Discussion:
Is there a future for Kylix? [from Borland, that is...]
(too old to reply)
Tom Emerson
2004-10-21 06:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Greetings -- it's been a while since I've posted or checked, so forgive me
if this seems a bit naive -- last I heard was that there were "no plans for
a new version in 2004". Since 2004 is "nearly over", I'm beginning to
wonder "how about 2005?"

At the local Fry's, there is one lone "upgrade" package still on the shelf.
I was reluctant to buy it last year because of the aforementioned
announcement, and I still find myself not-quite-able to actually buy it now
because of "nagging doubt". Does Borland plan on anything (significant or
otherwise) for "Kylix" in the near future?

I know it is a vicious circle/catch-22 sort of thing, but I need some
assurance that "investing" in them by buying their products is a "wise
thing to do" ;)

As such, there are other packages out there that are likely to grab my
developmet dollar: free-pascal and Gambas (Gambas in particular for the
"rad" style of development)

Tom

p.s. I would have posted in the ...upgrade group, but that group seems
rather dead -- only one "spam" post in there at the time I subscribed...
Simon Kissel
2004-10-21 17:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Emerson
At the local Fry's, there is one lone "upgrade" package still on the shelf.
I was reluctant to buy it last year because of the aforementioned
announcement, and I still find myself not-quite-able to actually buy it now
because of "nagging doubt". Does Borland plan on anything (significant or
otherwise) for "Kylix" in the near future?
There currently are no official announcements for a new Kylix version. Borland
recently has launched the Kylix Community Project, which now is pretty active
in working on Kylix' future. I'm pretty confident now that the future of the
Kylix RTL/CLX is safe. The future of the Kylix IDE is currently unknown,
however.

In case you didn't see it yet, CrossKylix is available
(http://crosskylix.untergrund.net) and is tightly integrated with the
Community Project. This gives you the choice to develop on Windows, while
also deploying to Linux.

While the Kylix newsgroups here look pretty dead, there actually is a quite
high number of users (including major corporate ones) using Kylix.

My personal opinion is: Yes, buying Kylix will be a good investment.

And obviously, the more the userbase is growing again, the brighter the
future of Kylix will look like.

Simon
Stig Johansen
2004-10-22 03:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
There currently are no official announcements for a new Kylix version.
Borland recently has launched the Kylix Community Project, which now is
pretty active in working on Kylix' future. I'm pretty confident now that
the future of the Kylix RTL/CLX is safe. The future of the Kylix IDE is
currently unknown, however.
I think it is a little unclear what is included in this project.
Do you know if there will be any improvements in the xml/soap/ws area?
- or is it in the 'Borland only' area?
--
Best regards
Stig Johansen
Simon Kissel
2004-10-22 09:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stig Johansen
I think it is a little unclear what is included in this project.
Do you know if there will be any improvements in the xml/soap/ws area?
- or is it in the 'Borland only' area?
These things still are under discussion.

My hope is that there won't be any "Borland only" areas at all. And one
of the goals is to bring CLX on par with the current Windows VCL version,
and make it as compatbile to it as possible.

Simon
Michael Schnell
2004-10-22 07:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Emerson
Borland
recently has launched the Kylix Community Project, which now is pretty active
in working on Kylix' future. I'm pretty confident now that the future of the
Kylix RTL/CLX is safe. The future of the Kylix IDE is currently unknown,
however.
What is the opinion of the Community Project regarding using .NET on
Linux ?

Borland obviously is strongly committed to make Delphi a No. 1 tool for
.Net development. _Theoretically_ .NET assemblies are cross-platform,
unless the compiler, library or application programmer intentionally
includes platform dependent (propriety) elements. So Delphi _could_ be a
No. 1 Linux development tool in the future, no matter on what OS the IDE
runs. (Sounds a bit like Cross-Kylix :-) )

What about this ?

-Michael
Simon Kissel
2004-10-22 08:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schnell
Post by Tom Emerson
Borland
recently has launched the Kylix Community Project, which now is pretty active
in working on Kylix' future. I'm pretty confident now that the future of the
Kylix RTL/CLX is safe. The future of the Kylix IDE is currently unknown,
however.
What is the opinion of the Community Project regarding using .NET on
Linux ?
As the project consists of different people with different opinions, I can't say
that ;)

I can tell you my personal opinion, though. I don't think mono will be a real
deployment option for the forseeable future. Actually, the past has shown
that Microsoft will make pretty sure Mono will never be able to catch up.

.net on Linux would become an option the day that all Linux distributions
by default ship and install a version of Mono that is more or less feature-
complete to the Windows .net Framework in its then current version. I doubt
we'll see this soon, if ever.

Simon
Marco van de Voort
2004-10-22 20:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by Michael Schnell
What is the opinion of the Community Project regarding using .NET on
Linux ?
As the project consists of different people with different opinions, I can't say
that ;)
I can tell you my personal opinion, though. I don't think mono will be a real
deployment option for the forseeable future. Actually, the past has shown
that Microsoft will make pretty sure Mono will never be able to catch up.
.net on Linux would become an option the day that all Linux distributions
by default ship and install a version of Mono that is more or less feature-
complete to the Windows .net Framework in its then current version. I doubt
we'll see this soon, if ever.
Agree. And I pretty much think that only specially crafted .NET apps will be
crossplatform. Forget a simple recompile.
Michael Schnell
2004-10-25 07:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Actually, the past has shown
that Microsoft will make pretty sure Mono will never be able to catch up.
I don't see how they can do this.

If Mono gets into the state that is supports everything that the
then-current Delphi version needs with "standard" projects (e.g. by
working together with the Delphi team), the Delphi assemblies will run
on Mono unless the application programmer intentionally decides to use
platform dependent stuff that - of course - is _offered_ by Delphi as an
additional benefit for appropriate projects.

What could MS do about this (other than threatening or bribing Borland).
Post by Simon Kissel
.net on Linux would become an option the day that all Linux distributions
by default ship and install a version of Mono that is more or less feature-
complete to the Windows .net Framework in its then current version.
Of course MS will always try to add incompatible features in their usual
way of drawing money from their faithful customers. But this can't harm
software that was developed either before doing this or with MONO
explicitly in mind.

-Michael
Arthur Hoornweg
2004-11-08 11:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
In case you didn't see it yet, CrossKylix is available
(http://crosskylix.untergrund.net) and is tightly integrated with the
Community Project. This gives you the choice to develop on Windows, while
also deploying to Linux.
This doesn't help us much if the Windows version of Delphi
no longer contains CLX.
--
Arthur Hoornweg
(please remove the ".net" from my e-mail address.
I had to take this measure to counteract SPAM
flooding my mail box)
Ivan Cruz
2004-10-21 15:59:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Emerson
Does Borland plan on anything (significant or
otherwise) for "Kylix" in the near future?
A big NO here (im my opinion, of course). Not near neither distant.
Post by Tom Emerson
I know it is a vicious circle/catch-22 sort of thing, but I need some
assurance that "investing" in them by buying their products is a "wise
thing to do" ;)
The best way to be sure is go free software. Company administrators
report to shareholders, not users. You must never depends on a
company for medium and long terms.
Post by Tom Emerson
As such, there are other packages out there that are likely to grab my
developmet dollar: free-pascal and Gambas (Gambas in particular for the
"rad" style of development)
Personaly I'm going Java for end-user applications and going back
to C for low level stuff.

Ivan.
Simon Kissel
2004-10-21 17:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ivan Cruz
Post by Tom Emerson
Does Borland plan on anything (significant or
otherwise) for "Kylix" in the near future?
A big NO here (im my opinion, of course). Not near neither distant.
So what are several Borland employees doing in the Community project
then? ;)
Post by Ivan Cruz
Post by Tom Emerson
I know it is a vicious circle/catch-22 sort of thing, but I need some
assurance that "investing" in them by buying their products is a "wise
thing to do" ;)
The best way to be sure is go free software.
Might be. Problem is: There is no free software comparable to Kylix.
Post by Ivan Cruz
Personaly I'm going Java for end-user applications and going back
to C for low level stuff.
..which you are saying yourself here.

Simon
Ivan Cruz
2004-10-21 16:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by Ivan Cruz
Post by Tom Emerson
Does Borland plan on anything (significant or
otherwise) for "Kylix" in the near future?
A big NO here (im my opinion, of course). Not near neither distant.
So what are several Borland employees doing in the Community project
then? ;)
Simon, your dedication, commitment, patience and code skils amazes me.
CrossKylix is a great achievment and you must be proud of it. I envy
you, realy. But you is a man alone and, without a clear sign from
Borland, I have no other option than declare Kylix prety dead. I even
believe the Community project anouncement is just a way to stop
complainers, make them cry softly. Looks the strategy works.
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by Ivan Cruz
Post by Tom Emerson
I know it is a vicious circle/catch-22 sort of thing, but I need some
assurance that "investing" in them by buying their products is a "wise
thing to do" ;)
The best way to be sure is go free software.
Might be. Problem is: There is no free software comparable to Kylix.
Most the software I write nowadays are "for the web" and RAD does
not have a so huge advantage in that segment. I'm plaing with
Eclipse 3 on my scarse spare time and it looks promissing.
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by Ivan Cruz
Personaly I'm going Java for end-user applications and going back
to C for low level stuff.
..which you are saying yourself here.
Simon
Ivan.
Simon Kissel
2004-10-21 18:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Ivan,
Post by Ivan Cruz
you, realy. But you is a man alone and, without a clear sign from
Borland, I have no other option than declare Kylix prety dead. I even
believe the Community project anouncement is just a way to stop
complainers, make them cry softly. Looks the strategy works.
Well, my impression is different. The Borlanders that are part of the
Community Project are pretty active there (I'm part of the project,
too). Also, there aren't many complainers left - those seem to have
abondoned Kylix already. If Borland didn't care, they could just
silently drop Kylix.

I think the reality looks more like that the Development Team currently
has more important things to do (Delphi 2005), and it's not clear
when they'll again have resources for low-priority Kylix. The Community
Project more looks like an attempt to keep Kylix alive so they have the
chance to possibly later get back to it.
Post by Ivan Cruz
Post by Simon Kissel
Might be. Problem is: There is no free software comparable to Kylix.
Most the software I write nowadays are "for the web" and RAD does
not have a so huge advantage in that segment. I'm plaing with
Eclipse 3 on my scarse spare time and it looks promissing.
Well, yes, if you don't need Kylix, then you don't need Kylix ;)

Simon
Marian Krivos
2004-10-21 20:26:34 UTC
Permalink
I agree with you Simon completely.

Marian
Post by Simon Kissel
I think the reality looks more like that the Development Team currently
has more important things to do (Delphi 2005), and it's not clear
when they'll again have resources for low-priority Kylix. The Community
Project more looks like an attempt to keep Kylix alive so they have the
chance to possibly later get back to it.
Micha Schumann
2004-10-22 00:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Ivan,
Post by Ivan Cruz
you, realy. But you is a man alone and, without a clear sign from
Borland, I have no other option than declare Kylix prety dead. I even
believe the Community project anouncement is just a way to stop
complainers, make them cry softly. Looks the strategy works.
Well, my impression is different. The Borlanders that are part of the
Community Project are pretty active there (I'm part of the project,
too). Also, there aren't many complainers left - those seem to have
abondoned Kylix already. If Borland didn't care, they could just
silently drop Kylix.
I think the reality looks more like that the Development Team currently
has more important things to do (Delphi 2005), and it's not clear
when they'll again have resources for low-priority Kylix. The Community
Project more looks like an attempt to keep Kylix alive so they have the
chance to possibly later get back to it.
Post by Ivan Cruz
Post by Simon Kissel
Might be. Problem is: There is no free software comparable to Kylix.
Most the software I write nowadays are "for the web" and RAD does
not have a so huge advantage in that segment. I'm plaing with
Eclipse 3 on my scarse spare time and it looks promissing.
Well, yes, if you don't need Kylix, then you don't need Kylix ;)
Simon
Hi Simon,

first of all once again my general feedback on CrossKylix - Its the
greatest piece of software I installed for quite a time!

