Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Is Borland Telling Us to Go Away?

2004-06-03 11:10:05 PM
cppbuilder108
Hendrik Schober wrote:
the group at that time, you didn't hear it directly from a Borland
employee, but that doesn't mean someone made it up. TeamB was told that
the delay was a legal issue and that we could relay that message, so we
did. The fact that nobody believed it then or now doesn't make it any
less true. It just makes you skeptics. It *was* a legal issue (then).
This time as far as I know it isn't.
--
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)
 

Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB) < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
forgot about it. (It _is_ long ago,
isn't it?)
seems to believe in this theory. I
questioned it.
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 

talking about actually producing a second open letter, there was some
commentary from Borland (again, if memory serves) that the legal
department would again have to review it, and that was (one of) the
excuses for the delay of the 'second' open letter.
I'm willing to be corrected, but my ISP DNS is down, so I have
newsgroup/email access but not internet, so I can't do a search on google.
David Erbas-White
 

{smallsort}

Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB) wrote:
I would argue that it was a 'legal' issue, though it may well have been
held up in the legal department. I'm fairly sure (though it's an
assumption <G>) that nothing in the open letter would have been
'illegal', but the point of the legal department for a business in this
context would be to 'assess legal risk'. It would have been up to
Borland management to decide, based on input from the legal department,
what information to then release. For example, corporations commonly
will accept a certain number of fatalities in a large construction
project, and 'budget' for the expense (because of the risk). Or, as in
the case of the Pinto, they look at the number of deaths that might
occur, and balance it against the 'cost'. But the corporate management
ultimately decides what to release.
This is one reason why I feel that the process is 'broken' at Borland,
as we were told that the (original) letter had been cleared by upper
management, and only then had it gone on to the legal department. This
does not, IMHO, speak well of the process -- because if the upper
management was willing to sign on to it, they should have been willing
to defend aspects of the letter that Borland objected to.
David Erbas-White
 

David Erbas-White wrote:
It was a legal issue with no quotes. Beyond that I'm being
deliberately vague, because although I don't think it would hurt Borland
to be a little less coy about the problems, it's not my call to make.
--
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)
 

"Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >escreveu na mensagem
relates with mixing Open-Source (wxWindows, etc...) with proprietary code in
a commercial product.
That was my reading of the facts!
Saulo
 

But it could have been a business decision that made it a legal issue. A top
executive could have said that he was not totally dedicated to following thru on what
was going to be in the letter and therefore the lawyers could have said it is a bad
idea to publish it.
The point is that when Borland wants to say something about some other product it
manages to do so. Ditto for other companies. I still think the communications problem
is due to business decisions made at the top.
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB) wrote:

"Saulo I. Regis" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
stated what legal was looking at. TeamB are under NDA so we
can't say what they were looking at even though we were told
many of the issues. The only fact released was legal was
looking at it, anything past that was speculation on the part
of people without any knowledge of the situation on these newsgroups.
 

"Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)" wrote:
issues again when the letter had arrived. It hasn't so speculation and
wondering started...
Peter
 

"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >escreveu na mensagem
English is my second language... ok!
What I wanted to say is that was my interpretation of what was happening and
how the legal dept could be engaged on that!
And I was just exposing my "interpretation of the facts" in my previous
message as anybody else is trying to figure out why, in the end, the legal
dept was being responsible for holding that Open Letter.
No need for ... OVER reactions :)
Saulo
 

Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB) wrote:
idea as to whether Borland are continuing with CBX and wx or BCB and
VCL. Both products are currently getting past their sell by date IMHO
and we have new machines that need software developed to control them
coming up over the next year.
Where do I put my effort? Since the last open letter I started
investigating using wxWindows, bought CBX and was happy with it as a
future development path. I now don't know if CBX and wx will be
continued. So I may have wasted that effort.
Do I now waste effort doing more development in VCL?
That is why I've recently started looking at VS.Net with a view to
producing WinForms apps containing unmanaged code for data acquisition
and processing so I can have single executables again, as with the VCL.
At least learning .Net won't be a waste of time as it will be around
next year. Will Borland's support for wx or there support for VCL?
They don't seem to be able to commit to one or the other (officially).
Cheers
Russell
 

"Dave Jewell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
to make an assumption. That you think I'm making "lots of assumptions" is an
indicator just how little you understood my point.
 

Russell Hind wrote:
telling you :-), that makes sense. My point is that it seems like many
people on the group don't believe it. To me, it seems a little like this:
"The letter was delayed due to legal concerns."
"No it wasn't." "Why aren't you telling us anything?"
"We're going to be producing a new C++ product based on BCB."
"No you aren't." "Why aren't you telling us anything?"
"We haven't abandoned C++."
"Yes you have." "Why aren't you telling us anything?"
...
This is what doesn't make sense to me. Note that I'm not against the
"Why aren't you telling us anything?" demands. Obviously Borland has
been way too quiet about their C++ plans. My point is simply that you
have to at least agree to believe what they do tell you in order for
that request to be reasonable.
--
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)
 

"David Erbas-White" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
want to take on the task of repeating that experience?
No, the newsgroups screwed it up. They got information in the form of a few
open letters and then made Borland's devrel guys go thriugh hell as a
result. Now the newsgroups complain about a lack of information. Well, duh.
 

"Russell Hind" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
"Meet the Team" meetiong at BorCon 2003. I got a handful of Borland Bucks
from Kaster for asking it, and I could tell that a lot of people in the room
had the same question in their minds as well. "How do we know that this
direction toward using wxWindows was not just another one-shot dead-end deal
like CLX?"
There really wasn't much of an answer to that question, and until the recent
blogs revealing new direction for C++ at Borland I was pretty convinced that
Borland really did not consider C++ relevant these days. Now today we read
that MSFT has plans for C++ that are not insignificant. It leads to all
sorts of possible theories as to why Borland has been so quiet lately about
C++.
--
Read Jake's Blog at blogs.slcdug.org/jjacobson/
Or Get the RSS Feed at blogs.slcdug.org/jjacobson/Rss.aspx