Board index » kylix » Twisting in the wind?

Twisting in the wind?


2004-02-20 02:51:40 PM
kylix2
Hi,
I attended Borcon 2003 where it was apparent that Kylix was the
illegitimate child and that Borland was abandoning it.
Too bad, I applaud Borland for at least attempting to try to make
money in the Linux arena where developers are used to paying
nothing.
Still to me, the concept of one language (Object Pascal) producing
an executable that can work under Linux, 32-bit Windows and
.NET (all achievable with Delphi today!) was a grand and worthwhile
(to me) vision.
Unfortunately I see the Linux side dropping out of the picture.
I regret this, although Borland has to respond to economic reality.
Probably no one was buying Kylix. Kylix is dead.
I think what Kylix is, it is and it will be no more than that.
John Roberts
 
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

John Roberts wrote:
Quote
Hi,

I attended Borcon 2003 where it was apparent that Kylix was the
illegitimate child and that Borland was abandoning it.

Too bad, I applaud Borland for at least attempting to try to make
money in the Linux arena where developers are used to paying
nothing.

I do not think that this was Kylix's downfall.. Enterprise or corporate
Developers on Linux, have no problems using Oracle, Oracle Development
tools, or DB/2, Web Sphere, BEA, Resin, etc. and/or other commercial
offerings.
I do think that Pascal may have not been the killer Borland was hoping for
(I do not know many developers using Pascal outside of Delphi programmers),
but Kylix's downfall was not priced based (unless you are speaking of the
initial Kylix 1 pricing model, which was ridiculous). You might also have a
point when speaking of the Enterprise 1999.00 model as well, especially for
what Kylix offered at that price.
The largest problem was Kylix was, that version 1 should NEVER had been
released as a pay for it version, it was priced ridiculously high (I
refused to buy it until it came down to a reasonable 249.00 price), but
those who DID pay for, did not get their money's worth. It was horribly
buggy, and most of the features it promised, it did not deliver on.
Kylix 2 was better, but still flawed. Borland NEVER offered to update
version 1 of Kylix to make it workable, and the only way to get the bugs
fixed, was to buy the upgrade to version 2. That is not a way to win open
source folks to be sure. Look at most of the Open Source tools and
Applications that are slated PRODUCTION. I have never seen a RELEASED
recognized Open Source app or tool that was a buggy as Kylix 1 or Kylix 2,
and they do not charge for it in many cases.
Kylix 3 was quite good in the Delphi Form. The largest problem with Kylix 3
was the quite shortsided view of Borland to: (1) Make it dependent upon the
QT 2.0 libs, (2) Offer no official patches to support the newer platforms.
Basically, as soon as Kylix 3 was released, it was headed for "will not work
on newly released Linux distros". That is asking, IMHO, for your product to
be benched and rejected.
The C++ version of Kylix (which is why I bought version 3), was horribly
broke. Without some of the aid of some of the benevolent "unoffical
updaters" of Kylix A major contributor is Andreas Hausladen at
mitglied.lycos.de/AndreasHausladen/Delphi/Kylix/CLXPatches/), this
version would not even load the component palette out of the box. Talking
about a good way to make an impression!
Quote

Unfortunately I see the Linux side dropping out of the picture.
I regret this, although Borland has to respond to economic reality.
Probably no one was buying Kylix. Kylix is dead.

Well some were buying Kylix, that it the reason if you search the Kylix NGs,
you will sense a lot of hostility. Borland did not do Kylix right and who
would want to commit to something that was buggy to begin with and not
properly supported in three releases.
Don't get me wrong, I do not think Kylix would have been a huge money maker
for Borland right off the bat anyway. But it could have been and could
probably be returning a profit by now, if Borland would have maintained it
and offered to fix the bugs and compatibility problems, without requiring a
new purchase.
I would still love to have a good C++ RAD IDE on Linux. Would I pay for it?
If it were in the 300.00 range, the answer is YES. I bet many others would
as well. I would not pay 3000.00 for it however... I would just stick to
Java and KDevelop <G>.
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

John Roberts wrote:
Quote
I attended Borcon 2003 where it was apparent that Kylix was the
illegitimate child and that Borland was abandoning it.