I am quite new to Linux and QT and managed to write my first
daemon/service crossplatform compiling from of the same code quite
quickly with CrossKylix. I love it!

But I also often think: Shouldn't I better use Java?

My question: How big is the chance that a Kylix 3 application will not
run on Linux with a future Kernel? The problems with kernel 2.6 could be
solved (by you!) - will this likely be the case with 2.8 and 3.0?

What is your personal opinion?

I hope Kylix will survive for the next 10 years!

Micha
Simon Kissel
2004-10-22 08:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Micha Schumann
first of all once again my general feedback on CrossKylix - Its the
greatest piece of software I installed for quite a time!
Thanks :)
Post by Micha Schumann
But I also often think: Shouldn't I better use Java?
There are lot of areas, where Java is a pretty bad choice. If you are
doing high-performance server applications, Kylix-built applications
will perform and scale MUCH better. And if you are doing GUI applications,
your users are expecting a native-looking UI.
Post by Micha Schumann
My question: How big is the chance that a Kylix 3 application will not
run on Linux with a future Kernel? The problems with kernel 2.6 could be
solved (by you!) - will this likely be the case with 2.8 and 3.0?
I need to clarify this: There never was a problem with the Kernel 2.6
kernel and Kylix-built applications. The problem was exec-shield, which
was integrated into the 2.6.8 kernel shipped by the Fedora project.

The Kylix rtl does not do direct Kernel calls, so it should never be
really affected by new kernel versions. The Kylix rtl binds against glibc.
Theoretically new glibc versions in future could introduce issues, but
as we have the source to Libc.pas, this is not really a problem.

Besides this, personally I hope to see a Kylix compiler update sooner
or later.
Post by Micha Schumann
I hope Kylix will survive for the next 10 years!
Me too!

Simon
Stig Johansen
2004-10-22 17:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Theoretically new glibc versions in future could introduce issues, but
as we have the source to Libc.pas, this is not really a problem.
I don't agree here, try:
ldd -r libxercesxsldom.so.1
(deployment issue on newer glibc's)
Post by Simon Kissel
Besides this, personally I hope to see a Kylix compiler update sooner
or later.
Post by Micha Schumann
I hope Kylix will survive for the next 10 years!
Me too!
Me third.
--
Best regards
Stig Johansen
Ender
2004-10-22 07:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
So what are several Borland employees doing in the Community project
then? ;)
We don't know. Currently nothing significant was done.
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by Ivan Cruz
Post by Tom Emerson
I know it is a vicious circle/catch-22 sort of thing, but I need
some assurance that "investing" in them by buying their products
is a "wise thing to do" ;)
The best way to be sure is go free software.
Might be. Problem is: There is no free software comparable to Kylix.
It depends from point of view. :-)
Michael Swindell (Borland)
2004-10-23 00:27:13 UTC
Permalink
The community project is definitely active, they have already made a lot of
progress, and there are a lot of code and fixes in the works to integrate
into a CLX update. But I have to confess that there would be faster progress
if they weren't waiting on a few logistical things on the Borland side from
me. At the moment we're working night and day and weekends to finish Delphi
2005. There is a blocking Kylix Community Project detail that I have an
action item for, that will involve myself and several Delphi team members to
resolve. I believe that is slowing some progress at the moment. The team
members have been understanding and patient, which I very much appreciate,
and I promise to get it resolved as soon as possible. -m
Post by Ender
Post by Simon Kissel
So what are several Borland employees doing in the Community project
then? ;)
We don't know. Currently nothing significant was done.
Ender
2004-10-23 09:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Swindell (Borland)
The community project is definitely active, they have already made a
lot of progress,
What progress? Few lines illustrating a progress welcome.
Post by Michael Swindell (Borland)
and there are a lot of code and fixes in the works
to integrate into a CLX update. But I have to confess that there
would be faster progress if they weren't waiting on a few logistical
things on the Borland side from me. At the moment we're working night
and day and weekends to finish Delphi 2005. There is a blocking Kylix
Community Project detail that I have an action item for, that will
involve myself and several Delphi team members to resolve. I believe
that is slowing some progress at the moment. The team members have
been understanding and patient, which I very much appreciate, and I
promise to get it resolved as soon as possible.
It is interesting what they fixing? I browsed list of bugs listed at
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=22417&atid=375214

Few notices:
- almost all of them very old, dated by 2001 year, most likely was
posted for Kylix 1.
- almost all of them not assigned to anyone
- almost all of them not fixed
- no DataCLX bugreports
- no reports from QualityCentral

What version of Kylix will be used for building FreeCLX? Kylix 3
Enterprise or Kylix * Open Edition? Yes i'm expecting K3E or, at least
K3Prof as base.

As Borlanders participate in the project will be there IDE, compiler
and dbExpress fixes? How about replacing help system from Bristol
Technology, it is just too slow and buggy.

Additonally "You can become a member of the development team by
invitation only" statement. Hm-m-m-m, closed doors again. How this
related to words "Free", "Open"? One "closed community of choosen
developers" which include very busy Borlanders, instead of other
"closed community of Borland developers" which always very busy.

Isn't we (i mean all Kylix community) running into same situation just
under different title? After Delphi 2005 there will be deffinitely wave
of bugreports about D2005, there will be deffinitely other money
bringing tasks and more important that poor Kylix.
Willi Krenn
2004-10-23 10:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
It is interesting what they fixing?
AFAIK they are incorporating the unofficial CLX patches. (Or at least
some of the patches Andreas created.)

Unfortunately the 'commuity' project doesn't have a public forum, so
it's really 'closed-source': I mean the regulars here from b.p.k.n
should be able to at least see what is being discussed. After all *we*
are the community and noone else. (Plus: There are not a lot of people
posting here, are there?)

Willi
Andreas Hausladen
2004-10-23 10:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
- almost all of them not assigned to anyone
- almost all of them not fixed
We do not use them (no more details by me).
Post by Ender
- no reports from QualityCentral
What about the unofficial VisualCLX patches. Many of them will go into
FreeCLX. Here (http://unvclx.sf.net/fixedbugs.html) is a list of fixed QC
items.
Post by Ender
What version of Kylix will be used for building FreeCLX? Kylix 3
Enterprise or Kylix * Open Edition? Yes i'm expecting K3E or, at least
K3Prof as base.
It is the K3OE code base.
Post by Ender
Additonally "You can become a member of the development team by
invitation only" statement. Hm-m-m-m, closed doors again. How this
related to words "Free", "Open"? One "closed community of choosen
developers" which include very busy Borlanders, instead of other
"closed community of Borland developers" which always very busy.
I'm not a (busy) Borlander. And maybe when all open questions are answered
we meight lift the "invitiation only". Too many cooks spoil the broth.
And I think in the initial phase it is better having a more closed project
than discussing every single issue with the whole world. It is the same as
with every open source project. First someone has an idea. And then either
he starts writing the code and publishes it in an almost stable state, or
he finds others who's ideas are the same and they start discussions when
they are 2 to 10 members. The advantage is that nobody knows the open
source project and so the number of initial members is very low.
Now take an older project where lots of people are interested in. When you
develop it completely open you have about 100 and more developers. And now
try to discuss anything.
--
Regards,

Andreas Hausladen
Ender
2004-10-23 14:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Hausladen
We do not use them (no more details by me).
So why they blinking on the page? It is plain misinformation.
Post by Andreas Hausladen
Post by Ender
- no reports from QualityCentral
What about the unofficial VisualCLX patches. Many of them will go into
FreeCLX. Here (http://unvclx.sf.net/fixedbugs.html) is a list of
fixed QC items.
Yes. It is deffinitely good work, but a little bit "one sided". I see
it is exactly VisualCLX patches. No DataCLX at all, while database
connectivity is thing that make Kylix very important and major player
in linux development world... err... it should make...
Post by Andreas Hausladen
It is the K3OE code base.
So this mean - no progress for Professional or Enterprise users, in
parts that don't included in K3OE. Was this question discussed with
Borlanders? What they think about their loyal customers, ones who paid
money to them.
Post by Andreas Hausladen
Post by Ender
Additonally "You can become a member of the development team by
invitation only" statement. Hm-m-m-m, closed doors again. How this
related to words "Free", "Open"? One "closed community of choosen
developers" which include very busy Borlanders, instead of other
"closed community of Borland developers" which always very busy.
I'm not a (busy) Borlander.
But as M.Swindell said currently they slow down entrie process. What
makes you think that things going to change?
Post by Andreas Hausladen
And maybe when all open questions are
answered we meight lift the "invitiation only". Too many cooks spoil
the broth. And I think in the initial phase it is better having a
more closed project than discussing every single issue with the whole
world. It is the same as with every open source project. First
someone has an idea. And then either he starts writing the code and
publishes it in an almost stable state, or he finds others who's
ideas are the same and they start discussions when they are 2 to 10
members. The advantage is that nobody knows the open source project
and so the number of initial members is very low. Now take an older
project where lots of people are interested in. When you develop it
completely open you have about 100 and more developers. And now try
to discuss anything.
Understood. But i'm not sure if bug need discussions. It should be
eliminated and that is main target of entrie project. At least now.
Andreas Hausladen
2004-10-23 16:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
So why they blinking on the page? It is plain misinformation.
Because nobody has deleted them, yet. And maybe we have a look at them
some time later.
Post by Ender
Yes. It is deffinitely good work, but a little bit "one sided". I see
it is exactly VisualCLX patches. No DataCLX at all, while database
connectivity is thing that make Kylix very important and major player
in linux development world... err... it should make...
I do not use DataCLX very often, and my last activity in this sector was
three or four years ago. The problem is that I cannot fix anything I do
not understood or I have not the source code (dbExpress drivers).
Post by Ender
But i'm not sure if bug need discussions.
There are other things that must be discussed.
--
Regards,

Andreas Hausladen
Michael Swindell (Borland)
2004-10-23 23:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
Post by Andreas Hausladen
I'm not a (busy) Borlander.
But as M.Swindell said currently they slow down entrie process. What
makes you think that things going to change?
It's not inherently Borland that's slowing anything down nor should our
participation or Borland "busy" schedules slow things in the future once we
have all of the licensing in place. I'm just saying that there is a
logistics item that I own, that I cannot finish at the moment. The community
team is still working on fixes and enhancements, and making progress. Once I
get this item completed, the team can let open the flood gates of their work
into the official library. They also won't be waiting on things from me.

I just didn't want people to think that the community project team wasn't
doing anything... they definitely are - and Kylix/CLX developers are going
to benefit very much from their effort.

-m
JED
2004-10-25 00:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Swindell (Borland)
I just didn't want people to think that the community project team
wasn't doing anything... they definitely are - and Kylix/CLX
developers are going to benefit very much from their effort.
What I'd personally like to see is definitive installation instructions
on various linux flavours that are current. Or the most current
version Kylix can be installed on.

I have a desktop that's been lying around for over a year now and was
thinking it'd be a nice box to throw Kylix on and see how it goes.
Heck I might even be able to do a CLX port of my QC frontend.

The thing that stops me from installing a linux distribution and kylix
is all the messing around with installations.
--
Alpha 3.1 - Released October 13, 2004

JED, QC - Win32 Client for QualityCentral:
http://www.alphalink.com.au/~jed/QC/
JED, QC Blog: http://jedqc.blogspot.com/
Simon Kissel
2004-10-25 17:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by JED
What I'd personally like to see is definitive installation instructions
on various linux flavours that are current. Or the most current
version Kylix can be installed on.
I have a desktop that's been lying around for over a year now and was
thinking it'd be a nice box to throw Kylix on and see how it goes.
Heck I might even be able to do a CLX port of my QC frontend.
The thing that stops me from installing a linux distribution and kylix
is all the messing around with installations.
You may use any Linux distribution listed as supported on the Kylix
homepage. This includes Suse 7.3 and Red hat 7.3. Using Andreas'
patch suite from
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=106820&package_id=116033
Suse 9.0 and Red Hat 9.0 will also work just fine.

