT supporting
non-standard
installations is a common place among software support companies.
As for
causing Miva headaches... I mumble "bull****" under my breath.
The first
thing we test for when supporting software is if it's in "as is"
condition.
If not, it is not supported... we don't "hide" portions of the
code from
installation sites... and I'm talking about BIG and small
companies, like
MSA, IBM, Coca-Cola... I'm sure Miva can handle their
distribution base
without having to resort to not releasing source code "for your
own good".
=20
So I really can't believe you want us to believe Miva did this
just so they
can support their software better. I've eaten some big piles of
"you know
what" in my days... but I just can't swallow that! :)

Sincerely,
Greg Mazurek <<A HREF ="http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif>=20">http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif>=20</A>
<<A HREF ="http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/z-email.gif> =09">http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/z-email.gif> =09</A>
<<A HREF ="http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif> =09">http://www.a1hostco.com/_images/blank.gif> =09</A>
www.A1HostCo.com <<A HREF ="http://www.A1HostCo.com>=20">http://www.A1HostCo.com>=20</A>
a better flavor in hosting
East Coast: 1.877.767.6932
West Coast: 1.866.629.9986 =09
=20

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Jeff Huber - Listmail
<mailto:[email protected]> =20
To: 'Jonathan - Driftwood' <mailto:[email protected]> ;
'Miva
Users List' <mailto:[email protected]> =20
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu]
encode base64

Jonathan,
=09
As I said there were numerous reasons the compiler
project was
begun the most important of which was performance. And I
said the
"theft" of the Miva Merchant source code was not part of
the
"decision" to create the compiler at all as far as I
know.
=09
As for not releasing the source code, that's a completely
different issue related to software integrity.=20
=09
Once the compiler was a reality it was decided that Miva
would
release the portions of the source code that they felt
competent
developers should change, and they decided to sell that
source
code kit for two reasons, it would represent a small
additional
revenue stream gathered from would be developers that
wanted to
build from Miva's existing code, and would act as a bar
that
people have to reach (By paying the money) before they
can muck
with the code at all. Meaning Bob the 12 year old code
hacker
isn't as likely to get the source code change it all
around and
cause a support headache.
=09
And the portions of the code that Miva feels/felt
developers
should simply never ever change were made inaccessible
even to
partners, so that they couldn't change it.
=09
It isn't about fear of someone stealing the source code,
it is
fear of well intentioned developers mucking with the
code,
screwing up peoples sites, and then making Miva look bad,
and/or
causing enormous headaches for the support staff. Fear of
someone
changing the core of the software to the point of
existing in a
highly mutated and unstable state, for example a state
making it
impossible to upgrade from and thus costing Miva upgrade
revenues. This protecting the end user from ending up in
with
unstable core software state WAS considered a significant
side-benefit of the code obfuscation feature of the
compiler.
=09
I hope that clears it up.
=09
Also obviously I am not a Miva employee, haven't been one
for
years, and do not speak for Miva in any way. I was just
trying to
clear up a shocking misconception.
=09
- Jeff Huber
President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
http://4TheBest.com
[email protected]
Office: 760-742-1469
Cell: 760-445-8454
=20
=09
=09
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan - Driftwood [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:47 PM
To: Jeff Huber - Listmail; 'Miva Users List'
Subject: RE: [meu] Open source and Miva Was: Re: [meu]
encode
base64
=09
=09
Not contending with you Jeff, but if there was no goal of
protecting=20
Merchant's source code then why did they cut off even
developer
access to=20
the source as of the very first compiled release?
=09
If the goals had been entirely performance oriented the
source
would remain=20
available for -- at least -- registered developers. When
I asked
Joe=20
Austin (couple of years ago) about when developers would
be able
to access=20
the entire source again I was told "It will never happen.
Never.
No=20
way." I remember it because it was such a blanket, firm
statement. I just=20
cannot believe that his perspective was never discussed,
never
intended as=20
part of the whole compiler development process.
=09
While removal of source code access might not have been
the
primary=20
development goal, it sure ended up being one of the first
intentional=20
attributes of the compiled series releases. Maybe not
with you
present,=20
but -somebody- at Miva Corp had it as a one of core goals
for the
=09
compiler. I cannot believe they decided to block all
access to
the source=20
-- even to their own registered developers -- on some
passing
whim. It was=20
well thought about, well talked about, and definately an
intentional plan=20
before Merchant was ever compiled.
=09
It also was the only "feature" not mentioned before
compiled
Merchant was=20
released. Prior to then we were told that a source code
kit
would be=20
available for developers; but no mention that it would
comprise
only maybe=20
25% of the source. That was no accident...
=09
What am I missing here?
=09
Jonathan
Driftwood Network Services
=09
=09
=09
At 11:44 PM 10/16/2004, Jeff Huber - Listmail wrote:
>Greg, I think you should know that saying Miva developed
the
>compiler to stop people from stealing Miva Merchant
source code
>is completely untrue. Miva built the compiler for many
reasons,
>the most critical of which was to improve performance.
>
>To my knowledge the thought of somebody stealing Miva
Merchant
>source code never entered the decision making process
related to
>compiler development at all.
>
>The "feature" of being able to hide source code through
>obfuscation by compiling was considered a benefit to the
>developers, like yourself.
>
>The idea was that you buy the compiler (that's what Miva
gets
out
>of it) as a one time fee, and then you can compile
applications
>and distribute them with the FREE Miva Virtual Machine.
>
>This means you can crate and distribute your
applications to
>anyone with cgi-bin access and the only cost that gets
paid to
>Miva is that single one time fee you paid. As opposed to
if you
>used the un complied code and tried to sell it, you
would have
to
>have each end user pay for an interpreter unless they
happened
to
>be on a Miva enabled host.
>
>It's pretty hard to convince an end user to pay the $600
for the
>Empresa interpreter so they can run a $100 application,
but it
is
>easy to sell a $100 application, and after a half dozen
sales of
>one application you have earned back your entire
investment in
>the compiler.
>
>In fact I know that our company has earned many times
more than
>the cost of the compiler from sales of software that is
>completely unrelated to Miva Merchant.
>
>A good investment as far as I am concerned.
>
>- Jeff Huber
>President 4TheBest eCommerce Solutions
> <http://4thebest.com/> http://4TheBest.com
> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>Office: 760-742-1469
>Cell: 760-445-8454
>
=09
=09
=09

Announcement

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

Open source and Miva Was: Re: encode base64

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment