Board index » kylix » Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant


2003-07-12 05:06:30 PM
kylix2
JQP wrote:
Quote

Or maybe it's just that all the Linux vendors have little or no concern for
..
Commercial software ... we don't need no stinkin' commercial software.


This type of statement is a perfect example of FUD, often
unintentional repetition of Microsoft FUD specialists or intentional
to express hate for everything related to Kylix and Linux. It is
probably said to evoke laughter, except that it is not funny. ;(
For the statement to have a merit, the Linux community could just
simply prohibit any commercial software to link to libraries and or
use any of the hundreds of system applications by the commercial
programs. As a matter of fact the license of Linux was specifically
modified to allow all kinds of commercial software to use GPL'd
resource of the operating system, link to LGPL'ed shared objects and
use freely many of the subprograms what make the Linux system work.
Now, why the "we don't need no stinkin' commercial software"
uninformed stamens sounds to me really ridiculous? Mandrake 9.1 Linux
distribution ships with countless application of different type and
shape, with different licenses, and many of the applications are 100
percent commercial proprietary applications, if they are so against
commercial development as you suggest, then why they take the effort
and expenses to provide to the and-user a number of commercial close
source products?
Well, look on your CD's which comes with your favorite distribution
there are many purely commercial application well to be on a subject,
for example the is Intel's compiler version 7 which incidentally is
capable of compiling GCC style C++ /C source code therefore it is
possible to use it to recompile existing Linux applications with this
commercial compiler, and yes there is a Kylix 3 trial, regrettably as
it is in the current form it is not much of a trail... Unfortunately,
Linux developers cannot modify the Kylix 3 archive and/or binaries to
make the product work, as they did to hundreds of open source
applications, the changes to Kylix has to be performed only by Borland
people, because only they can.
juliusz
--
InstallMade - Kylix-specific installer/builder
www.superobject.com/installmade/
Packages: tar.gz, self-installable, RPM, LCR,
and creates standalone executables.
 
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

In article <3f0f888c$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Kevin says...
Hi,
Quote
>A very strictly controlled environment indeed. They have defined 'their'
>Linux as SuSE 7.2, end of story.

And that's generally how enterprises operate.
This is certainly how it is in local/national government departments
that I have worked for, its SuSE 7.2 or nothing. Any Linux system has
to be 'certified' for SuSE 7.2, just like any Windows based system has
to be certified for NT SP6a.
I would be a support nightmare if all the linux machines were running
different distros, or different versions of the same distro , just as it
would if all the Windows machines were running different versions
(95/98/ME/2000/XP), and different service packs for the same version.
Phil
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

Kevin wrote:
Quote
Ender wrote:

>And this is one of negative reasons why particular developer should use
>something more universal than kylix.


I should add that I don't expect Kylix to stay that way. I'm sure
Borland is working to bring out a more general-purpose Kylix for 4.0.

Why is that I disagree with your conclusions and the same time I would
love to be wrong?
In my opinion, the reality of the situation is that Borland will not
make any new Kylix at least not this year, and only if something
dramatically will change in the company administrative structure. :-(
There are plenty of indications that Linux and Kylix was placed on
the back burner or perhaps killed. Just look at the Borland developer
network site bdn.borland.com/ there is no any new technical
articles related to Kylix or Linux since the and of the 2002, and
gradually was removed from the Borland developer site the Linux
section and recently the Kylix section it was Delphi/Kylix now we have
Delphi and the indicated support for Kylix never materialized .. It
doesn't seems to me like a way to promote an existing or future
version of the product.
juliusz
--
InstallMade - Kylix-specific installer/builder
www.superobject.com/installmade/
Packages: tar.gz, self-installable, RPM, LCR,
and creates standalone executables.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

Quote
"Ender" wrote
>And this is one of negative reasons why particular developer should use
>something more universal than kylix.
Kristofer Skaug wrote:
Is it really the QT that's responsible for this?
Or is there some other design limitation of Kylix that makes it so
"unflexible"?
There is no "design limitations", there is only "implementation
limitations". For example they way how Qt is linked with Kylix apps. Or
strategy of Borland about new distros support and patches.
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Kristofer Skaug says...
Hi,
Quote
>This is certainly how it is in local/national government departments
>that I have worked for, its SuSE 7.2 or nothing.