You may download ISOs of Red Hat 9.0 at
http://www.linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=7

Alternatively, you may install any Linux distro you want, and just use
CrossKylix (http://crosskylix.untergrund.net) to compile to Linux inside
your Delphi IDE.

Simon
Simon Kissel
2004-10-23 17:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
Post by Michael Swindell (Borland)
The community project is definitely active, they have already made a
lot of progress,
What progress? Few lines illustrating a progress welcome.
Progress on planning which steps we should take to bring up Kylix to new
live. It's too early to report on details.
Post by Ender
It is interesting what they fixing? I browsed list of bugs listed at
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=22417&atid=375214
This is the tracker of the old FreeCLX project of K1. It's not used or
monitored by us right now.
Post by Ender
As Borlanders participate in the project will be there IDE, compiler
and dbExpress fixes? How about replacing help system from Bristol
Technology, it is just too slow and buggy.
This is pretty much the same questions as "will there be a Kylix 4",
and there is no answer yet.
Post by Ender
Additonally "You can become a member of the development team by
invitation only" statement. Hm-m-m-m, closed doors again. How this
related to words "Free", "Open"? One "closed community of choosen
developers" which include very busy Borlanders, instead of other
"closed community of Borland developers" which always very busy.
It's quite simple: The people who are known to be actively supporting
Kylix right now have been contacted. Also if there are other people
willing to invest their time into the project, I'm pretty sure they'll
be invited in. We just don't need any "I demand this and that"-kind of
guys (which honestly you sound a bit like ;) at this stage.
Post by Ender
Isn't we (i mean all Kylix community) running into same situation just
under different title? After Delphi 2005 there will be deffinitely wave
of bugreports about D2005, there will be deffinitely other money
bringing tasks and more important that poor Kylix.
Might be. The situation is this: Kylix wasn't the success Borland wanted
it to be. There now is a group of motivated people who are helping
a bit to get a second Chance for Kylix at Borland. This is the best you'll
get. If that's not enough for you, quit Kylix.

Simon
Ender
2004-10-24 02:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by Ender
As Borlanders participate in the project will be there IDE, compiler
and dbExpress fixes? How about replacing help system from Bristol
Technology, it is just too slow and buggy.
This is pretty much the same questions as "will there be a Kylix 4",
and there is no answer yet.
But then what Borlanders do in the FreeCLX project? Provide spiritual
guidance? When users have CLX code, they may fix everything themseves.
Of course everyone want some centralized way to submit and download
fixes, it is much better to fight with the bugs alone.
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by Ender
Additonally "You can become a member of the development team by
invitation only" statement. Hm-m-m-m, closed doors again. How this
related to words "Free", "Open"? One "closed community of choosen
developers" which include very busy Borlanders, instead of other
"closed community of Borland developers" which always very busy.
It's quite simple: The people who are known to be actively supporting
Kylix right now have been contacted. Also if there are other people
willing to invest their time into the project, I'm pretty sure they'll
be invited in. We just don't need any "I demand this and that"-kind of
guys (which honestly you sound a bit like ;) at this stage.
H-m-m-m... yes it may sound... JK said "vote for Kylix with your money"
and i'm voted, JK said "vote for Kylix with QC bugreports" and about 40
of 240 reports in QC belong to me. Now i want to get something in
return.
Post by Simon Kissel
Might be. The situation is this: Kylix wasn't the success Borland
wanted it to be. There now is a group of motivated people who are
helping a bit to get a second Chance for Kylix at Borland. This is
the best you'll get. If that's not enough for you, quit Kylix.
From one hand i already quit. Before project was started. No any new
projects will be done with Kylix by me. Pure C++/Qt/GCC/OCL. And this
combination work far more productively than Kylix now. Additionally
Borland bring discredit on themselves in eyes of my bosses, so they
most likely never commit to buy anything from Borland. From other hand
we still have few Kylix-based projects that need to be maintained and
i'm interested in some source of fixes. Additionally i want to give out
some of my fixes in DataCLX area. Of course if all project will be
useful for customers who paid money for Kylix, not only to those who
use open edition.
Simon Kissel
2004-10-24 19:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
Post by Simon Kissel
This is pretty much the same questions as "will there be a Kylix 4",
and there is no answer yet.
But then what Borlanders do in the FreeCLX project? Provide spiritual
guidance? When users have CLX code, they may fix everything themseves.
Of course everyone want some centralized way to submit and download
fixes, it is much better to fight with the bugs alone.
First of all: They care. That's a good sign, isn't it? Also they are the
ones who created Kylix in the first place, so they can help out in a lot
of areas.
Post by Ender
Post by Simon Kissel
It's quite simple: The people who are known to be actively supporting
Kylix right now have been contacted. Also if there are other people
willing to invest their time into the project, I'm pretty sure they'll
be invited in. We just don't need any "I demand this and that"-kind of
guys (which honestly you sound a bit like ;) at this stage.
H-m-m-m... yes it may sound... JK said "vote for Kylix with your money"
and i'm voted, JK said "vote for Kylix with QC bugreports" and about 40
of 240 reports in QC belong to me. Now i want to get something in
return.
And you probably will, it's work in progress ;)
Post by Ender
Post by Simon Kissel
Might be. The situation is this: Kylix wasn't the success Borland
wanted it to be. There now is a group of motivated people who are
helping a bit to get a second Chance for Kylix at Borland. This is
the best you'll get. If that's not enough for you, quit Kylix.
From one hand i already quit. Before project was started. No any new
projects will be done with Kylix by me. Pure C++/Qt/GCC/OCL. And this
combination work far more productively than Kylix now.
For me it's the other way round. I've never used the Kylix IDE itself
that much really. Before CrossKylix, I already worked from the Windows
IDE, doing an automated compile over at a Linux box using SSH. I'm able
to work in a RAD way on Windows and get my results deployed on Linux.
It couldn't possibly get any more productive than this.
Post by Ender
Additionally
Borland bring discredit on themselves in eyes of my bosses, so they
most likely never commit to buy anything from Borland.
Yes, we all have our "Why is Borland management acting so stupid"-
stories. Not much we could do about this.
Post by Ender
From other hand
we still have few Kylix-based projects that need to be maintained and
i'm interested in some source of fixes. Additionally i want to give out
some of my fixes in DataCLX area. Of course if all project will be
useful for customers who paid money for Kylix, not only to those who
use open edition.
Important point here that needs clarification. While this probably hasn't
been officially announced, I'll tell it to you anyway:

Everything done in the project will be dual-licensed. Personally I would
not invest a single line of code for a GPL-only project, because it would
mean that I myself would not be allowed to use that code in my products
(which are closed source). This is also one of the various reasons
Borland is part of the project - to ensure all their customers will be
able to benefit from the works.

When Andreas told you that the project source will be based on the
Open Edition CLX source, he didn't mean to imply that this will be licensed
under GPL, as the original FreeCLX project was (which didn't die for
no reason..).

And if you are interested in helping out with DataCLX fixes, your patches
will be welcomed with open arms as soon as the project is done with its
initial decisionmaking and roadmap planning.

Simon
Ender
2004-10-26 13:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Important point here that needs clarification. While this probably
Everything done in the project will be dual-licensed. Personally I
would not invest a single line of code for a GPL-only project,
because it would mean that I myself would not be allowed to use that
code in my products (which are closed source). This is also one of
the various reasons Borland is part of the project - to ensure all
their customers will be able to benefit from the works.
When Andreas told you that the project source will be based on the
Open Edition CLX source, he didn't mean to imply that this will be
licensed under GPL, as the original FreeCLX project was (which didn't
die for no reason..).
I did not mean licensing GPLed vs Closed Source issues. I personally
don't care at all about them. I'm concerned about legal issues of
publishing enterprise level component sources. Just look on the
scenario - we publish patched enterprise level packages and someone who
does not bought Kylix download and use it on Open Edition. Again, i
personally don't care about them, but Borlanders may object.

As i know they had inserted some (pretty weak) protection in their
dbExpress drvers. But having sources of packages one may easy to fool
their protection.
Post by Simon Kissel
And if you are interested in helping out with DataCLX fixes, your
patches will be welcomed with open arms as soon as the project is
done with its initial decisionmaking and roadmap planning.
Ok. We will wait.
Simon Kissel
2004-10-24 19:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
Post by Simon Kissel
This is pretty much the same questions as "will there be a Kylix 4",
and there is no answer yet.
But then what Borlanders do in the FreeCLX project? Provide spiritual
guidance? When users have CLX code, they may fix everything themseves.
Of course everyone want some centralized way to submit and download
fixes, it is much better to fight with the bugs alone.
First of all: They care. That's a good sign, isn't it? Also they are the
ones who created Kylix in the first place, so they can help out in a lot
of areas.
Post by Ender
Post by Simon Kissel
It's quite simple: The people who are known to be actively supporting
Kylix right now have been contacted. Also if there are other people
willing to invest their time into the project, I'm pretty sure they'll
be invited in. We just don't need any "I demand this and that"-kind of
guys (which honestly you sound a bit like ;) at this stage.
H-m-m-m... yes it may sound... JK said "vote for Kylix with your money"
and i'm voted, JK said "vote for Kylix with QC bugreports" and about 40
of 240 reports in QC belong to me. Now i want to get something in
return.
And you probably will, it's work in progress ;)
Post by Ender
Post by Simon Kissel
Might be. The situation is this: Kylix wasn't the success Borland
wanted it to be. There now is a group of motivated people who are
helping a bit to get a second Chance for Kylix at Borland. This is
the best you'll get. If that's not enough for you, quit Kylix.
From one hand i already quit. Before project was started. No any new
projects will be done with Kylix by me. Pure C++/Qt/GCC/OCL. And this
combination work far more productively than Kylix now.
For me it's the other way round. I've never used the Kylix IDE itself
that much really. Before CrossKylix, I already worked from the Windows
IDE, doing an automated compile over at a Linux box using SSH. I'm able
to work in a RAD way on Windows and get my results deployed on Linux.
It couldn't possibly get any more productive than this.
Post by Ender
Additionally
Borland bring discredit on themselves in eyes of my bosses, so they
most likely never commit to buy anything from Borland.
Yes, we all have our "Why is Borland management acting so stupid"-
stories. Not much we could do about this.
Post by Ender
From other hand
we still have few Kylix-based projects that need to be maintained and
i'm interested in some source of fixes. Additionally i want to give out
some of my fixes in DataCLX area. Of course if all project will be
useful for customers who paid money for Kylix, not only to those who
use open edition.
Important point here that needs clarification. While this probably hasn't
been officially announced, I'll tell it to you anyway:

Everything done in the project will be dual-licensed. Personally I would
not invest a single line of code for a GPL-only project, because it would
mean that I myself would not be allowed to use that code in my products
(which are closed source). This is also one of the various reasons
Borland is part of the project - to ensure all their customers will be
able to benefit from the works.

When Andreas told you that the project source will be based on the
Open Edition CLX source, he didn't mean to imply that this will be licensed
under GPL, as the original FreeCLX project was (which didn't die for
no reason..).

And if you are interested in helping out with DataCLX fixes, your patches
will be welcomed with open arms as soon as the project is done with its
initial decisionmaking and roadmap planning.

Simon
Arthur Hoornweg
2004-11-08 10:49:07 UTC
Permalink
A sad day. Delphi 2005 will have no more CLX support or
so I've heard.

