Board index » kylix » Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?


2003-11-05 12:53:07 AM
kylix2
On 03-Nov-03, JQP said:
Quote
As a platform for commercial desktop software, Linux is a disaster.
And that's just the way that Open Source likes it.
Precisely.
--
Bill
--------
"We may become the first society destroyed by its own experts --
especially experts in fields where there is no expertise that can be
verified by facts." -- Thomas Sowell
 
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

On 03-Nov-03, Trane Francks said:
Quote
Oh, bollocks. Your cries of foul against Linux and open source in
general are far better suited for the Windows advocacy groups. You'll
get lots of amens and Yo, bruthas there. A quick Google shows you to
be very active evangelizing Windows. It also shows you to be very
plonkable.

You're one of Them.
And you're one of THOSE -- the ones in denial about the relationship
between Linux and commercial software. When Linux becomes viable as a
commercial platform, I'll be happy to use it. My only interest in an OS
is as a tool, a foundation on which to build. To use Linux today, I'd
have to either constrain my products to a narrow range of distros, or
resign myself to spending most of my time exploring the idiosyncracies
of the systems on which customers may choose to install. And so far,
the Linux docs still make Windows docs look pretty good.
--
Bill
--------
"We may become the first society destroyed by its own experts --
especially experts in fields where there is no expertise that can be
verified by facts." -- Thomas Sowell
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

Quote
"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>List of certificated platforms are for lawyers.
JQP wrote:
I disagree. The Oracle license is already filled with disclaimers.
The list of certified platforms is an effort to limit support costs to a
manageable level. Once the list is published, no sane company is going to
use anything else ... even if it does appear to work.
Consequently, were it not for incompatibilities among distros, there would
be no need for a list.
Actually there is not much harm if one will run Oracle on not supported
platform. Yes he may lose his support, but often problem does not related
directrly to distro. In fact support engineers often not ask about what
distro is used.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

"William Meyer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
ideology of open source is fraught with peril for software
professionals.
Not this one. Not one open source project would not replace any work I've
ever done. I've never worked in the software industry though.
--
Iman
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

Quote
>I think Kylix - fine example how Linux perfectly protecting himself
>from software that does not fit in it's ideology of open source.
WM>In the real world, there are bills to pay, and many of us do not
WM>have the luxury of living with our parents, in a rent-free space.
WM>The ideology of open source is fraught with peril for software
WM>professionals.
Ideology of open source is not better than other technologies in common but
it perfect from technical POV. Once you going to gather pearls on open
sourced shelf, you should be ready at least support your product as if it
was released as opensourced. There are companies that operate successfully
in Linux world. Borland moved to Linux with Kylix using purely Windows-like
support & deployment strategy. In Windows world that strategy would work
fine, but in Linux world it failed.
Many people point on that fact from the early times, even before Kylix
release. What they can do if Borland remains completely deaf to the voice of
reason? It seems that their ears opened only to the sounds of gold in the
pockets.
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

Quote
>As a platform for commercial desktop software, Linux is a disaster.
>And that's just the way that Open Source likes it.
WM>Precisely.
You cannot fight a crowd. Become part of it or leader of it or fall dead.
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

On 11/05/03 01:53 +0900, William Meyer wrote:
Quote
On 03-Nov-03, Trane Francks said:
>You're one of Them.

And you're one of THOSE -- the ones in denial about the relationship
between Linux and commercial software. When Linux becomes viable as a
In denial? In what regard? The company for which I work releases
software on RH, SuSE, NT, 2k, XP, Solaris, HP-UX and IRIX. I have
a grasp of the issues involved. A firm grasp.
Quote
commercial platform, I'll be happy to use it. My only interest in an OS
Obviously that's a subjective qualification. For some, Linux is
already a viable commercial platform.
Quote
is as a tool, a foundation on which to build. To use Linux today, I'd
have to either constrain my products to a narrow range of distros, or
So, forgive me if I've read this wrong, but it appears that
you're not a Kylix programmer and possibly not even a Linux user?
Quote
resign myself to spending most of my time exploring the idiosyncracies
of the systems on which customers may choose to install. And so far,
That doesn't go away on Windows, sir. I have to test rigorously
on NT, 2k and XP and find differences in behaviour among all of
them. I've seen service packs break software, so our
installations are mated to a specific service pack revision.
As for releasing on a narrow range of distros, that's precisely
what we do for our Linux products. That's no different than a
Windows house releasing software for W2k and not supporting it if
the customer chooses to install it on XP.
Quote
the Linux docs still make Windows docs look pretty good.
Linux docs are a tragedy, but that isn't at all germane to the
discussion of programming with Kylix. The quality of a Kylix
app's docs have nothing whatsoever to do with Linux except in the
most incidental sense.
trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks XXXX@XXXXX.COM Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
// mp3.com/trane_francks/
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

