Board index » kylix » Re: How increase Kylix sales

Re: How increase Kylix sales


2003-10-04 01:10:43 AM
kylix2
"JQP" wrote:
Quote
>The benefits are for the user. Not for us as developers.

Pardon me but as a developer, this is cause for concern.
Yes. But if having a software shop was easy, everybody would have one. In
that case it would be real difficult to make a living.
Peter
 
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

"johnnie" wrote:
Quote
And this is why the desktop markte is not something I as a developer
can easelly target so I I'd rather stay on windows.
Very kind of you to leave some room for others on the market ;-) .
Peter
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Perhaps you should write Microsft and inform that they should not be
fighting a phantom ghost <G>.
Where the desktop is concerned, what have they done to fight? Aside from
the occasional verbal jab, they've done nothing as far as I can see.
They've made some changes on the server side but their sales figures still
look pretty good. By all accounts, Server 2003 is doing well.
All the hard evidence suggests that your beloved Sun is the one being reamed
by Linux.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
That's not fair! It's your marketing/sales what is {*word*99}!
In the case of Kylix, I can't honestly say that I disagree<g>.
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Yes. But if having a software shop was easy, everybody would have one. In
that case it would be real difficult to make a living.
Of course it's not easy but you have to understand the lack of enthusiasm
for anything that makes it even more difficult.
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

"JQP" wrote:
Quote
Of course it's not easy but you have to understand the lack of enthusiasm
for anything that makes it even more difficult.
Yes, but let it not frighten you of.
Peter
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Yes, but let it not frighten you of.
I'm never afraid of "real" opportunity. Opportunities with respect to Linux
on the server are obvious but nothing that I can see with regard to the
desktop.
Thus far, Kylix has helped re-affirm my faith in my own judgment and
abilities<g>.
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
"Hilton Evans" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>So if an organization buys 100 copies of MS Office and IT installs
>them on 100 employee machines it stops being "commercial
>*desktop* software"?

How you derive this from what I said?
"Note that I said commercial *desktop* software. Meaning that the *user* buys
the software and installs it on *his/her* existing machine". From that I inferred
you were limiting your definition of commercial software to retail software.
His/her implies an individual and user implies that the
individual and his/her are the same.
Quote

In my mind, "desktop" implies "general purpose office environment".
There
isn't much "desktop" in a kiosk or POS; these are embedded, single use
systems.
Fine. However, if an organization selects the Linux distro and
the desktop environment, e.g. KDE and develops an application
for its business needs to run in that environment then its a desktop
application in my mind.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
www.chempensoftware.com
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

"Hilton Evans" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
His/her implies an individual and user implies that the
individual and his/her are the same.
Don't go "Bill Clinton" on me<g>. "User" can be either an individual or a
company.
Quote
Fine. However, if an organization selects the Linux distro and
the desktop environment, e.g. KDE and develops an application
for its business needs to run in that environment then its a desktop
application in my mind.
It could be.
You've just iterated a typical Open Source stance toward the desktop. The
Achilles heel of this viewpoint is captured by the phrase "develops an
application".
The Open Source community seems to have trouble understanding that most
companies have neither the skills, the resources, nor the desire to "develop
an application". The vast majority of businesses understand that it is
generally more cost effective to *buy* applications whenever possible. In
this latter scenario, *compatibility* is a highly desirable feature; one
which Open Source seems to largely discount and ignore.
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
www.chempensoftware.com
"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:3f7dd9a0$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
"Hilton Evans" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>His/her implies an individual and user implies that the
>individual and his/her are the same.

Don't go "Bill Clinton" on me<g>. "User" can be either an individual or a
company.
I thought I was being precise. When the user is his/her as stated
by use he or she is a person and not a company.
Quote

It could be.

You've just iterated a typical Open Source stance toward the desktop. The
Achilles heel of this viewpoint is captured by the phrase "develops an
application".