So any future Kylix version will no more have the "platform
independence" feature because you can't recompile a Kylix
source under Delphi or vice versa.

So guys, it looks like Kylix is dead...
--
Arthur Hoornweg
(please remove the ".net" from my e-mail address.
I had to take this measure to counteract SPAM
flooding my mail box)
Simon Kissel
2004-11-08 11:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Hoornweg
A sad day. Delphi 2005 will have no more CLX support or
so I've heard.
So any future Kylix version will no more have the "platform
independence" feature because you can't recompile a Kylix
source under Delphi or vice versa.
So guys, it looks like Kylix is dead...
This is no news - Delphi 2005 was known not to include the CLX.
This doesn't mean Kylix is dead.

What's dead is the CLX on Windows, and rightfully so. Nobody really
wanted to do CLX on Windows and to have to ship QT libs with the
application anyway. What most people probably want is native Win32
(VCL) for Windows, and VCL/CLX for Linux. The key to getting there is
actually pretty simple:

Make the Linux CLX more compatible to the Windows VCL, and then use
the Windows VCL designer to design your forms. These then can be
compiled to Linux.

This at least is what I'd like to see, and Borlands decision to drop
the CLX for Windows by no means is a road-block for that.

Simon
Arthur Hoornweg
2004-11-08 11:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
This at least is what I'd like to see, and Borlands decision to drop
the CLX for Windows by no means is a road-block for that.
Simon
CLX is the only framework Kylix has, so if Borland is no longer
actively working on that, it's not a good sign. I sincerely
doubt there will ever be another Borland Kylix update.
--
Arthur Hoornweg
(please remove the ".net" from my e-mail address.
I had to take this measure to counteract SPAM
flooding my mail box)
Simon Kissel
2004-11-08 12:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Hoornweg
Post by Simon Kissel
This at least is what I'd like to see, and Borlands decision to drop
the CLX for Windows by no means is a road-block for that.
Simon
CLX is the only framework Kylix has, so if Borland is no longer
actively working on that, it's not a good sign.
This doesn't make any sense. Kylix has any framework you compile
with it.

The question also is what you personally think Kylix is.

My impression on the various aspects is the following:

1.) The CLX.

The CLX more or less is just a renamed VCL clone. The Windows part of it doesn't
have any future. Nobody likes the drawback of working non-native under Windows.
The Linux part of it actively maintained by the FreeCLX project now. For Linux it
will stay and get updated. In the future, the CLX hopefully will become so compatible
to the VCL that visually you can't spot a difference for the components. This will
allow you to use the VCL Form Designer, which is actively maintained by Borland.

2.) The Kylix IDE

As you may know, Delphi 2000 uses the Galileo IDE, which is a complete rewrite. The
Kylix IDE is based on the old Delphi 6/7 IDE. That makes the current Kylix IDE a
pretty much dead-end. I don't expect a new Kylix IDE for the near future. If Borland
again sees a market for a Linux IDE, they might one day do another attempt. I
personally don't expect a new Kylix IDE for the near future.

3.) The compiler

The Kylix compiler works like a charm. Also it should be easily updateable to the
current state of the Win32 compiler. It would be a rather small investment for Borland
to get their customers an updated Kylix compiler.

4.) Cross-Platform development Windows/Linux

In my personal, very biased opinion, "Kylix" has a bright future here. All that's needed
to make Delphi a perfect cross-platform RAD solution is:

a) A crosscompiler integrated into the Delphi IDE. The Delphi 2005 IDE is perfectly
extendable in this area due to its "personality" support. And as a temporary solution,
we currently have CrossKylix.

b) A cross-platform GUI framework. VCL on Windows + "CLX" for Linux will provide this.
That's the way quite a few people have used Delphi/Kylix from the start anyway, using
some IFDEFs.

c) A remote debugger.

Summary:

If you are a Linux developer, who wants to develop only under Linux and for Linux, forget
about Kylix. Most "real Linux geeks" don't want RAD, but hardcore low-level c. Near all
of them don't want to work with closed-source software, and even less want to pay money
for software. That's the reality Borland has faced when trying to sell Kylix.

If you are a Windows developer who also wants to deploy some of this applications to Linux,
then you can safely stay with Kylix. Right now writing all kind of web services, server-,
database and middleware applications works like a charme without any real issues, and
you can enjoy the full RAD power of Delphi. And if you are more into GUI client
applications, you currently have to work around some compatibility issues and bugs, but
it works, and chances are good it will get much better soon.

I personally think that 99% of all people that paid for Kylix are Users coming from the
Delphi Windows world. From a business standpoint it would totally make sense to keep
these customers.

Personally I would not miss the Kylix IDE at all. I never used it. I always created
my Applications under Windows and then compiled them on Linux. I have the feeling I'm
not alone. The number of CrossKylix users points into the same direction.

My personal hope is that Borland will integrate everything needed to build Linux
applications into the Delphi IDE.

Simon
Hrvoje Brozovic
2004-11-08 15:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Personally I would not miss the Kylix IDE at all. I never used it. I always created
my Applications under Windows and then compiled them on Linux. I have the feeling I'm
not alone. The number of CrossKylix users points into the same direction.
No Simon, you not alone.

Almost decade ago, I stooped using vi and other nonsense
on UNIX machines and did all code writing on windows, ftp-ing
it to UNIX and compiling it there. For most part, it was plain
ANSI C, perfectly compilable with BCC.

I started same way with FPC and Kylix, until you
pointed me to CrossKylix version 0.5.

I still can't understand how Borland
got it so wrong in a first place.
Larry Drews
2004-11-08 17:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hrvoje Brozovic
I still can't understand how Borland
got it so wrong in a first place.
They listened to a very vocal subset of the user community too much.
R.F. Pels
2004-11-08 16:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by Arthur Hoornweg
Post by Simon Kissel
This at least is what I'd like to see, and Borlands decision to drop
the CLX for Windows by no means is a road-block for that.
CLX is the only framework Kylix has, so if Borland is no longer
actively working on that, it's not a good sign.
As you may know, Delphi 2000 uses the Galileo IDE, which is a complete
rewrite. The Kylix IDE is based on the old Delphi 6/7 IDE. That makes the
current Kylix IDE a pretty much dead-end. I don't expect a new Kylix IDE
for the near future. If Borland again sees a market for a Linux IDE, they
might one day do another attempt. I personally don't expect a new Kylix
IDE for the near future.
So, in that case, it might not be dead but is effectively flatline.
Post by Simon Kissel
If you are a Linux developer, who wants to develop only under Linux and
for Linux, forget about Kylix. Most "real Linux geeks" don't want RAD, but
hardcore low-level c. Near all of them don't want to work with
What a load of bollocks this is.
Post by Simon Kissel
closed-source software, and even less want to pay money for software.
That's the reality Borland has faced when trying to sell Kylix.
And yet another load of bollocks. Borland simply wanted to jump on the Linux
bandwagon with a half-baked product in the first place. Pricing for any
serious IDE simply isn't and wasn't an option for most of the Linux
developers.
Post by Simon Kissel
Personally I would not miss the Kylix IDE at all. I never used it. I
always created my Applications under Windows and then compiled them on
Linux. I have the feeling I'm not alone. The number of CrossKylix users
points into the same direction.
My personal hope is that Borland will integrate everything needed to build
Linux applications into the Delphi IDE.
LOL. Seeing an onslaught of programs totally unsuitable for Linux.
--
Ruurd
Simon Kissel
2004-11-08 16:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
As you may know, Delphi 2000 uses the Galileo IDE, which is a complete
rewrite. The Kylix IDE is based on the old Delphi 6/7 IDE. That makes the
current Kylix IDE a pretty much dead-end. I don't expect a new Kylix IDE
for the near future. If Borland again sees a market for a Linux IDE, they
might one day do another attempt. I personally don't expect a new Kylix
IDE for the near future.
So, in that case, it might not be dead but is effectively flatline.
Only if you are part of the "I want to develop FOR linux ON linux"-group.
Which seams to be rather small. Actually you are the first one that group
to speak up ;)
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
If you are a Linux developer, who wants to develop only under Linux and
for Linux, forget about Kylix. Most "real Linux geeks" don't want RAD, but
hardcore low-level c. Near all of them don't want to work with
What a load of bollocks this is.
No it isn't. Probably >80% of all linux programs are written using VI+gcc. And
then there are some written using some other texteditor + some other compiler.
The whole gnu collection is written in c. It can't get any less RAD than this,
can it (Assembler aside)? Compared to this the number of Eclipse- and KDevelop-
Users seems to be rather tiny.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
closed-source software, and even less want to pay money for software.
That's the reality Borland has faced when trying to sell Kylix.
And yet another load of bollocks. Borland simply wanted to jump on the Linux
bandwagon with a half-baked product in the first place. Pricing for any
serious IDE simply isn't and wasn't an option for most of the Linux
developers.
Name ONE commercial Linux RAD IDE that has significant sales.

Feel free to google for all glibc and kernel bug reports coming from Borland
while developing Kylix. You'll see what kind of support they got from the
Linux community. Mostly "we don't care about a commercial vendor" kind of
reponses. Now have a look how well other vendors of closed source application
or objects are doing. They all suffer from the same fate: The Linux community
expects that everyone will rebuild all their applications for every release
of glibc and the various libraries. Look 7 threads above to see how an
obviously untested glibc2.3.4 release in gentoo recently caused ALL closed-
software out there break.

Looking at all that gives me the feeling that getting Kylix to the point
it now is was a major task, and quite successfull.

And hey, now have a look at all the reported problems with Kylix since its
release. With only a hand full of exceptions, those problems are caused by
bugs inside glibc, the kernel, pthread and qt. It's not Borland faults when
under Linux commonly buggy library versions are released, and interfaces
are broken all the time.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
My personal hope is that Borland will integrate everything needed to build
Linux applications into the Delphi IDE.
LOL. Seeing an onslaught of programs totally unsuitable for Linux.
...and this statement makes you fill the rest of the "linux hacker" cliché,
doesn't it? ;)