Too bad, I applaud Borland for at least attempting to try to make
money in the Linux arena where developers are used to paying
nothing.

It is pretty strange motion that Kylix was not successful because
Linux users does not want to spend money. How we know for sure that
Kylix was not profitable, all we know that suddenly support for the
product stopped, but we don't know why. Borland indicated that they
are focusing on big customers, so perhaps one of the big customers
purchase all copies of Kylix 4 and Kylix 5 <g>
As of today, about 45% of medium size businesses are using or
experimenting with Linux. Only in the last 3 years corporations,
businesses, governments and various organization around the world
spend about 25 billions dollars on Linux related solutions. It seems
really strange that Kylix would not get some of the money.
juliusz
--
InstallMade - Kylix-specific installer
www.superobject.com/installmade/
www.superobject.com/imoe/download.html
 

{smallsort}

Re:Twisting in the wind?

"pnichols" wrote:
Quote
I would still love to have a good C++ RAD IDE on Linux. Would I pay for
it?
If it were in the 300.00 range, the answer is YES. I bet many others would
as well. I would not pay 3000.00 for it however... I would just stick to
Java and KDevelop <G>.
It depends on what you get for that money. I think that a two way UML tool
in CBX is more profitable than a Visual Designer. This UML tool can save
time for the whole application, a VD only for a (small) part of your app.
For being profitable both tools have to be implemented right of course. But
with the current attitude of Borland to it's customers I say: "No, thank
you."
Peter
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

pnichols wrote:
Quote
John Roberts wrote:


>Hi,
>
>I attended Borcon 2003 where it was apparent that Kylix was the
>illegitimate child and that Borland was abandoning it.
>
>Too bad, I applaud Borland for at least attempting to try to make
>money in the Linux arena where developers are used to paying
>nothing.
>

I do not think that this was Kylix's downfall.. Enterprise or corporate
Developers on Linux, have no problems using Oracle, Oracle Development
tools, or DB/2, Web Sphere, BEA, Resin, etc. and/or other commercial
offerings.

I do think that Pascal may have not been the killer Borland was hoping for
(I do not know many developers using Pascal outside of Delphi programmers),
but Kylix's downfall was not priced based (unless you are speaking of the
initial Kylix 1 pricing model, which was ridiculous). You might also have a
point when speaking of the Enterprise 1999.00 model as well, especially for
what Kylix offered at that price.

The largest problem was Kylix was, that version 1 should NEVER had been
released as a pay for it version, it was priced ridiculously high (I
refused to buy it until it came down to a reasonable 249.00 price), but
those who DID pay for, did not get their money's worth. It was horribly
buggy, and most of the features it promised, it did not deliver on.


Kylix 2 was better, but still flawed. Borland NEVER offered to update
version 1 of Kylix to make it workable, and the only way to get the bugs
fixed, was to buy the upgrade to version 2. That is not a way to win open
source folks to be sure. Look at most of the Open Source tools and
Applications that are slated PRODUCTION. I have never seen a RELEASED
recognized Open Source app or tool that was a buggy as Kylix 1 or Kylix 2,
and they do not charge for it in many cases.

Kylix 3 was quite good in the Delphi Form. The largest problem with Kylix 3
was the quite shortsided view of Borland to: (1) Make it dependent upon the
QT 2.0 libs, (2) Offer no official patches to support the newer platforms.

Basically, as soon as Kylix 3 was released, it was headed for "will not work
on newly released Linux distros". That is asking, IMHO, for your product to
be benched and rejected.

The C++ version of Kylix (which is why I bought version 3), was horribly
broke. Without some of the aid of some of the benevolent "unoffical
updaters" of Kylix A major contributor is Andreas Hausladen at
mitglied.lycos.de/AndreasHausladen/Delphi/Kylix/CLXPatches/), this
version would not even load the component palette out of the box. Talking
about a good way to make an impression!


