Board index » kylix » Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

Re: Borland & Hara Kiri


2003-11-05 10:47:06 AM
kylix2
On 04-Nov-03, Captain Jake said:
Quote
Kylix was killed by the Linux community, not Borland. Period. (I
can't translate the part about idiots any
more directly without violating newsgroup rules. Sorry.)
But the killing of Kylix by the socialists of open source should have
come as no surprise...
--
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: Borland & Hara Kiri

Quote
>Sorry, i'm not native english speaking man. Don't catch idea. Can you
>express your thought in simplier way?
CJ>Kylix was killed by the Linux community, not Borland. Period. (I
CJ>can't translate the part about idiots any more directly without
CJ>violating newsgroup rules. Sorry.)
Now understand, thanks. However i cannot fully agree. Linux community
created some kind of environment that constantly changes. They offer ways to
be compatible with that environment. However no one side (neither Borland,
nor Linux community) make a step towards to eachother.
 

Re:Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

"Captain Jake" <johnjac76[nospam]@comcast.net>wrote in
Quote
Kylix was killed by the Linux community, not Borland. Period. (I can't
translate the part about idiots any
more directly without violating newsgroup rules. Sorry.)
?????
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

"Ender" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
Now understand, thanks. However i cannot fully agree. Linux community
created some kind of environment that constantly changes. They offer
ways to be compatible with that environment. However no one side
(neither Borland, nor Linux community) make a step towards to
eachother.
It seems so, yes.
 

Re:Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

"William Meyer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
But the killing of Kylix by the socialists of open source should have
come as no surprise...
<yawn>
--
Iman
 

Re:Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

"Captain Jake" <johnjac76[nospam]@comcast.net>wrote in
Quote
Kylix was killed by the Linux community, not Borland. Period.
Wrong. Kylix was killed by the lack of desire of Borland to keep up with
linux development. It is not the linux community's place to accomodate
Borland.
--
Iman
 

Re:Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

Andreas Prucha wrote:
Quote
>Kylix was killed by the Linux community, not Borland. Period. (I can't
>translate the part about idiots any
>more directly without violating newsgroup rules. Sorry.)

?????
what I think he's saying is that the Linux community should have been climbing
over each others' backs to eat at Borland's trough and they didn't. If I am
correct, I think that he is so far off base that it isn't funny.
--
.. P.
 

Re:Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

"Captain Jake" <johnjac76[nospam]@comcast.net>wrote in
Quote
Borland reacted (correctly) according to their estimate of the
viability of the market.
It's still not the markets fault when a company fails. It's the companies
failure to properly work withing the market.
--
Iman
 

Re:Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

On 05-Nov-03, Iman L Crawford said:
Quote
Wrong. Kylix was killed by the lack of desire of Borland to keep up
with linux development.
Remember ROI? It's an essential part of the equation. I suspect that in
the Linux community, there is, and will be, no ROI for commercial
tools. And if that's correct, then the community will be self-limiting.
Quote
It is not the linux community's place to accomodate Borland.
Quite true. Nor is it Borland's to accommodate the anarchy of Linux in
the absence of profit. In the final analysis, it becomes a simple
business decision.
--
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: Borland & Hara Kiri

On 05-Nov-03, Iman L Crawford said:
Quote
It's still not the markets fault when a company fails. It's the
companies failure to properly work withing the market.
Not necessarily. If the market is ideologically opposed to commercial
tools, then there is no rational way for a commercial company to work
within the market.
--
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: Borland & Hara Kiri

In borland.public.kylix.non-technical, Iman L Crawford <>wrote in message
<Xns942A5FFF1A369ilcrwfrd@
207.105.83.66>...
Quote

Wrong. Kylix was killed by the lack of desire of Borland to keep up with
linux development. It is not the linux community's place to accomodate
Borland.
Borland reacted (correctly) according to their estimate of the viability of
the market.
--
***Free Your Mind***
 

Re:Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

"William Meyer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
Not necessarily. If the market is ideologically opposed to commercial
tools, then there is no rational way for a commercial company to work
within the market.
It appears trolltech and ActiveState do a decent job in that market.
Borlands failure was to take advantage of open source development. IMO,
the latest C IDE will be more successful, if as a developer you can update
your compiler and wxWindows libs independant of the IDE.
--
Iman
 

Re:Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

William Meyer wrote:
Quote
I suspect that in
the Linux community, there is, and will be, no ROI for commercial
tools.
Borland's own survey, conducted before they committed to Kylix, told them that
only a minority of those asking for a Linux development tool made their primary
living in software development. They chose, for some reason, to ignore that.
--
.. P.
 

Re:Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

On 5 Nov 2003 09:55:59, William Meyer wrote:
Quote
On 05-Nov-03, Iman L Crawford said:

>It's still not the markets fault when a company fails. It's the
>companies failure to properly work withing the market.

Not necessarily. If the market is ideologically opposed to commercial
tools, then there is no rational way for a commercial company to work
within the market.

That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that RedHat, IBM, and others
have been making piles of cash off of this "free"/"socialist" economy, would
it? What sort of ideology says that management won't pay for development tools,
but they will pay for support?
(Before you answer that, consider that it's been widely reported that if
Microsoft's development tools business was broken out as separately reported P&L
entity, it would easily be one of the ten largest software firms in the
world...)
-David
 

Re:Re: Borland & Hara Kiri

"William Meyer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:3fa939af$1
@newsgroups.borland.com:
Quote
Not necessarily. If the market is ideologically opposed to commercial
tools, then there is no rational way for a commercial company to work
within the market.
I do not think that the linux users are "ideologically opposed" to
commercial tools.