Simon
R.F. Pels
2004-11-08 18:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by R.F. Pels
So, in that case, it might not be dead but is effectively flatline.
Only if you are part of the "I want to develop FOR linux ON linux"-group.
Which seams to be rather small. Actually you are the first one that group
to speak up ;)
In the same vein as you seem to advise me: have a look at the programs
originating in the Linux camp that eventually are ported to Win32. Same
old.
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
If you are a Linux developer, who wants to develop only under Linux and
for Linux, forget about Kylix. Most "real Linux geeks" don't want RAD,
but hardcore low-level c. Near all of them don't want to work with
What a load of bollocks this is.
No it isn't. Probably >80% of all linux programs are written using VI+gcc.
And then there are some written using some other texteditor + some other
compiler. The whole gnu collection is written in c. It can't get any less
RAD than this, can it (Assembler aside)? Compared to this the number of
Eclipse- and KDevelop- Users seems to be rather tiny.
I think you are grossly underestimating that. And FWIW, kdevelop is much
better integrated into the building system that is used most of the time.
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by R.F. Pels
And yet another load of bollocks. Borland simply wanted to jump on the
Linux bandwagon with a half-baked product in the first place. Pricing for
any serious IDE simply isn't and wasn't an option for most of the Linux
developers.
Name ONE commercial Linux RAD IDE that has significant sales.
Naem ONE commercial Linux RAD IDE that actually is worth it for a Linux
developer to buy. And no, Kylix is not it. In fact, Kylix has been a huge
mistake to begin with. Tied way to close to Qt2, Wine and ONE particular
glibc version.
Post by Simon Kissel
Feel free to google for all glibc and kernel bug reports coming from
Borland while developing Kylix. You'll see what kind of support they got
from the Linux community. Mostly "we don't care about a commercial vendor"
kind of reponses. Now have a look how well other vendors of closed source
application or objects are doing. They all suffer from the same fate: The
Linux community expects that everyone will rebuild all their applications
for every release of glibc and the various libraries. Look 7 threads above
to see how an obviously untested glibc2.3.4 release in gentoo recently
caused ALL closed- software out there break.
Then why is a vendor such as Oracle able to let you install it relatively
easy on a non-supported platform? Exactly. They let you link their stuff
into an executable. And they will not tie you to versions of libraries of
which they know that they will be out-of-date quite fast.
Post by Simon Kissel
Looking at all that gives me the feeling that getting Kylix to the point
it now is was a major task, and quite successfull.
... in creating a nice and expensive doorstop that does not survive a single
Qt major version.
Post by Simon Kissel
And hey, now have a look at all the reported problems with Kylix since its
release. With only a hand full of exceptions, those problems are caused by
bugs inside glibc, the kernel, pthread and qt. It's not Borland faults
when under Linux commonly buggy library versions are released, and
interfaces are broken all the time.
Pray tell me then how they worked around the numerous Win32 bugs. Same old,
same old, and not an argument.
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
My personal hope is that Borland will integrate everything needed to
build Linux applications into the Delphi IDE.
LOL. Seeing an onslaught of programs totally unsuitable for Linux.
...and this statement makes you fill the rest of the "linux hacker"
cliché, doesn't it? ;)
Trying to stereotype me isn't going to make your arguments any better. And
if you can't understand that, please get some professional help with your
CRI.
--
Ruurd
Simon Kissel
2004-11-08 19:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by R.F. Pels
So, in that case, it might not be dead but is effectively flatline.
Only if you are part of the "I want to develop FOR linux ON linux"-group.
Which seams to be rather small. Actually you are the first one that group
to speak up ;)
In the same vein as you seem to advise me: have a look at the programs
originating in the Linux camp that eventually are ported to Win32. Same
old.
And this is relevant HOW? Delphi is coming from the DOS/Windows, chances are
low to see people starting with Kylix under Linux who then want to port to Windows,
if that's what you wanted to say.

Also porting from POSIX to Windows is an entirely different world. And the past
has shown that many Unix/Linux killer apps ported to Windows took several years
to become somewhere near stable or performant. Remember Apache 1.x... coming
from the fork-world to the world of threading (that back then more or less was
an unused concept under Linux/BSD) was major step to take. But well, that's
off-topic I guess.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
No it isn't. Probably >80% of all linux programs are written using VI+gcc.
And then there are some written using some other texteditor + some other
compiler. The whole gnu collection is written in c. It can't get any less
RAD than this, can it (Assembler aside)? Compared to this the number of
Eclipse- and KDevelop- Users seems to be rather tiny.
I think you are grossly underestimating that. And FWIW, kdevelop is much
better integrated into the building system that is used most of the time.
I can only speak of the big linux applications I use myself. That being said
I have to admit those are mostly server-side stuff. And the Linux die-hard guys
I personally know all only use VI for everything.

I guess we both don't have exact statistics.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by R.F. Pels
And yet another load of bollocks. Borland simply wanted to jump on the
Linux bandwagon with a half-baked product in the first place. Pricing for
any serious IDE simply isn't and wasn't an option for most of the Linux
developers.
Name ONE commercial Linux RAD IDE that has significant sales.
Naem ONE commercial Linux RAD IDE that actually is worth it for a Linux
developer to buy. And no, Kylix is not it. In fact, Kylix has been a huge
mistake to begin with. Tied way to close to Qt2, Wine and ONE particular
glibc version.
What I wanted to say is that Kylix is the first and afaik still only commercial
RAD IDE offering for Linux. It's hard to compare something that doesn't have
any competitors.

The IDE being compiled against Wine*LIB* (you should know the difference) wasn't
a too future-proof idea, we all know that. It was planned to change in later
IDE versions. There was simply no real alternative to QT2. What else should
they have used? The alternative would have been nothing, NO GUI components.
Also Kylix never was tied to a particular glibc versions. Glibc uses versioning.

Get your facts straight.
Post by R.F. Pels
Then why is a vendor such as Oracle able to let you install it relatively
easy on a non-supported platform? Exactly. They let you link their stuff
into an executable. And they will not tie you to versions of libraries of
which they know that they will be out-of-date quite fast.
Oracle isn't exactly a GUI application, is it? If you wish to compare this
with Kylix, well, then compare it with the Kylix command line compiler. Works
under all flavours of Linux without any issues.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
Looking at all that gives me the feeling that getting Kylix to the point
it now is was a major task, and quite successfull.
... in creating a nice and expensive doorstop that does not survive a single
Qt major version.
There is no single application that survived QT2 to QT3. They completely changed
all interfaces.

If you want to further discuss this, please do some research on the technical
facts. Hints given above, not too hard. Else I'll just justify my conclusion
that you are just a troll.

Simon
R.F. Pels
2004-11-08 21:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
What I wanted to say is that Kylix is the first and afaik still only
commercial RAD IDE offering for Linux. It's hard to compare something that
doesn't have any competitors.
It is however quite easy to say that:

1. The commercial viability of Kylix seems very disappointing
2. Kylix is tied too strongly to a number of components that are far more
volatile than the release cycle of Borland, which leads to numerous
technical problems in deploying it on newer Linux distros in a
workable fashion
3. Kylix is a radical departure of the building mechanisms used in the
Linux world (although I can understand why)

In fact, I think Kylix was just meant as a sort of porting tool to port
Windows applications to Linux. By tying it to Qt2 and not making that
connection flexible in the first place Borland effectively created a
product that has a very limited lifetime, not to mention the fact that Qt2
isn't exactly looking very nice. This - and the fact that Borland seems to
have stopped developing Kylix any further - gives me reason to believe that
Kylix as it is now is an unsuccessfull commercial IDE offering and has been
that from the beginning, notwithstanding the sublime efforts of several
people to prolong its lifetime.

In fact, I'm somewhat astonished that Borland didn't use their RAD designer
prowess to create just that, a RAD designer tool, and piggy back that on a
bindable CLX or a visual framework where they could have provided the tools
to generate the bindings a developer needs. An IDE is something that the
Linux world isn't waiting for. There are more than enough IDE's around -
Anjuta, kdevelop, Eclipse - just to name a few. Do I need yet another
programming language for Linux? No, I don't. There are enough of them as it
is.

It is RAD UI design that is an area where Linux can be improved. Port
applications from Windows? Fine. Create a portable format specification,
import it in the Linux variant of the designer and generate equivalent
code. Do I need a Borland Pascal compiler for that? In fact I only need
that to port UI and application code. Is that a viable alternative? Only if
the compiler and runtime is properly integrated in the other tools of the
trade, gdb for example. And even then, the original code should be
structured and maintained in a portable fashion.

And even then. In most cases, I think it is easier to just recreate Windows
functionality in Linux if that is what is wanted. Yes, good tools will help
doing that. And yes, maintaining more than one codebase might be difficult,
but should be set off against (paritally) maintaining one codebase catering
to VCL as well as CLX.
Post by Simon Kissel
Get your facts straight.
Getting my purely technical facts straight isn't mitigating the fact that by
now the technical underpinning can be regarded as outdated and/or feeble by
now. WineLib should have gone out the door after Kylix1.
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by R.F. Pels
Then why is a vendor such as Oracle able to let you install it relatively
easy on a non-supported platform? Exactly. They let you link their stuff
into an executable. And they will not tie you to versions of libraries of
which they know that they will be out-of-date quite fast.
Oracle isn't exactly a GUI application, is it? If you wish to compare this
with Kylix, well, then compare it with the Kylix command line compiler.
Works under all flavours of Linux without any issues.
No, I don't want that. That is not the point. The point is that it /is/
possible to create a product that does not pubicize its internals while at
the same time being rather successfull in surviving the volatile nature of
Linux as it is.
Post by Simon Kissel
There is no single application that survived QT2 to QT3. They completely
changed all interfaces.
There are numerous techniques that make it quite easy to adapt a framework
library to interface flux. You might be interested in the speed with which
a number of language bindings are updated in KDE, for example.
Post by Simon Kissel
Else I'll just justify my conclusion that you are just a troll.
You don't need to justify your own conclusion. It's all yours. I'd rather
have you not trying to stereotype me into something undesireable for the
single reason that you do not seem to agree with me.
--
Ruurd
Andreas Hausladen
2004-11-08 22:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
There are numerous techniques that make it quite easy to adapt a
framework library to interface flux. You might be interested in the
speed with which a number of language bindings are updated in KDE, for
example.
Like one mouse click for the "Qt3 for Kylix" bindings ?
Post by R.F. Pels
By tying it to Qt2 and not making that
connection flexible
The problem is that the CLX is not like an application that uses a subset
of the framework. CLX uses most classes and functions offered by the
framework. So how would you have made the binding flexible?
Post by R.F. Pels
in the first place Borland effectively
created a product that has a very limited lifetime, not to
mention the fact that Qt2 isn't exactly looking very nice.
At that time when Kylix was released there was no Qt3 available, so Qt2
was the look KDE 2 users were used to.
--
Regards,

Andreas Hausladen
R.F. Pels
2004-11-08 23:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Hausladen
Post by R.F. Pels
There are numerous techniques that make it quite easy to adapt a
framework library to interface flux. You might be interested in the
speed with which a number of language bindings are updated in KDE, for
example.
Like one mouse click for the "Qt3 for Kylix" bindings ?
No Andreas, you of all persons should know that generating and checking
bindings isn't that easy. However, I don't think it would be undoable if
properly tooled. Not exactly a one-click type of thing, no. Or did you
forget the smiley perhaps :-)
Post by Andreas Hausladen
The problem is that the CLX is not like an application that uses a subset
of the framework. CLX uses most classes and functions offered by the
framework. So how would you have made the binding flexible?
I'll probably will get flamed to death for even suggesting it. However, the
decorator pattern looks quite promising in that respect. That creates the
possibility of binding to different underlying UI frameworks from a common
place. By no means a trivial excersize, I realize that. And possibly
leading to noops in certain cases because the underlying UI may lack
certain features. This is not a perfect world alas.

I /know/ that in Java it is a different ballgame, and more or less hacked,
but that could have been a way to do it for at least the visual parts of
CLX. And yes, Java, or Swing for that matter isn't a fully successfull
example of it, most notably on the issue of standard dialogs like those for
opening and saving files.

There are better examples of adapting a framework to different technologies.
In the VCL and CLX arena, the way Borland succeeded in hooking into
different databases for example.

That all said, what would have happened if all Win32 specific code had been
factored out of the VCL by introducing decorators? In my mind that would
have opened the possibility of a truely portable VCL. Not only portable to
Qt2, Qt3 or the different KDE flavours, but even to .Net or wxwidgets...
Post by Andreas Hausladen
Post by R.F. Pels
in the first place Borland effectively created a product that has a very
limited lifetime, not to mention the fact that Qt2 isn't exactly looking
very nice.
At that time when Kylix was released there was no Qt3 available, so Qt2
was the look KDE 2 users were used to.
And I think one of the main reasons why KDE at that time already provided
the means to theme it. In fact, KDE2 looked better than plain Qt2, IMHO.
--
Ruurd
R.F. Pels
2004-11-08 23:52:00 UTC
Permalink
With the right tools it is easy. It is not a one click action but to
regenerate the Qt3 for Kylix library and bindings I must only type "make"
and wait (because of very slow gcc). But the tool I use has a drawback: It
depends on doxygen's generated xml files. And doxygen is a pain when
misused as a C++ parser.
Yes. RE-generate. But generating the first iteration must have been
'painfull'...