>Unfortunately I see the Linux side dropping out of the picture.
>I regret this, although Borland has to respond to economic reality.
>Probably no one was buying Kylix. Kylix is dead.
>

Well some were buying Kylix, that it the reason if you search the Kylix NGs,
you will sense a lot of hostility. Borland did not do Kylix right and who
would want to commit to something that was buggy to begin with and not
properly supported in three releases.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think Kylix would have been a huge money maker
for Borland right off the bat anyway. But it could have been and could
probably be returning a profit by now, if Borland would have maintained it
and offered to fix the bugs and compatibility problems, without requiring a
new purchase.

I would still love to have a good C++ RAD IDE on Linux. Would I pay for it?
If it were in the 300.00 range, the answer is YES. I bet many others would
as well. I would not pay 3000.00 for it however... I would just stick to
Java and KDevelop <G>.


there are not really a lot of rad for 300$
you create thing more easily and faster with kylix than kdevelop
3000$ is not a lot for that...
Quote


--
Borland rulez pages.infinit.net/borland
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

"juliusz" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
John Roberts wrote:
>I attended Borcon 2003 where it was apparent that Kylix was the
>illegitimate child and that Borland was abandoning it.
>
>Too bad, I applaud Borland for at least attempting to try to make
>money in the Linux arena where developers are used to paying
>nothing.
>


It is pretty strange motion that Kylix was not successful because
Linux users does not want to spend money. How we know for sure that
Kylix was not profitable, all we know that suddenly support for the
product stopped, but we don't know why.
Even the most simple minded of businesses can grasp the
concept that you should produce what sells. Without examining
Borland's books one can only infer from Borland's behavior that
Kylix is a losing product. Do you think Borland dropped its list price
for Kylix Pro 75% from $999 to $249 for altruistic reasons? Feels
like an Hail Mary desperation pass.
Quote
As of today, about 45% of medium size businesses are using or
experimenting with Linux.
Which could be a geek employee installed a free distro on her
computer and played with it.
Quote
Only in the last 3 years corporations,
businesses, governments and various organization around the world
spend about 25 billions dollars on Linux related solutions. It seems
really strange that Kylix would not get some of the money.
Obviously Kylix got some of the money. Some of the money does not mean
enough money to cover development *and* continuing costs.
--
Hilton Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71?04' 35.3"
Lat +42?11' 06.7"
---------------------------------------------------------------
CCD Astroimaging
home.earthlink.net/~hiltonevans/astroimaging/astroimaging.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
www.chempensoftware.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/04
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

From what I've heard, Borland is not "abandoning" Kylix, it's just that there
won't be any new releases in 2004. I suppose that's non-committal enough to
allow them to abandon it next year if the market doesn't pick up, but I wouldn't
say Kylix is dead yet. Every year, the Linux desktop gets better and more
people embrace it--there will always be a place for a GUI RAD tool. Besides, as
an article mentioned in another thread in this group stated, Kylix with WebSnap
on Linux "makes it pathetically easy to build powerful, native DSO libraries
that run on Apache" which is the most popular web server on the planet.
--
David Cornelius
CorneliusConcepts.com
"John Roberts" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Hi,
I attended Borcon 2003 where it was apparent that Kylix was the
illegitimate child and that Borland was abandoning it.
Too bad, I applaud Borland for at least attempting to try to make
money in the Linux arena where developers are used to paying
nothing.
Still to me, the concept of one language (Object Pascal) producing
an executable that can work under Linux, 32-bit Windows and
.NET (all achievable with Delphi today!) was a grand and worthwhile
(to me) vision.
Unfortunately I see the Linux side dropping out of the picture.
I regret this, although Borland has to respond to economic reality.
Probably no one was buying Kylix. Kylix is dead.
I think what Kylix is, it is and it will be no more than that.
John Roberts
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