On 04-Nov-03, Trane Francks said:
Quote
Obviously that's a subjective qualification. For some, Linux is
already a viable commercial platform.
Yes, for *some*. But many of the zealots contend that it's a universal
panacea, or at least, an OS suitable for all occasions, and that's just
not so.
Quote
>is as a tool, a foundation on which to build. To use Linux today,
>I'd have to either constrain my products to a narrow range of
>distros, or

So, forgive me if I've read this wrong, but it appears that you're
not a Kylix programmer and possibly not even a Linux user?
Wrong on both counts. I continue to exercise both Kylix and Linux,
hoping that someday, the situation will improve sufficiently that I can
make use of the environment.
Quote
>resign myself to spending most of my time exploring the
>idiosyncracies of the systems on which customers may choose to
>install. And so far,

That doesn't go away on Windows, sir. I have to test rigorously on
NT, 2k and XP and find differences in behaviour among all of them.
I've seen service packs break software, so our installations are
mated to a specific service pack revision.
No, of course it doesn't go away. But I have acquired sufficient
expertise to survive Windows, and cannot (as yet) see sufficient ROI
potential to do the same for Linux.
Quote
As for releasing on a narrow range of distros, that's precisely what
we do for our Linux products. That's no different than a Windows
house releasing software for W2k and not supporting it if the
customer chooses to install it on XP.
And here again, many contend that Linux is Linux, and the distro is a
minor detail. Of course, many (perhaps most) of those are firmly
entrenched in RH (now announced to be out of production!) In the
Windows environment, there are not so many idiosyncracies at the app
level, though there are certainly many mine fields for the device
driver folks.
Quote
>the Linux docs still make Windows docs look pretty good.

Linux docs are a tragedy, but that isn't at all germane to the
discussion of programming with Kylix. The quality of a Kylix app's
docs have nothing whatsoever to do with Linux except in the most
incidental sense.
The larger tragedy is the insistence of many in the Linux community
that the docs are *not* a tragedy. For my part, I consider that the
Windows docs have always been a tragedy, and standards have simply
fallen to their level. But Linux docs have yet to attain such heights.
And too often, any rational discussion of Linux pro and con is
foreshortened by screams of "TROLL".
--
Bill
--------
"We may become the first society destroyed by its own experts --
especially experts in fields where there is no expertise that can be
verified by facts." -- Thomas Sowell
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

Quote
Enough of the win platform and demise of languages for windows. I am looking
for a language/ide in Linux that is considered commercial quality with a
proven track record. I know that Linux is written in C++/Asm, so my tendency
is to lean that route. someone mentioned Java in this thread. I have done
some Java programming, but was not aware it was widely used in the Linux
crowd. That would be nice, pperhaps I could even use JBuilder. Still, I want
to be able to change my own kernel code as well.

-Robbie
Use KDE Kdevelop 3.0 ( C++ ide )
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

"William Meyer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
And too often, any rational discussion of Linux pro and con is
foreshortened by screams of "TROLL".
On the Linux playground, "TROLL" is code for
"I don't like what you're saying but I can't really refute it".
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

JQP wrote:
Quote
On the Linux playground, "TROLL" is code for
"I don't like what you're saying but I can't really refute it".
that's a really intelligent addition to the conversation. Not.
--
.. P.
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

JQP wrote:
Quote
"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>Why? Most companies keep up with the standards quite well (like QT, GTK,
>KDevelop, Black Adder, etc). All it generally takes, is a recompile using
>the new glibs to bring everything up to date. It would not be a
>monsterous rask for Borland to do this, but Borland has not put much
>effort into
Linux
>in quite some time

Have you considered how many recompiles and different versions it would
take
to cover 90% of the installed Linux base? The companies you mention "keep
up" by releasing the source code and allowing others (the end user, the
distro vendor, etc.) to shoulder most of the the burden.
(1) If you understood what a make file is, I covered that <G>
(2) glib version only change about every major release cycle in the KDE and
Gnome dev cycles. No more the Windows dlls would change. But since Windows,
does not have any built in dev or app tools, I guess you can be safe paying
for them at infinitum, for simple upgrades. Fortunately, Linux elliminates
this need.
Quote