However, what is your take on the other things I posed? I'm interested in
what your take is on them...
--
Ruurd
Andreas Hausladen
2004-11-09 07:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Yes. RE-generate. But generating the first iteration must have been
'painfull'...
Yes it was painfull because there was no tool that generated the code. But
now I have that tool and it is also able to generate bindings for
wxWidgets except that fact that doxygen generates trash for the wxWidgets
header files.
Post by R.F. Pels
However, what is your take on the other things I posed? I'm interested in
what your take is on them...
Yes, it would be nice to have another layer (Linux guys love software
layers: glibc+X+Qt+KDELib ) but for what price?
--
Regards,

Andreas Hausladen
(http://www.kylix-patch.de.vu - unofficial Kylix 3 patches)
(http://andy.jgknet.de/blog)
R.F. Pels
2004-11-09 07:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Hausladen
Post by R.F. Pels
Yes. RE-generate. But generating the first iteration must have been
'painfull'...
Yes it was painfull because there was no tool that generated the code. But
now I have that tool and it is also able to generate bindings for
wxWidgets except that fact that doxygen generates trash for the wxWidgets
header files.
But in theory....
Post by Andreas Hausladen
Yes, it would be nice to have another layer (Linux guys love software
layers: glibc+X+Qt+KDELib ) but for what price?
At this moment? I agree that that would not be possible. In fact, that
chance might have been gone. I think somebody should have realized the
necessity for another layer at the time CLX was made :-(
--
Ruurd
Marco van de Voort
2004-11-16 09:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Hausladen
Post by R.F. Pels
Yes. RE-generate. But generating the first iteration must have been
'painfull'...
Yes it was painfull because there was no tool that generated the code. But
now I have that tool and it is also able to generate bindings for
wxWidgets except that fact that doxygen generates trash for the wxWidgets
header files.
Post by R.F. Pels
However, what is your take on the other things I posed? I'm interested in
what your take is on them...
Yes, it would be nice to have another layer (Linux guys love software
layers: glibc+X+Qt+KDELib ) but for what price?
Roughly the same as
User32+gdi32+comctrl+explorer/iexplore etc?

Just that Windows doesn't regard the layers as separate packages doesn't mean they are not there.
Andreas Hausladen
2004-11-08 23:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
No Andreas, you of all persons should know that generating and checking
bindings isn't that easy.
With the right tools it is easy. It is not a one click action but to
regenerate the Qt3 for Kylix library and bindings I must only type "make"
and wait (because of very slow gcc). But the tool I use has a drawback: It
depends on doxygen's generated xml files. Andy doxygen is a pain when
misused as a C++ parser.
Post by R.F. Pels
And I think one of the main reasons why KDE at that time already provided
the means to theme it. In fact, KDE2 looked better than plain Qt2, IMHO.
You can use KDE 2 themes in CLX applications with some extra effort, but
who still uses KDE 2. Even Debian does no more use it with the next stable
release.
--
Regards,

Andreas Hausladen
Ender
2004-11-09 14:25:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
I can only speak of the big linux applications I use myself. That
being said I have to admit those are mostly server-side stuff. And
the Linux die-hard guys I personally know all only use VI for
everything.
I'm work in the company full of hardcore linux developers. Those who
use vi actually orthodoxes. Most of our developers use EMACS for
development because it has many features and joe or mcedit for
everything else because of it's simple and straight keymapping. It is
not rare case when one complain: "Damn! vi again! Guys, who remember
how to quit from this?" ;-)
Mike Mader
2004-11-08 22:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Feel free to google for all glibc and kernel bug reports coming from Borland
while developing Kylix. You'll see what kind of support they got from the
Linux community. Mostly "we don't care about a commercial vendor" kind of
reponses. Now have a look how well other vendors of closed source
application
or objects are doing. They all suffer from the same fate: The Linux
community
expects that everyone will rebuild all their applications for every release
of glibc and the various libraries. Look 7 threads above to see how an
obviously untested glibc2.3.4 release in gentoo recently caused ALL closed-
software out there break.

--------------

This kind of attitudes seems a bit silly when attempting to make Linux a
commercially viable product. Perhaps this is the real reason why Borland
isn't developing the Kylix product any further, and possibly why we don't
here of many other commercial products becoming available for Linux**. This
type of reaction would send a pretty strong message to Borland that Kylix
isn't wanted. Next, I will agree that Linux has made strong strides into
the server market, though it is still a minority in that market. I have also
played around with Linux myself and I will also agree that it has great
potential. However, I have found that there is certain percentage of Linux
supporters who feel that any piece of software written to run under Linux
should be free for anyone to use and preferably with the source code
included, and the statement above reaffirms that with me. This is of course
coming from someone who makes his living from writing software.

**Yes, I know that Oracle and IBM have products that run under Linux,
however the bulk of them are Java based.
Marco van de Voort
2004-11-10 20:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Feel free to google for all glibc and kernel bug reports coming from Borland
while developing Kylix. You'll see what kind of support they got from the
Linux community. Mostly "we don't care about a commercial vendor" kind of
reponses. Now have a look how well other vendors of closed source application
or objects are doing. They all suffer from the same fate: The Linux community
expects that everyone will rebuild all their applications for every release
of glibc and the various libraries. Look 7 threads above to see how an
obviously untested glibc2.3.4 release in gentoo recently caused ALL closed-
software out there break.
I agree. That Gentoo one breaks FPC too btw, due to FPC having own startup
code, and the base RTL not needing libc.

It is not only the commercial vendors that suffer from the glibc problems.

Nearly all projects not following the most simple autoconf-gcc path have
problems with this, and binary glibc compability is an exception rather than
a rule, even across versions of the same distro.
Michael Schnell
2004-11-22 07:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Mader
However, I have found that there is certain percentage of Linux
supporters who feel that any piece of software written to run under Linux
should be free for anyone to use
"Open source" is not about "free of charge" (the one who wants a non
existing software function, needs to (and will) pay somebody to create it
for him), but about reusability of existing software (to make the creation
of new functions easy (and thus cheap for the end-user) ).

-Michael
Michael Schnell
2004-11-22 07:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Feel free to google for all glibc and kernel bug reports coming from Borland
while developing Kylix. You'll see what kind of support they got from the
Linux community. Mostly "we don't care about a commercial vendor" kind of
reponses.
Sound _very_ silly. _Any_ bug report is valuable, as it might improve the
software !

Now with Novell/Suse supporting the Mono project I suppose the relationship
between the programming tools partition of the Linux community and
commercial vendors seems to be improving.
Jan Mitrovics
2004-11-08 15:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
What a load of bollocks this is.
And yet another load of bollocks. Borland simply wanted to jump on
the Linux bandwagon with a half-baked product in the first place.
Pricing for any serious IDE simply isn't and wasn't an option for
most of the Linux developers.
LOL. Seeing an onslaught of programs totally unsuitable for Linux.
Sorry, but I fail to see, where you provide any kind of contribution
worth considering. Just by spitting out accuses without any facts you
are actually attacking somebody who provides help and value!

Do you have a purpose behind this, or are you just having a bad day?
R.F. Pels
2004-11-08 18:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Mitrovics
Post by R.F. Pels
What a load of bollocks this is.
And yet another load of bollocks. Borland simply wanted to jump on
the Linux bandwagon with a half-baked product in the first place.
Pricing for any serious IDE simply isn't and wasn't an option for
most of the Linux developers.
LOL. Seeing an onslaught of programs totally unsuitable for Linux.
Sorry, but I fail to see, where you provide any kind of contribution
worth considering. Just by spitting out accuses without any facts you
are actually attacking somebody who provides help and value!
Do you have a purpose behind this, or are you just having a bad day?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
--
Ruurd
Willibald Krenn
2004-11-08 19:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Jan Mitrovics
Do you have a purpose behind this, or are you just having a bad day?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Are the coffee shops closed today?

"Why don't you knock it off with them Negative Waves! Why don't dig how
beautiful it is out here. Why can't you say something righteous and
hopeful for a change"
Jan Mitrovics
2004-11-08 18:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Thank you very much for your profound answer. You seem to be in Monday
depression. Is your job that bad?
R.F. Pels
2004-11-08 22:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Mitrovics
Post by R.F. Pels
LOL. Seeing an onslaught of programs totally unsuitable for Linux.
Sorry, but I fail to see, where you provide any kind of contribution
worth considering. Just by spitting out accuses without any facts you
are actually attacking somebody who provides help and value!
Do you have a purpose behind this, or are you just having a bad day?
Yes, in fact I do. IMHO, porting an application from one OS to another is a
much more painfull process than most of us realize. It is not merely
catering to similar frameworks that is the difficulty here, the difficulty
lies in catering to different worlds altogether. Proper tools are a boon,
but will not shield you from having to make numerous wellinformed choices
on the use of primitives and components. Get it wrong, and one is rapidly
pulled into having to maintain different and divergent codebases.
--
Ruurd
Jan Mitrovics
2004-11-08 21:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Yes, in fact I do. IMHO, porting an application from one OS to
another is a much more painfull process than most of us realize. It
is not merely catering to similar frameworks that is the difficulty
here, the difficulty lies in catering to different worlds altogether.
Proper tools are a boon, but will not shield you from having to make
numerous wellinformed choices on the use of primitives and
components. Get it wrong, and one is rapidly pulled into having to
maintain different and divergent codebases.
I do agree on this. Nevertheless I did not understand why you chose to
bring your points across in such a rude manner. The way you had
expressed them did not really help to understand your POV.

WRT Kylix Delphi and CrossKylix:

I do see the shortcomings of Kylix. I can also understand that some
people might look down on it. For sure Borland made a couple of
mistakes with their Kylix adventure. The lack of success is a proof
itself. Some where technical some were marketing mistakes. However, it
is moot to discuss this now. The situation is as it is.