David Cornelius wrote:
Quote
From what I've heard, Borland is not "abandoning" Kylix, it's
just that there won't be any new releases in 2004. I suppose
that's non-committal enough to allow them to abandon it next year
if the market doesn't pick up, but I wouldn't say Kylix is dead
yet.
I was at BorCon 2003 also, and well remember the squirming dodges
from Borland staff when asked about Kylix. The official statement
was "no updates in 2004", which could be taken either way. On the
one hand - they haven't made a promise they couldn't keep, like
Win32 and .NET in the same IDE by August 2003, which, IIRC, was the
original public goal of Delphi 8. That means they don't need to be
held to artificial deadlines and produce a {*word*99}py Kylix 4. On the
other hand, it means we're left twisting in the wind, without even
service packs. Argh.
A couple of other issues that probably will have an impact - all
you C++ folks know the C++ Builder product doesn't live with the
same team anymore, so the future of Kylix C++ is up in the air.
Simon Thornhill isn't with Borland anymore, and he was one of the
squirmiest about Kylix, including refusing to take those questions
at the Meet the Team session.
If you can wait, and I can, let's see what Kylix noise comes out of
Borland in late 2004/early 2005. If we haven't heard anything come
April 2005, then it's probably dead.
-Brion
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

"Brion L. Webster" wrote:
Quote
If you can wait, and I can, let's see what Kylix noise comes out of
Borland in late 2004/early 2005. If we haven't heard anything come
April 2005, then it's probably dead.
With the CBX product there is no need for Kylix C++ anymore (theoratically
;-) ). So when Kylix might live on in 2005 than most probably as Pascal only
product.
Peter
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

Hilton Evans wrote:
Quote
"juliusz" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>John Roberts wrote:
>>I attended Borcon 2003 where it was apparent that Kylix was the
>>illegitimate child and that Borland was abandoning it.
>>
>>Too bad, I applaud Borland for at least attempting to try to make
>>money in the Linux arena where developers are used to paying
>>nothing.
>>
>
>
>It is pretty strange motion that Kylix was not successful because
>Linux users does not want to spend money. How we know for sure that
>Kylix was not profitable, all we know that suddenly support for the
>product stopped, but we don't know why.

Even the most simple minded of businesses can grasp the
concept that you should produce what sells. Without examining
Borland's books one can only infer from Borland's behavior that
Kylix is a losing product. Do you think Borland dropped its list price
for Kylix Pro 75% from $999 to $249 for altruistic reasons? Feels
like an Hail Mary desperation pass.

There is a huge flaw with the "instant profitability" argument as well, when
pursuing new markets. I do not think Delphi was an instant return on
investment either, and I can assure you (per Borland's own statements) that
JBuilder did not make Borland very much, if any mmoney in its first two
iterations, either. In fact, Borland stated that JB was not producing
healty profit margins until 3.0 and it was only at 4.0 (the first real
Xplatform, all Java based version) that Borland started to own the Java IDE
market.
Using the "it must produce a good ROI" after two versions, if that same
logic were applied to JB, there would not be a JBuilder today, and quite
probably, there would be no Borland today. However, Borland kept at it with
Java (a smart thing to do, BTW), and put the competition (Visual Cafe) out
of business. In other words, this strategic gamble, kept Borland solvent.
As I wrote elsewhere, the first two versions of Kylix were buggy, REAL
BUGGY. The last Delphi version, was pretty good and became obsolete within
a few months after its release.
Suppose you were to buy a version of Delphi, say that would work on Windows
95,98,ME, and NT but would not work on Windows 2000 and XP. Now supose
Borland NEVER offered a solution to cover Windows 2000 and XP. How big a
seller would that be? Now cripple the IDE with bugs, coupled with the
aforementioned problems. Would that encourage enthusiasm?
The problem with Kylix was (1) Version 1.0 was not ready for release, (2)
It was tied to older technologies (bound to QT 2.0, which is now something
like five versions old now), (3) the serious bugs were never addressed and
still have not been addressed by Borland. (4) Originally, it was priced way
too high.
That is certainly not going to make it take over the world. That being said,
Kylix did have the greatest potential to become a standard of RAD Linux
development, a better chance than any other tool set I have seen to date.
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