The Open Source community seems to have trouble understanding that most
companies have neither the skills, the resources, nor the desire to "develop
an application".
That might be true, however Larry Ellison became a billionaire
selling database development tools that must be customized by skilled
developers by going against your very conventional wisdom.
Quote
The vast majority of businesses understand that it is
generally more cost effective to *buy* applications whenever possible.
However, since most business applications are customized database
applications they must still be developed. You buy the tool off the
shelf but the application has to be coded.
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

"Hilton Evans" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
However, since most business applications are customized database
applications they must still be developed.
Let's take a typical business application -- payroll for example.
You can certainly build your own if you want. Most choose to buy a solution
because it's faster and cheaper. With Windows, you have lots of options
that range from QuickBooks to PeopleSoft. You can rest assured that
whatever you choose will probably install and run just fine on your Windows
desktop.
This is how a business user defines *choice*. Linux fans seem to think that
choosing a widget set is more important.
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

On 10/04/03 05:18 +0900, JQP wrote:
Quote
"Hilton Evans" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>His/her implies an individual and user implies that the
>individual and his/her are the same.

Don't go "Bill Clinton" on me<g>. "User" can be either an individual or a
company.
I would certainly disagree with that stand. "User" is Joe Average
and Suzy Creamcheese. IT guys rolling out products to corporate
desktops are NOT users. If you'd ever had to work in IT and/or
man a corporate internal help line, you'd know exactly why I say
this.
Quote
>Fine. However, if an organization selects the Linux distro and
>the desktop environment, e.g. KDE and develops an application
>for its business needs to run in that environment then its a desktop
>application in my mind.

It could be.
If it runs outside the server room, it's a desktop application.
Quote
You've just iterated a typical Open Source stance toward the desktop. The
Achilles heel of this viewpoint is captured by the phrase "develops an
application".
How so? And how is open source germane to the topic, anyway?
Quote
The Open Source community seems to have trouble understanding that most
companies have neither the skills, the resources, nor the desire to "develop
an application". The vast majority of businesses understand that it is
I don't think the community has trouble understanding this at
all. The community creates software for which it sees a need,
nothing more, nothing less. Companies are free to choose
open-source software if it suits their needs; otherwise, they can
build their own or purchase a suitable product from a commercial
supplier. If a suitable product is not available for that
company, for whatever reason, then the company is to blame for
not installing a suitable OS for their appointed tasks. This is
as true for Linux as it is ANY operating system. It is incumbent
upon the IT people to choose the right tools for the job.
Quote
generally more cost effective to *buy* applications whenever possible. In
this latter scenario, *compatibility* is a highly desirable feature; one
which Open Source seems to largely discount and ignore.
Oh, bollocks. FUD, FUD, FUD.
The funny thing about all this is that I keep seeing developers
whining about distro 'X' not being supported or that Kylix hasn't
been upgraded to handle version x.y.z, which was released this
afternoon. That's more a problem for the developer who wants to
use the latest whizbang features and kernels. The VAST MAJORITY
of companies -- even those using Linux -- run very stable, i.e.,
slow, upgrade cycles. Most large-scale corporations, with a 1,000
seats or more, settle on a single hardware/software platform for
most of the users. And those systems are generally NOT upgraded
for the lifetime of the system. That lifetime for many companies
is ~3 years. And when a software platform is upgraded, all
vendors are given a chance to ensure that their products will
function properly on the new platform.
These upgrade rollouts take a long time to plan, test and
distribute to each desktop. Sure, a company that is in the
process of rolling out an up-to-date distribution can cause a
vendor grief due to libs requirements, but it /is/ possible to
ensure backward compatibility on Linux. If you're going to play
the vendor game, be prepared to face the usual vendor issues. It
is that simple.
I suspect that many companies out there that are already
established Linux houses will stick with a specific distribution
for a long time. The longer you can be productive on a single
platform rollout, the better your ROI and the lower your TCO.
Companies aren't stupid. At least not the ones that manage to
stay in business for the first 10 years of operation.
If you're a vendor who has got a contract for a product, consider
the following points:
* Establish the user execution environment in the URS
* Ensure your choice of programming tools enables you to target
that environment
* Ensure that any required libs upgrades at the user site is
supported by IT
I'm not saying that Kylix itself doesn't have problems -- they're
well known and have been so for years already. That said, it's up
to the developer/shop to ensure that the tools used support the
target platform. And if one comes into the Linux world with
Pascal-only skills and find oneself in a position where one must
support an insupportable platform, he/she shouldn't have bid on
the job in the first place. Kylix is the right tool for some
jobs, but not the right tool for all of them.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant. :-)
trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks XXXX@XXXXX.COM Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
// mp3.com/trane_francks/
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