How did SuSE 7.2 achieve this special standing?
Timing. A lot of companies 'took the plunge' with Linux around the time
SuSE 7.2 was out, so that was what they went with. Certainly in Europe,
SuSE is by far the most popular distro, but most of our US clients are
running Redhat, which seems to be more popular 'over there'.
Quote
>I would be a support nightmare if all the linux machines were running
>different distros, or different versions of the same distro , just as it
>would if all the Windows machines were running different versions
>,and different service packs for the same version.

I've only rarely stumbled over [Windows] version-specific issues.
Same here.
Quote
Admittedly, the environments I deploy to are fairly well controlled
but it's still my impression that Windows has less of an interoperability
problem than Linux.
It does, but when you are deploying to a controlled environment you
normally have a single, known, version to deal with, and its the same
for Linux.
Of course this experience is for custom written, corporate and
enterprise systems, the situation for 'off the shelf' products,
including Kylix, is a lot different.
Phil
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

"Phil Shrimpton" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I would be a support nightmare if all the linux machines were running
different distros, or different versions of the same distro , just as it
would if all the Windows machines were running different versions
(95/98/ME/2000/XP), and different service packs for the same version.
We have Windows software running under all of the above. We have boxes
running each of these (except ME) and are available for testing.
Compatibility issues are rare.
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

In article <3f1007ae$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, JQP says...
Hi,
Quote
>I would be a support nightmare if all the linux machines were running
>different distros, or different versions of the same distro , just as it
>would if all the Windows machines were running different versions
>(95/98/ME/2000/XP), and different service packs for the same version.

We have Windows software running under all of the above.
I meant supporting the 'boxes' not the software.
Phil
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

"Kristofer Skaug" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Or maybe it's just that Kylix (and its output) is
less-than-normal robust w.r.t to distro differences?
Or maybe it's just that all the Linux vendors have little or no concern for
binary compatibility; even among different versions of the came distro, and
don't waste much time on compatibility testing. If any issues pop up, the
user can patch and re-compile. After all, any decent Linux app is open
source including gcc so they have everything they need.
Commercial software ... we don't need no stinkin' commercial software.
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

"Andrew Walsh" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
And does anybody at Borland really expect to make a penney
going head to head against microsoft with another C# IDE?
You just have to question the corporate priorities.
Does anybody expect to make money in an Open Source environment;
particularly with a desktop product? You just have to question people's
judgment.
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

In article <3f1014bb$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, JQP says...
Hi,
Quote
>I meant supporting the 'boxes' not the software.

Ok, sorry.

Many smaller companies operate just fine with a mixed Windows environment.
Obviously, larger ones tend to be more homogenous.
And it is these companies where the 'multiple distro' and 'binary only'
issues are non-issues, as there tend to be hundreds, if not thousands,
of users with the same setup (email, word processor, browser and a
'custom app' or two). It is also these companies where Linux is seeing
growth. Smaller companies tend to have different requirements and
software needs 'per user', which makes it difficult to have a 'common
desktop', it is these companies where Linux growth is not really
happening on the desktop.
Phil
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

JQP wrote:
Quote
Commercial software ... we don't need no stinkin' commercial software.
Then you want mine if LINUX will never win the Desktop platform war
and Windows will roule for the next centoury or so?
regards
johnnie.
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

juliusz wrote:
Quote
JQP wrote:

>
>Or maybe it's just that all the Linux vendors have little or no
>concern for
>..
>Commercial software ... we don't need no stinkin' commercial software.
>
>

This type of statement is a perfect example of FUD, often unintentional
repetition of Microsoft FUD specialists or intentional to express hate
for everything related to Kylix and Linux. It is probably said to evoke
laughter, except that it is not funny. ;(
JQP and Alesandro Fredericci are known to *hate* anything that is not
directly related with Windows and MS. Things that they say makes no
sense sometimes, it just pure hate of not being MS or Windows.
Rosimildo.
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