The new movement in this area is from my POV a change in the right
direction. It will not help to bring in a lot of Linux developpers into
the Delphi camp (actually I guess none would be a safe bet ;-). For
existing Delphi developers, who need to go to Linux for some reason,
CrossKylix is a much less painful way than Kylix on Linux. Hence the
good success that CrossKylix currently has. With a more VCL compatible
CLX it might become even more popular. It might not be good enough for
your standards and needs, but it fits my needs pretty well.
R.F. Pels
2004-11-08 23:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Mitrovics
I do agree on this. Nevertheless I did not understand why you chose to
bring your points across in such a rude manner. The way you had
expressed them did not really help to understand your POV.
Heh. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder :-) What I can't stand is that
some people see fit to perpetuate the stereotypical freeloading image of
Linux users. You cannot blame the failure of Kylix on Linux users not
wanting to buy a product. It is the product that is unsuccessfull, not
because it is/was too expensive, but simply because it didn't cater well
enough to the Linux community as a development tool. As I said in another
post, there are enough IDE's as it is.
Post by Jan Mitrovics
The new movement in this area is from my POV a change in the right
direction. It will not help to bring in a lot of Linux developpers into
the Delphi camp (actually I guess none would be a safe bet ;-).
As a matter of fact, I did purchase all three Kylix versions and had high
expectations of it. I am familiar with Delphi, maybe not the most recent
versions, and would have loved to have the same functionality and speed in
write-test-debug as Delphi, however, Kylix did never pay off for me in that
respect. It never was as stable and it does not fit into Linux good enough.
Post by Jan Mitrovics
For existing Delphi developers, who need to go to Linux for some reason,
CrossKylix is a much less painful way than Kylix on Linux. Hence the
good success that CrossKylix currently has. With a more VCL compatible
CLX it might become even more popular. It might not be good enough for
your standards and needs, but it fits my needs pretty well.
Granted. However, I still think we need to have a close look at how the
latest initiatives are going to pan out in the coming months. And I still
have some reservations about the viability of Kylix in the near future.
--
Ruurd
Jan Mitrovics
2004-11-08 23:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Heh. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder :-) What I can't stand is
that some people see fit to perpetuate the stereotypical freeloading
image of Linux users. You cannot blame the failure of Kylix on Linux
users not wanting to buy a product. It is the product that is
unsuccessfull, not because it is/was too expensive, but simply
because it didn't cater well enough to the Linux community as a
development tool. As I said in another post, there are enough IDE's
as it is.
While I do not like any kind of stereotypes at all, I guess it is quite
safe to say that the market drivers are somewhat different between the
Linux and the Windows world.
Post by R.F. Pels
As a matter of fact, I did purchase all three Kylix versions and had
high expectations of it. I am familiar with Delphi, maybe not the
most recent versions, and would have loved to have the same
functionality and speed in write-test-debug as Delphi, however, Kylix
did never pay off for me in that respect. It never was as stable and
it does not fit into Linux good enough.
I have bought Kylix 1 too. I skipped Kylix 2 and Kylix 3 came with
Delphi 7. I too had high expectations on Kylix, but also on Linux as a
platform. The projects that we targeted with Kylix/Linux did not take
off for reasons more related to business than to technology.
Post by R.F. Pels
Granted. However, I still think we need to have a close look at how
the latest initiatives are going to pan out in the coming months. And
I still have some reservations about the viability of Kylix in the
near future.
Well, I would not want to build a whole business around Kylix for the
time beeing. As mentioned earlier, I appreciate the new initiatives and
really hope they will work out well.
Bob Swart
2004-11-10 12:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ruurd,
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
My personal hope is that Borland will integrate everything needed to build
Linux applications into the Delphi IDE.
LOL. Seeing an onslaught of programs totally unsuitable for Linux.
But you don't need to run it on Linux: only deploy on Linux. I'm quite
happy using Delphi 7 for CLX development (on Windows) and then using
CrossKylix to recompile as a Linux target...
Linux only needed when deploying - not on my desktop ;-)
Post by R.F. Pels
Ruurd
Groetjes,
Bob Swart (aka Dr.Bob - www.DrBob42.com)
--
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42) Borland Technology Partner
Delphi Win32 & .NET training en support - IntraWeb Authorized Trainer
R.F. Pels
2004-11-10 12:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Swart
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Simon Kissel
My personal hope is that Borland will integrate everything needed to
build Linux applications into the Delphi IDE.
LOL. Seeing an onslaught of programs totally unsuitable for Linux.
But you don't need to run it on Linux: only deploy on Linux. I'm quite
happy using Delphi 7 for CLX development (on Windows) and then using
CrossKylix to recompile as a Linux target...
True and false. You know as well as I do that the devil is in the
details :-) For example, the placement of property files in
respectively /etc and dotdirectories, the placement of shared resources,
pesky little things as the naming of shared objects, just to name a few.
Developing and testing on Windows and successfully deploying on Linux
without retesting works only in (IMHO) the minority of cases.
--
Ruurd
Bob Swart
2004-11-10 16:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ruurd,
Post by R.F. Pels
Developing and testing on Windows and successfully deploying on Linux
without retesting works only in (IMHO) the minority of cases.
I never said I didn't need to test on Linux - I still do. But I don't
need to run an IDE on Linux to do the testing...

For me, Windows is the development and testing platform (with Delphi),
and Linux the deployment and testing platform. A remote debugger might
help (one that can run with one part in the Delphi IDE and the remote
part on Linux, hosting my Linux app), but that may be asking too much...

Still, it works for me.
Post by R.F. Pels
Ruurd
Groetjes,
Bob Swart (aka Dr.Bob - www.DrBob42.com)
--
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42) Borland Technology Partner
Delphi Win32 & .NET training en support - IntraWeb Authorized Trainer
Simon Kissel
2004-11-10 18:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Swart
For me, Windows is the development and testing platform (with Delphi),
and Linux the deployment and testing platform. A remote debugger might
help (one that can run with one part in the Delphi IDE and the remote
part on Linux, hosting my Linux app), but that may be asking too much...
I'm about to start writing a remote debugger for CrossKylix. First beta
tests hopefully will start at the end of November.

Simon
Michael Schnell
2004-11-22 07:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
I'm about to start writing a remote debugger for CrossKylix. First beta
tests hopefully will start at the end of November.
Great !

I really wonder how that can be done ! Please keep us posted.

Will it be usable from the Delphi IDE like when remotely debugging on a
Windows target, or will it use a different frontend ?

-Michael
Michael Schnell
2004-11-22 07:34:51 UTC
Permalink
== Ursprüngliche Mitteilung von Bob Swart <***@chello.nl> am 10.11.04
17:34
Post by Bob Swart
For me, Windows is the development and testing platform (with Delphi),
and Linux the deployment and testing platform. A remote debugger might
help (one that can run with one part in the Delphi IDE and the remote
part on Linux, hosting my Linux app)....
Agreed !!! ANDREAS PLEASE !!!!! :)

-Michael
Andreas Hausladen
2004-11-22 07:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schnell
Agreed !!! ANDREAS PLEASE !!!!! :)
Me? Or do you mean Simon, who wants to write a remote debugger.
--
Regards,

Andreas Hausladen
Michael Schnell
2004-11-22 07:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Swart
But you don't need to run it on Linux: only deploy on Linux.
... and test.

IMHO if no decent debugger is available its difficult to deploy decent
applications on a platform.

-Michael
Ender
2004-11-09 14:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
If you are a Linux developer, who wants to develop only under Linux
and for Linux, forget about Kylix. Most "real Linux geeks" don't want
RAD, but hardcore low-level c. Near all of them don't want to work
with closed-source software, and even less want to pay money for
software. That's the reality Borland has faced when trying to sell
Kylix.
I think you mistake about "less want to pay money for software".

Why Linux people does not like closed source? Most likely end-user
never use source of products he use on Linux. So why they needed
sources?

From my personal expirience sources needed to recompile product and
adopt it to current runtime environment. Without having a sources it is
technically difficult to solve inter-environment issues. Even close but
different versions of GNU compilers has compatibility problems.
Currently i'm writing stuff that should run on MDK 8.2,9.2,10.2. This
result in using three g++ compilers 2.96, 3.0, 3.2. Without sources it
is difficult to produce single flawless solution.

So the one path for closed source developer is to maintain binaries
working all available (and actively used by people) distros and pray
that it will work on other. Without this, product quickly suffer from
stream of bugs and incompatibilites. Exactly what happened with Kylix.

Think why people buy, for example, Oracle and VMWare? They both
close-sourced apps. Just because they work without problems, they
updated and maintained on regular basis.
Michael Schnell
2004-11-22 07:05:30 UTC
Permalink
== Ursprüngliche Mitteilung von "Simon Kissel" <***@computerman.de> am
8.11.04 13:16
Post by Simon Kissel
c) A remote debugger.
I suppose Delphi 2005 has a remote debugger.

So the frontend is there and (provided we have the appropriate
compiler/linker/libraries) just the Linux debug runtime is needed to be
added to have a full "remote IDE". OK it's a sacrilege to use Windows to
develop for Linux, but that is the Borland way....

-Michael
Jan Mitrovics
2004-11-08 10:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
What's dead is the CLX on Windows, and rightfully so. Nobody really
wanted to do CLX on Windows and to have to ship QT libs with the
application anyway. What most people probably want is native Win32
(VCL) for Windows, and VCL/CLX for Linux. The key to getting there
Make the Linux CLX more compatible to the Windows VCL, and then use
the Windows VCL designer to design your forms. These then can be
compiled to Linux.
Yes, that's definitely a better way to go. I really do wonder, why
Borland went through the hazzle to create CLX for Windows and did not
do this from the beginning. I think that's one of the reasons, why
Kylix did not take off.

How difficult will it really be to convert CLX on Linux to better match
the VCL? AFAIK they are already pretty similar. The most prominent
issue will be to get rid of the strange Q in all the Unit names...
Post by Simon Kissel
This at least is what I'd like to see, and Borlands decision to drop
the CLX for Windows by no means is a road-block for that.
Yes. It might be even a good thing, if that really triggers the
conversion of CLX.

BTW: I am really impressed with CrossKylix. It has really restarted my
interest in Kylix. Thanks a lot for doing this!

Jan
Simon Kissel
2004-11-08 12:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Mitrovics
Post by Simon Kissel
Make the Linux CLX more compatible to the Windows VCL, and then use
the Windows VCL designer to design your forms. These then can be
compiled to Linux.
Yes, that's definitely a better way to go. I really do wonder, why
Borland went through the hazzle to create CLX for Windows and did not
do this from the beginning. I think that's one of the reasons, why
Kylix did not take off.
The most probable reason is that during planning the project, Borland
thought they couldn't get CLX compatible enough to the VCL, and that
it would be better to offer a solution that's 1:1 the same for Windows
and Linux.
Post by Jan Mitrovics
How difficult will it really be to convert CLX on Linux to better match
the VCL? AFAIK they are already pretty similar. The most prominent
issue will be to get rid of the strange Q in all the Unit names...
Right. For CLX on Linux, there also are quite a lot of QT-related problems
to solve. But all in all, the current CLX is a pretty good base to get
VCL to Linux. Of course there are a few problems, also concept-wise. One
is how to mark if a VCL component in the tool palette/forms designer if it
will compile for Win32 only or for both Linux and Win32. This probably was
the reason for the Q-stuff - it makes you know if a component is cross-
platform or not.
Post by Jan Mitrovics
Post by Simon Kissel
This at least is what I'd like to see, and Borlands decision to drop
the CLX for Windows by no means is a road-block for that.
Yes. It might be even a good thing, if that really triggers the
conversion of CLX.
Right.
Post by Jan Mitrovics
BTW: I am really impressed with CrossKylix. It has really restarted my
interest in Kylix. Thanks a lot for doing this!
Thanks. I myself also am very positive regarding Kylix future, now that I
see how many people are using CrossKylix. Compared to the low activity
in this newsgroup, it's an quite impressive number.

Simon
Jan Mitrovics
2004-11-08 13:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
The most probable reason is that during planning the project, Borland
thought they couldn't get CLX compatible enough to the VCL, and that
it would be better to offer a solution that's 1:1 the same for Windows
and Linux.
Might be one reason. Anyway, let's look into the (bright) future :)
Post by Simon Kissel
One is how to mark if a VCL component in the tool
palette/forms designer if it will compile for Win32 only or for both
Linux and Win32.
I hope that would not be necessary. At least initially...
There are incompatibilities, but as long as the dfm files are
compatible, the rest could be sorted out during a compile run.
Post by Simon Kissel
This probably was the reason for the Q-stuff - it
makes you know if a component is cross- platform or not.
In the end it's the compiler / linker who needs to know what to
incorporate. If there is no CLX on Windows (and no VCL on Linux) there
is no need to separate this.
Post by Simon Kissel
Post by Jan Mitrovics
BTW: I am really impressed with CrossKylix. It has really restarted
my interest in Kylix. Thanks a lot for doing this!
Thanks. I myself also am very positive regarding Kylix future, now
that I see how many people are using CrossKylix. Compared to the low
activity in this newsgroup, it's an quite impressive number.
And with a VCL compatible CLX I think the number would even more
increase. If then all those compiler enhancements of Delphi 2005 are in
the Kylix compiler that could become the "dream-team" Kylix never was.

Jan
Dean
2004-11-08 19:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Kissel
Thanks. I myself also am very positive regarding Kylix future, now that I
see how many people are using CrossKylix. Compared to the low activity
in this newsgroup, it's an quite impressive number.<<

That's really good Simon - I'm pleased for you. I bet there were more than a
few moments where you thought "I wonder if anyone will actually use
this...." !!

I'm using it and it's been an excellent addition to my armoury.

Dean
Jan Mitrovics
2004-11-08 10:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Hoornweg
A sad day. Delphi 2005 will have no more CLX support or
so I've heard.
So any future Kylix version will no more have the "platform
independence" feature because you can't recompile a Kylix
source under Delphi or vice versa.
So guys, it looks like Kylix is dead...
Sorry, but this is nonsense.

