Board index » kylix » Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros


2005-12-02 03:14:48 PM
kylix2
rbwinston wrote:
Quote
So long as this attitude prevails, Windows wins.
Nope, you're wrong. This is borland's problem not linux kernel problem.
They cheated their customers (AFAIK few times), and they seem to be better
politicians than managers ;) The point is not in Kylix updates , but in
behaviour of Borland in Kylix case in last three years. :)
 
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

zeljko < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
rbwinston wrote:

>So long as this attitude prevails, Windows wins.

Nope, you're wrong. This is borland's problem not linux kernel problem.
They cheated their customers (AFAIK few times), and they seem to be better
politicians than managers ;) The point is not in Kylix updates , but in
behaviour of Borland in Kylix case in last three years. :)
Do you think Kylix is the _only_ program that no longer works properly
because of a change in the operating system? That's not my
experience. When changes to the operating system adversely affect
programs that were working OK before, it makes it makes using the
operating system too much of a headache. In my experience Windows has
fewer problems with backwards compatibility.
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

On 2005-12-02, zeljko < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
>Do you think Kylix is the _only_ program that no longer works properly
>because of a change in the operating system? That's not my

no, I don't think like that, but there's different between old program and
very old program, I mean there's no single reason to patch linux kernel
just because of commercial app which is dead and unsupported.
There's also no single reason not to.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

Quote
Do you think Kylix is the _only_ program that no longer works properly
because of a change in the operating system? That's not my
no, I don't think like that, but there's different between old program and
very old program, I mean there's no single reason to patch linux kernel
just because of commercial app which is dead and unsupported.
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

zeljko < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
>Do you think Kylix is the _only_ program that no longer works
>properly because of a change in the operating system? That's not my

no, I don't think like that, but there's different between old program
and very old program, I mean there's no single reason to patch linux
kernel just because of commercial app which is dead and unsupported.




Yes there is. It is call respect for the customer and easier market
penetration.
Regards
Yannis.
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

Yannis wrote:
Quote
Yes there is. It is call respect for the customer and easier market
penetration.
Linux and binary compatibility for years are two things that do not match
together.
--
Regards,
Andreas Hausladen
(www.kylix-patch.de.vu - unofficial Kylix 3 patches)
(andy.jgknet.de/blog)
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

"Andreas Hausladen" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
Yannis wrote:

>Yes there is. It is call respect for the customer and easier market
>penetration.

Linux and binary compatibility for years are two things that do not match
together.


I know it is one of the reasons that I do not push linux to my customers
and the number of customers that do actually care about linux is to small
for me to even consider a port. My interest for the last two years is only
for educational purposes not commercial.
Regards
Yannis.
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

On 2005-12-05, Andreas Hausladen < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Yannis wrote:

>Yes there is. It is call respect for the customer and easier market
>penetration.

Linux and binary compatibility for years are two things that do not match
together.
I think it is wrong to blame Linux (a kernel and its co-workers)), when
distribution policies, and competition (I've got this alpha of KDE one
minute earlier, but I have to use a beta libc) are the real culprit.
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

Quote
I think it is wrong to blame Linux (a kernel and its co-workers)),
I do not blame any one I am spoiled by windows (and worst my customers
are spoiled from it).
regards
Yannis.
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

Marco van de Voort wrote:
Quote
On 2005-12-05, Andreas Hausladen < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>Yannis wrote:
>
>
>>Yes there is. It is call respect for the customer and easier market
>>penetration.
>
>Linux and binary compatibility for years are two things that do not match
>together.


I think it is wrong to blame Linux (a kernel and its co-workers)), when
distribution policies, and competition (I've got this alpha of KDE one
minute earlier, but I have to use a beta libc) are the real culprit.
I don't think that it's Borland's fault that the IDE doesn't work
anymore. For an usable OS I expect _full_ binary compatibility (i.e.
transfering compiled executables in both directions, installing
additional libs is no problem of course) for at least 3 years and 5
years with tweaking.
Just look at the problems with the fpc text mode IDE:
- for compatiblity reasons, we decided to use libgdb instead of
developing our own debugging library
- libgdb isn't available on all distros, so we've to link statically or
deliver a libgdb.so
- this libgdb depends on glibc (of course) of the system were libgdb was
built
Result:
- compiling libgdb (and the IDE) on an older system e.g. SuSE 9.0: it
crashes on newer systems
- compiling it on a e.g. SuSE 9.3 results in missing symbols on SuSE 9.0
without tweaking
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

On 2005-12-11, Florian Klaempfl < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
>>Linux and binary compatibility for years are two things that do not match
>>together.
>
>
>I think it is wrong to blame Linux (a kernel and its co-workers)), when
>distribution policies, and competition (I've got this alpha of KDE one
>minute earlier, but I have to use a beta libc) are the real culprit.