"Jeff Undercash" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
Get rid of CLX and the QT library. Replace with true port of VCL.
Make Kylix and Delphi compatible. We should make a QC issue for this
and all vote on it. I curious what others thoughts are on this. It
seems until the above has been accomplished how can the marketability
of Kylix be truly assessed?
I do not think that the QT is one of the huge showstoppers, and IMO it does
not need dramatic changes in Kylix. IMO Borland should just maintain Kylix
and try to solve the more serious problems. Linux has not really reached
the Desktop, yet, but IMO this will change over time. The problem is, that
Borland will loose if it ignores Kylix now, because later it will be
extremely difficult to start again because of the lack of trust.
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

pNichols < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
JQP wrote:

>"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
>news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>>We all know that you are right JQP, no one uses Linux. That is why
>>MS
>itself
>>considers Linux enemy number one. You always fight the non
>>competitioon hard do you not?
>
>Check the subject line of this thread. The success of Kylix speaks
>for itself.
Kylix is NOT lInux, JQP. The problem Kylix has is three-fold:

(1) Extremely few Unix programmers use Pascal.
Propably. But people who want to develop applications for Linux and
Windows and come from Delphi do.
Quote
(2) Kylix has never been heavily supported by Borland
Yes, unfortunately.
Quote
(3) Kylix has had far too many bugs in it and Borland has not kept up
with the new glibs.

Again, most Unix programmers use C/C++, Perl, and Java for
development.

Kylix C++ Builder had a good chance, but it is WAY too buggy for any
serious work.
Hmm, true. At the other hand, if I wanted to completely rewrite existing
Windows apps (written in Delphi) I could also use one of the many C-
development tools. Why should I choose Borland's then?
Quote
But since no one uses Linux (as you assert), then MS should not be
allocating millions of dollars and personnel to fight Linux as they
do. Seems like a waste of time and resources on MS' part.
<g>
AFAIK many people use Linux. It's just not seen so often at the desktop,
yet.
In my exp. the typical sceanario is:
1. Replace Windows-Servers with Linux servers. Desktops still run under
Windows.
2. The servers run a few X-apps which are used by X-terminal software
under Windows.
3. And then the desktops might be replaced.
IMO it's very unlikely that companies switch from Windows at the desktop
to Linux from one day to the other. This is often just too difficult. I
expect a slow migration in many cases.
Quote
Perhaps you should write Microsft and inform that they should not be
fighting a phantom ghost <G>.
<g>
 

Re:Re: How increase Kylix sales

Quote
>
>(1) Extremely few Unix programmers use Pascal.


Propably. But people who want to develop applications for Linux and
Windows and come from Delphi do.


>(2) Kylix has never been heavily supported by Borland


Yes, unfortunately.


>(3) Kylix has had far too many bugs in it and Borland has not kept up
>with the new glibs.
>
>Again, most Unix programmers use C/C++, Perl, and Java for
>development.
>
>Kylix C++ Builder had a good chance, but it is WAY too buggy for any
>serious work.


Hmm, true. At the other hand, if I wanted to completely rewrite existing
Windows apps (written in Delphi) I could also use one of the many C-
development tools. Why should I choose Borland's then?


>But since no one uses Linux (as you assert), then MS should not be
>allocating millions of dollars and personnel to fight Linux as they
>do. Seems like a waste of time and resources on MS' part.

So if Borland would fix the years old bugs (3) the guys from (1) /Delphi
and other Windows programmers/ could start working on Linux
finally and create stable applications there instead of fighting and
circumventing daily found bugs in the current Kylix releases.
And then (2) would not be an issue either.