This is the "compatibility" issue that I've harped on here before. It's
existed for decades and has been very effective at keeping *nix off the
desktop.
No, it explains Borland's lack of commitment to properly support the Kylix
product line.
Apps written for one Linux platform will perform on all but the most
estranged Linux distro, provided the apps are statically linked. I
explained this to you once before JQP.
Think in terms of writing a Delphi app where you do not include your
packages in the compile. If you do not supply the proper Borland bpls with
your app, or do not insure that the proper bpls are installed on the
user's machine, you will have problems. It amounts to the very same thing.
Most Linux applications do not build statically linked rpms. Instead, rather
than deivering a 20 meg download, they deliver a 2-5 meg download, using
the library files that are, or should be, on each machine. Now if you want
to argue about consistency in making sure that each distributed program
offers a statically linked verses non statically linked app, we might find
agreement.
Apt-Get in the Debian distros, is a good example of how to distribute non
statically linked applications and at the same time, manage a way to find
all dependeny files that are not currenltly installed on the user's
workstation or server(s). Works well and more standards along this line are
in the work.
However in any situation, any entity that distributes any application,
should ensure that their applications are distrbuted with the necessary
support. If I ship a Delphi app on Windows, that I did not statically link
at compile time, then it is my responsibility that I give a path to the
user to make certain that al needed packages or dlls are also distributed,
with the correct version of those bpls or dlls. Again there is absolutely
no difference in this concept and the glib concept.
If borland wants to use the glibs on the Linux system, but does not bind
these libraries for the newer libs on newer systems, then that is not
Linux's fault, but rather Borlands.
Borland could remedy this problem by providing updates in terms of a make
file, or a self install file to check for the update to the newer glibs,
This would quickly remedy the QT libs Borland is using;-- it is the same
tactic QT itself uses. The only area where there may be problems, is in
using the proprietary Borland compiler and linkers. I do not know how these
are bound to the OS or to the Processor itself, as well as any HAL layers,
etc. This could be a problem for Borland in updating Kylix or it may not be
a problem. Since it is proprietary technology in Kylix, how could we know?
BTW, this is another reason I am thrilled that Borland decided to support
many compilers in Builder X. In so doing, we can use the gnu compilers and
link our own applications to various glib versions with our own
applications, without having to wait on an update by Borland.
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

On 11/05/03 11:46 +0900, William Meyer wrote:
Quote
On 04-Nov-03, Trane Francks said:

>Obviously that's a subjective qualification. For some, Linux is
>already a viable commercial platform.

Yes, for *some*. But many of the zealots contend that it's a universal
panacea, or at least, an OS suitable for all occasions, and that's just
not so.
Of course, each and every OS has its respective strengths and
weaknesses. I would say that "an OS suitable for all occasions"
simply does not exist. I haven't used an OS yet in which I didn't
run into some trouble.
Quote
Wrong on both counts. I continue to exercise both Kylix and Linux,
hoping that someday, the situation will improve sufficiently that I can
make use of the environment.
Fair enough. I wish you luck with it.
Quote
No, of course it doesn't go away. But I have acquired sufficient
expertise to survive Windows, and cannot (as yet) see sufficient ROI
potential to do the same for Linux.
The question, ultimately, is whether you can sell your product
for a specific distro with a disclaimer that it may work on other
distributions but is not supported. In our case, we're lucky
enough to have a niche product so we can dictate to the customer
what OS and version satisfies our system requirements. As a
concession, we often sell maintenance services along with the
product. As long as the customer maintains the system to meet our
requirements, we'll send an engineer to do periodic system
maintenance on the installed system. Of course, I realize that's
not a possibility for most software-only houses. We do both
hardware and software in a very small market, so we almost always
have support staff at the customer site anyway.
Quote
>As for releasing on a narrow range of distros, that's precisely what
>we do for our Linux products. That's no different than a Windows
>house releasing software for W2k and not supporting it if the
>customer chooses to install it on XP.