"juliusz" wrote
Quote

This type of statement is a perfect example of FUD, often
unintentional repetition of Microsoft FUD specialists or intentional
to express hate for everything related to Kylix and Linux.
I didn't hear anyone say they hated Linux and Kylix.
It was a criticism of the way Linux distro's are tested and put together.
Concerning backward compatability for proprietary (binary) software it must
be said that it *does* look like disregard for the interests of proprietary
software, because products *such as* Kylix have a really hard time
penetrating well in such an environment.
Of course you may criticize Borland for not complying with "the Linux way"
of doing things, i.e. open-sourcing Kylix. But the Delphi (Kylix) compiler
is simply a too valuable core part of their intellectual property to open
up.
So I think this is really a problem of two worlds that just do not mix well.
Kristofer
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

Kristofer Skaug wrote:
Quote

I didn't hear anyone say they hated Linux and Kylix.
It was a criticism of the way Linux distro's are tested and put together.
I don't know what was his motivation (we cannot know what was his
motivation) of implying that "all Linux vendors have little or no
concern for ( commercial software) and theirs (Linux vendors )
attitudes are: “Commercial software .. we don't need no stinkin'
commercial software."
It doesn't matter much what was alleged, it doesn't matter because it
is simple FUD, without a merit. I just assumed, that it is a bad joke.
All the above statements surely looks to me as Cut and Paste from a
"Hate & FUD anti-Linux manual". It cannot be a criticism because it is
simple FUD not facts, a constructive criticism is based on facts.
As a matter of fact majority, if not all, Linux distro makers creates
a special conditions to accommodate and welcome any commercial product
for Linux..
A statement, of sort, that "because of the way Linux distro's are
tested and put together" is also a FUD statement without a basis
altogether. The process of creating Linux distribution is completely
open and transparent, even a commercial developers can participate in
the process (what is often happening).
Any commercial product can be develop and tested on all stages of the
distro making and it is not necessarily to be "open sourced".
Hundreds of open source projects without almost no resources can
follow the development of the new version of distribution and if they
want theirs product to be included in the final release then its
theirs responsibility to modify and test theirs software on all betas
of the distro and finally the application is included on the CD for a
final release. The same rules applies to a commercial products.
Some Linux distributions like Mandrake for example created a special
program for any commercial product to be included on the commercial CD
which is distributed with boxed version of the product as well
available on hundreds of mirrors ready for download. Why they would do
this if theirs attitude was as alleged: "Commercial software ... we
don't need no stinkin' commercial software." ?
Quote
Of course you may criticize Borland for not complying with "the Linux way"
of doing things, i.e. open-sourcing Kylix.
I would not criticize blindly Borland for anything, to the contrary I
am grateful for all the hard and difficult work the R&D team have done
to make Kylix possible. And I will not criticize if they do not "open
source" Kylix (it is theirs product and they can do with it what they
think is most appropriate) I just want to know (as possibly many
others) what are the plans for Kylix and why all the normally usual
activities around Kylix (as we experienced during the lifetime of K1
and K2 ) are standstill ? This simple information, I think, Borland
owns to developers ..
juliusz
--
InstallMade - Kylix-specific installer/builder
www.superobject.com/installmade/
Packages: tar.gz, self-installable, RPM, LCR,
and creates standalone executables.
 

Re:Re: Bill Todd's comments in Delphi Informant

F.F < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Kdevelop seems to be evolving into C++ version of Kylix.

You have to admire the quality of work coming out of the
KDE world. The whole K-Universe is fine stuff, a great
contribution to Linux and much appreciated by us who use
their software. If you have a newer KDE based distro and
you like astonomy - check out KStars.
I don't know how much of KDE is actually german, but all
their programs ring of traditional german engineering quality,
like software BMWs.
But (ahumm) don't forget that Kylix3 does C++ too, and
you'd have to agree that KDevelop isn't near Kylix yet.
Another quality peice of work is Trolltech's QT. The Borland
Kylix team made a design choice to incorporate QT into
Kylix. And Trolltech has been generous in open-sourcing too.