I don't think that it's Borland's fault that the IDE doesn't work
anymore. For an usable OS I expect _full_ binary compatibility (i.e.
transfering compiled executables in both directions, installing
additional libs is no problem of course) for at least 3 years and 5
years with tweaking.
Yes, or at least have a COMPAT_ mode. (e.g. FreeBSD has libraries from previous
major versions selectable as "extra" set of libraries). Slackware had this for
linux a while too. (though that doesn't help much if the kernel breaks
compat). Of course such a scheme is hard to do on Linux, since generations
aren't well defined (and you need that to update the ELF identifier so that the
right set of libs and/or kernel emulation module can be selected)
Quote
Just look at the problems with the fpc text mode IDE:
- for compatiblity reasons, we decided to use libgdb instead of
developing our own debugging library
- libgdb isn't available on all distros, so we've to link statically or
deliver a libgdb.so
- this libgdb depends on glibc (of course) of the system were libgdb was
built
Result:
- compiling libgdb (and the IDE) on an older system e.g. SuSE 9.0: it
crashes on newer systems
- compiling it on a e.g. SuSE 9.3 results in missing symbols on SuSE 9.0
without tweaking
Correct. However "linux" is a kernel, and the _distributions_, which are
separate organisations, are responsible for this mess.
The only thing you can blame _linux_ for is for not having kernel backwards
compat, and that mainly hits home with the debugging problem of 2.6.11.
They even provided backwards compat for old apps till that point
(LD_KERNEL_ASSUMES or what it is called)
So again, it is not the OS, but how it is packaged that is the problem. As
long as the distro's try to fastforward all kind of libs just because a KDE
alpha needs it, there will be no improvement, LSB or not.
A good example is bash3.1, release a few days back. It requires a new
readline lib, which is released at the same time. Big chance that every new
distro will auto incorporate it, without much fieldtesting if libreadline
breaks existing apps. (and those are a lot, including gdb)
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

Florian Klaempfl schrubte am Sonntag 11 Dezember 2005 12:07:
Quote
I don't think that it's Borland's fault that the IDE doesn't work
anymore. For an usable OS I expect full binary compatibility (i.e.
transfering compiled executables in both directions, installing
additional libs is no problem of course) for at least 3 years and 5
years with tweaking.

Its Borland's fault in (at least) two ways:
At first they stopped development and even bugfixing of Kylix very soon
after the launch of kylix.
Second: They didnt deliver a real linux-binary, but a halfway-windows-exe
with an embedded wine. Such a {*word*99} *cannot* be really compatible.
And in my opinion the trial to make the oldest applications usable in newer
OS is one of the biggest faults microsoft has made. And it is one of the
reasons for its Instability (even if XP not so unstable like older Versions
of Windows).
regards, Jens
--
Die oben angegebene Adresse ist OK, wird aber nicht gelesen. Wenn direkter
Mailkontakt gewŁnscht wird, bitte spamtrap gegen jens<punkt>nixdorf
austauschen. Danke.
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

Andreas Hausladen wrote:
Quote
Linux and binary compatibility for years are two things that do not match
together.
That's why IMHO Linux will never make it to the corporate desktop.
Companies require stable platforms, both software and hardware.
What good is a "free" operating system if it requires days of tweaking?
I think Linux can only become serious competition to Microsoft
on the desktop if it gets some proper standardization.
Both in look&feel and in the way things are managed.
--
Arthur Hoornweg
(In order to reply per e-mail, please just remove the ".net"
from my e-mail address. Leave the rest of the address intact
including the "antispam" part. I had to take this measure to
counteract unsollicited mail.)
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

zeljko wrote:
Quote
no, I don't think like that, but there's different between old program and
very old program, I mean there's no single reason to patch linux kernel
just because of commercial app which is dead and unsupported.
I think it should be forbidden to break compatibility with existing
applications. If a new version of Linux requires re-compilation of
all programs (millions of them) then something is wrong with the
system. I for one wouldn't dream of supporting it.
--
Arthur Hoornweg
(In order to reply per e-mail, please just remove the ".net"
from my e-mail address. Leave the rest of the address intact
including the "antispam" part. I had to take this measure to
counteract unsollicited mail.)
 

Re:Re: Kylix 3 applications on new linux distros

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:43:23 +0100
Arthur Hoornweg < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
I think it should be forbidden to break compatibility with existing
applications. If a new version of Linux requires re-compilation of
all programs (millions of them) then something is wrong with the
system. I for one wouldn't dream of supporting it.
Linux, the kernel, is actually very good at keeping backwards compatibility
(although recently there is trouble with udev and friends). But it has been
the C/C++ and other libraries that cause most of the pain and they don't
care much, they let the distros solve it.
Micha