And here again, many contend that Linux is Linux, and the distro is a
minor detail. Of course, many (perhaps most) of those are firmly
Personally, I like to think of different distros as different
operating systems. Yes, I know it's not true by textbook
definition, but it can be as complicated. When you can have
different file system layouts, libs, supporting apps and even
kernel versions, it's the same as targeting HP-UX and Solaris.
Quote
The larger tragedy is the insistence of many in the Linux community
that the docs are *not* a tragedy. For my part, I consider that the
It's a cultural thing. When you "grow up" reading half-written
man pages, HOW-TOs and newsgroups, real docs become more of a
"what's that?" question. I've been using Linux for about 8 years
now and I can honestly say that although I recognize the
weaknesses in the documentation versus other operating systems,
it doesn't actually bother me. I'm also in full agreement with
those who are quick to say that "if you don't like the docs, help
write better ones." It's a great way to give back to the community.
Quote
Windows docs have always been a tragedy, and standards have simply
fallen to their level. But Linux docs have yet to attain such heights.
It'll happen.
Quote
And too often, any rational discussion of Linux pro and con is
foreshortened by screams of "TROLL".
Indeed. On the other hand, most potentially rational discussions
wind up speared by trolls in the end anyway. And there's LOTS of
trolling here, IMO. Pretty much any and every "Kylix is dead" or
"Borland killed Kylix" post could be considered a troll because
it is ultimately predictable and is designed to attract
predictable responses and flames. And when I see folks patently
stating that Linux is not a worthwhile platform to release
commercial software, I consider that to be a troll, too, simply
because companies have been targeting multiple UNIX flavours for
years without so much as a hiccough.
I can agree that Linux may not offer an acceptable ROI for a
particular product, but it just doesn't wash to categorically
discount Linux as viable for commercial releases.
trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks XXXX@XXXXX.COM Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
// mp3.com/trane_francks/
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

Oliver Feins wrote:
Quote
Hi Paul,

>I do not find Swing too bulky in the 1.4.x builds. Yes, it is much
>heavier than SWT, however, Swing offers a more thorough approach, as you
>rightfully stated,

- Have you found any full featured grid and lookup controls like
Woll2Woll, DevExpress... for Java?
Look at JSuite (www.infragistics.com/products/jsuite_portal.asp).
JSuite is pretty exhaustive, as the screen shots will indicate, but
expensive.
Many of the grids, etc. that require much custom programming in Delphi (due
to the compelxity of the WinAPIs), are much easier in Java, so you may not
have to buy third party controls. Using a TableModel, for instance, may
make it quite easy for you to roll your own custom Tables and Grids.
Quote

- Same for reporting. Have you found anything like RB, FastReports... for
reporting?

JReport, Crystal Reports for Java and a couple of Open Source ones that can
be found on Sourceforge (JFreeReport and DataVision). I generally create my
own reports using XML, so I have only rarely used these. JReport used to
ship with JB Enterprise, so I tried it out and it seemed to work quite
well. I will be evaluating JFreeReport because I have heard very good
things about it and it is FREE.
Quote
- My feeling is that the Delphi 3rd party market is stronger for Delphi
than it is for Java but I may be wrong.

You are.. Third party for Java is huge.. Most are J2EE, but there are plenty
out there for Swing.
Quote
- BTW, which IDE do you use for Java development. Borland's JBuilder,
Eclipse, Oracle ?

I use JBuilder primarily and preferably,for the Enterprise J2EE features.
Since JB X will offer a free distrbutables version, that might fit your
bill. However Oracle JDeveloper is very good as well. The problem I have
had with JDeveloper is that it is closely bound to Oracle 9I, but if you do
not mind not having a plethora of Wizards at your disposal for generic type
programming, it works quite well. Oracle !0G however, looks extremely
promising.
I am not wild about Eclipse, but for SWT, it is the way to go. Net Beans is
good as well. For GUI development, Net Beans and JBuilder are close. For
any EJB or Enterprise development, I like JBuilder best for its more
independent support nature better, not to mention the toolsets.
The only downside to GUI development with NET Beans, is the STUPID design to
write certain code blcoks for you, that you cannot change in the IDE.
Sometime, I like to use my own defined functionality at certain init()
levels.
Quote
Thanks to share your experience.

Anytime
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

On 04-Nov-03, JQP said:
Quote
On the Linux playground, "TROLL" is code for
"I don't like what you're saying but I can't really refute it".
Indeed. And it is usually issued early, to terminate any rational
discussion.
--
Bill
--------
"We may become the first society destroyed by its own experts --
especially experts in fields where there is no expertise that can be
verified by facts." -- Thomas Sowell