John, object pascal is alive, well and better than ever. Check out Lazarus.
This is the self-described "Delphi emulator" that is "write once compile
anywhere". You can take your Delphi code and create executables on Windows,
Linux and probably other platforms as well. The best thing about it is the
community. If you find a bug fix, it gets added to the code base quickly.
The more people that contribute to Lazarus the faster it will grow.
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

"pnichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
Hilton Evans wrote:

>"juliusz" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
>news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>>John Roberts wrote:
>>>I attended Borcon 2003 where it was apparent that Kylix was the
>>>illegitimate child and that Borland was abandoning it.
>>>
>>>Too bad, I applaud Borland for at least attempting to try to make
>>>money in the Linux arena where developers are used to paying
>>>nothing.
>>>
>>
>>
>>It is pretty strange motion that Kylix was not successful because
>>Linux users does not want to spend money. How we know for sure that
>>Kylix was not profitable, all we know that suddenly support for the
>>product stopped, but we don't know why.
>
>Even the most simple minded of businesses can grasp the
>concept that you should produce what sells. Without examining
>Borland's books one can only infer from Borland's behavior that
>Kylix is a losing product. Do you think Borland dropped its list price
>for Kylix Pro 75% from $999 to $249 for altruistic reasons? Feels
>like an Hail Mary desperation pass.
>

There is a huge flaw with the "instant profitability" argument as well,
If I was arguing for instant profitability, your rebuttal would apply. Odd
you would put in quotes something I never said. I was talking about
sales not profits. Businesses don't usually lower prices when sales
are good. In fact Borland's original Kylix Pro out of the blocks price
was a temporary $799, $200 off the regular $999 price.
Quote
when
pursuing new markets. I do not think Delphi was an instant return on
investment either, and I can assure you (per Borland's own statements) that
JBuilder did not make Borland very much, if any mmoney in its first two
iterations, either. In fact, Borland stated that JB was not producing
healty profit margins until 3.0 and it was only at 4.0 (the first real
Xplatform, all Java based version) that Borland started to own the Java IDE
market.
Has Borland dropped the JB price 75%?
Quote
As I wrote elsewhere, the first two versions of Kylix were buggy, REAL
BUGGY.
No argument here.
<Snips>The problem with Kylix was (1) Version 1.0 was not ready for release, (2)
Quote
It was tied to older technologies (bound to QT 2.0, which is now something
like five versions old now), (3) the serious bugs were never addressed and
still have not been addressed by Borland. (4) Originally, it was priced way
too high.
None of which has anything to do with my argument that poor Kylix sales
can be inferred from it's drop in price.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
www.chempensoftware.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/04
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

"Jeff Undercash" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
John, object pascal is alive, well and better than ever. Check out Lazarus.
This is the self-described "Delphi emulator" that is "write once compile
anywhere". You can take your Delphi code and create executables on Windows,
Linux and probably other platforms as well. The best thing about it is the
community. If you find a bug fix, it gets added to the code base quickly.
The more people that contribute to Lazarus the faster it will grow.
Have you used it recently? Seems I've been reading the following paragraph for several years now?
<quote>
So is this thing really RAD like Delphi? It sure is. Is it totally completed? No not yet. The forms design portion is still in need
of a great deal of development. The over all IDE is complete and can be used for most programming needs. Several aspects of the
project are still in need of help. Hint. Hint.
</quote>
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
www.chempensoftware.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/04
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

Quote
Have you used it recently? Seems I've been reading the following
paragraph for several years now?
Yes. Have you? I find the latest version to be quite functional.
 

Re:Twisting in the wind?

"Jeff Undercash" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:4036e263$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
>Have you used it recently? Seems I've been reading the following
paragraph for several years now?

Yes. Have you?
No. That why I asked.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
www.chempensoftware.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/04