1) Kylix and Delphi 7 still work. Delphi 2005 is not changing this.

2) There is the FreeCLX initiative, which may (and I hope does) lead to
CLX becoming available for Delphi 2005 too.

3) CrossKylix will be on the companion CD of Delphi 2005, suporting
Delphi 2005.

4) We do not know what will happen on the Kylix side. Borland has been
much to busy with the Windows side during this year and the year before
to do much on Kylix. I guess that this will be similar next year with
.Net 2.0 on the horizon. Nevertheless Borland has been changing the
strategy somewhat on Kylix (e.g. with FreeCLX), which is showing that
Borland is seeking for a way how to continue Kylix.

Jan
DAllman
2004-11-17 04:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Hoornweg
A sad day. Delphi 2005 will have no more CLX support or
so I've heard.
So any future Kylix version will no more have the "platform
independence" feature because you can't recompile a Kylix
source under Delphi or vice versa.
So guys, it looks like Kylix is dead...
How Kylix SHOULD have been built and marketed:

Basically if Kylix is dead I think it died for two reasons.

1. The problems with deploying both QT licensed edition and QT Free
eddition based apps on a single computer using a special Borland built
version of Licensed QT. (Rather nasty work arounds like launch scropts
had to be used to deploy apps with this system.

2. Marketing it primarily as a Windows Software porting tool.

Kylix visual componants in my opinon should have been built on the GTK
library
despite its GNOMEish looks even on KDE for the folowing reasons.

GTK has a proprietary software friendly licensing policy (LGPL. For
you Free Software fanatics out there you have to remember Boralnd want
to make Kylix so it could be used for both Free And Closed software.)
There would have to have been NO fancy negotiations with TrollTech
which to this day I still think is the reason for puting the "Personal
Use Only" licenses on entry level products and raising the prices of
Professional and Enterprise products to be even higher than Micro$ofts
if GTK was the Library used for CLX.

This one is on a purely technical note and not one of my usual rants
on this subject. I believe that GTK would have been a better Library
to base CLX on precicely because of its streight C procedural
structure. This would have much better attuned to the single
inheritance OOP structure of Object Pascal than the C++ based QT with
its multiple enheritance, MOC dependence and other incapabilities with
the Object Pascal language.

GTK is automatically available in virtually all Linux Distros. (at
least the ones that include NGU Cash, The GNUmeric Spreadsheat and the
GIMP image processing app. In fact the later app was what GTK was
originally designed for.
There would have been NONE of the dependency and deployment issues
currently plaguing the would be distributors of Kylix/CLX apps now if
GTK were the library of choice for them rather than QT/2.

In the marketing area however is where I think the BIGGEST goofs were
made with Kylix. Kylix should have never been promoted as a simple
Windows porting tool. People who wanted Kylix were looking for a
Visual Basic clone but that one that compiled fully native apps in a
language like PowerBASIC or Object Pascal. Borland should have kept
their ORIGINAL pricing structure. $90.00 for an Entry Level Standard
Version that could be used to develop BOTH Free and Closed Commercial
software. (Again this was possible with the Proprietary software
friendly LGPLed GTK but NOT with the proprietary QT.) $300.00 for the
professional version and $900.00 for the Enterprise version. The entry
level version should have been marketed as THE Visual Basic equivalant
for Linux. It would have sold like hotcakes and established the
Proffessional and Enterprise versions of the product better with
larger businesses.
theo
2004-10-21 17:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Tom Emerson schrieb:
Does Borland plan on anything (significant or
Post by Tom Emerson
otherwise) for "Kylix" in the near future?
Here is all I know about the future of Kylix:
http://freeclx.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=about
Darian Miller
2004-10-22 18:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Emerson
Greetings -- it's been a while since I've posted or checked, so forgive me
if this seems a bit naive -- last I heard was that there were "no plans for
a new version in 2004". Since 2004 is "nearly over", I'm beginning to
wonder "how about 2005?"
FWIW, lately I've been looking at Linux/Kylix as I have a product idea that
I want to implement with this combo...however, it's not looking too
encouraging - all you need to do is to look at Borland's own website, bring
up the Kylix page and click on 'Product News' here's the link:
http://www.borland.com/kylix/news/index.html This is a completely dead
product - nothing 'new' since 01-Nov-02. BOTTOM LINE: If a Kylix
prospective customer brings up that page, what are they to think? I tell
you what I think - and that's I'm starting to rethink the Linux/Kylix idea
that I had!

Darian
Micha Schumann
2004-10-26 00:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darian Miller
Post by Tom Emerson
Greetings -- it's been a while since I've posted or checked, so forgive me
if this seems a bit naive -- last I heard was that there were "no plans
for
Post by Tom Emerson
a new version in 2004". Since 2004 is "nearly over", I'm beginning to
wonder "how about 2005?"
FWIW, lately I've been looking at Linux/Kylix as I have a product idea that
I want to implement with this combo...however, it's not looking too
encouraging - all you need to do is to look at Borland's own website, bring
http://www.borland.com/kylix/news/index.html This is a completely dead
product - nothing 'new' since 01-Nov-02. BOTTOM LINE: If a Kylix
prospective customer brings up that page, what are they to think? I tell
you what I think - and that's I'm starting to rethink the Linux/Kylix idea
that I had!
Darian
Hi,

i am exacly in the same situation but I think I will go with
Delphy/Kylix with CrosKylix. The time I save with this great Toolkit is
worth the risk of having to go Java if Kylix/Delphi once do not work
anymore...

Anyway i have the stong feeling that Delphi/Kylix will last or quite ome
years!

Micha
Darian Miller
2004-10-25 22:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Micha Schumann
Hi,
i am exacly in the same situation but I think I will go with
Delphy/Kylix with CrosKylix. The time I save with this great Toolkit is
worth the risk of having to go Java if Kylix/Delphi once do not work
anymore...
Anyway i have the stong feeling that Delphi/Kylix will last or quite ome
years!
Do you think Java is after Kylix/Delphi? I would think Dot Net or Mono
might be the next choice. Have you played around with that yet?

I'll play with CrossKylix and see how it works. If I can get a simple echo
server built, installed and running on my new Linux box I'll be a happy
camper for now.

Darian
Micha Schumann
2004-10-26 23:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darian Miller
Post by Micha Schumann
Hi,
i am exacly in the same situation but I think I will go with
Delphy/Kylix with CrosKylix. The time I save with this great Toolkit is
worth the risk of having to go Java if Kylix/Delphi once do not work
anymore...
Anyway i have the stong feeling that Delphi/Kylix will last or quite ome
years!
Do you think Java is after Kylix/Delphi? I would think Dot Net or Mono
might be the next choice. Have you played around with that yet?
Yes. Java ist sure much more crossplatform than .NET. IMO if there is an
alternative to Kylix/Delphi then I Think Java is it. I got the
impression with .NET that mono uses WIne on Linux for the graphical
stuff. K.O.! Besides that .NET gets patches after patches like we are
used to with Microsoft products.
Post by Darian Miller
I'll play with CrossKylix and see how it works. If I can get a simple echo
server built, installed and running on my new Linux box I'll be a happy
camper for now.
CrossKylix allowed me to write a daemon in minutes in my Delphi 7
environment. Simon Kissel diserves a medal for his work! I am sure you
will be happy with it! A Tip: Compile your libs with Kylix and copy the
dcu's to your CrossKylix installation.
Post by Darian Miller
Darian
Best regards

Micha
SiegfriedN
2004-10-27 12:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Micha Schumann wrote:

.. impression with .NET that mono uses WIne on Linux for the graphical
Post by Micha Schumann
stuff. K.O.! Besides that .NET gets patches after patches like we are
used to with Microsoft products.
I think it is only for the system.windows.forms, iow when using the
MS.Net GUI framework (all the Delphi.Net stuff)

You can however use GTK#, QT#, etc for the GUI for better cross platform
functionality. AFAIK you can only use MonoDevelop for that at the moment
and unfortunately there is not a forms designer released yet.

That is why I keep saying Delphi.Net should have been build on Mono with
GTK# rather than system.windows.forms. MS.Net GUI is a waste of time for
xplatform!

siegs.
SiegfriedN
2004-10-27 13:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SiegfriedN
You can however use GTK#, QT#, etc for the GUI for better cross platform
functionality. AFAIK you can only use MonoDevelop for that at the moment
and unfortunately there is not a forms designer released yet.
'Stetic' seems to be the GTK# GUI designer name which is in development
- I have not found any definite web site about it though..

siegs
Willibald Krenn
2004-10-27 12:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Micha Schumann
I got the
impression with .NET that mono uses WIne on Linux for the graphical
stuff.
AFAIK this is not correct. See
http://www.mono-project.com/contributing/winforms.html

Willi
Leonel
2004-10-27 14:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willibald Krenn
Post by Micha Schumann
I got the
impression with .NET that mono uses WIne on Linux for the graphical
stuff.
AFAIK this is not correct.
It was correct once, but they changed it.
--
Leonel
http://www.techtips.com.br
"Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good
programmers write code that humans can understand." - Martin Fowler
Willibald Krenn
2004-10-27 16:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonel
It was correct once, but they changed it.
Yep, but that wasn't the question ;-)

Willi
Micha Schumann
2004-10-27 23:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willibald Krenn
I got the impression with .NET that mono uses WIne on Linux for the
graphical stuff.
AFAIK this is not correct. See
http://www.mono-project.com/contributing/winforms.html
Willi
Thanks for that info - I must admit that it ist some months ago that I
tried mono - I will try the latest version. I would be glad if I was
wrong with my opinions about .NET...

Micha
Willibald Krenn
2004-10-27 21:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Micha Schumann
Thanks for that info - I must admit that it ist some months ago that I
tried mono - I will try the latest version. I would be glad if I was
wrong with my opinions about .NET...
If you want to use Windows Forms, you'll have to wait for mono 1.2 which
should be released somewhen Q4/04. (But I guess it'll be somewhat late :-) )

See http://www.mono-project.com/about/mono-roadmap.html#mono12 for the
mono 1.2 roadmap.

For a more general/technical overview of what's in the queue:
http://www.go-mono.com/summit-notes.html

HTH
Willi
Marco van de Voort
2004-10-22 20:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Emerson
Greetings -- it's been a while since I've posted or checked, so forgive me
if this seems a bit naive -- last I heard was that there were "no plans for
a new version in 2004". Since 2004 is "nearly over", I'm beginning to
wonder "how about 2005?"
At the local Fry's, there is one lone "upgrade" package still on the shelf.
I was reluctant to buy it last year because of the aforementioned
announcement, and I still find myself not-quite-able to actually buy it now
because of "nagging doubt". Does Borland plan on anything (significant or
otherwise) for "Kylix" in the near future?
I know it is a vicious circle/catch-22 sort of thing, but I need some
assurance that "investing" in them by buying their products is a "wise
thing to do" ;)
As such, there are other packages out there that are likely to grab my
developmet dollar: free-pascal and Gambas (Gambas in particular for the
"rad" style of development)
Free Pascal too, but needs its RAD part Lazarus (lazarus.freepascal.org).
Tom Emerson
2004-10-23 05:16:24 UTC
Permalink
[...] last I heard was that there were "no plans for a new version in
2004". Since 2004 is "nearly over", I'm beginning to wonder "how about
2005?"
Wow -- lots of interesting points have been brought up, but it seems most of
you missed my parenthetical remark in the subject -- what is the
word /from/ /borland/ specifically? From the replies that included some
idea of Borland's point of view, it seems the answer is "little or no
change", which is not good :(

There is also a lot of talk about something called "crosskylix", which
doesn't sound like it will be of benefit to me since I don't have any
"windows" machines handy (unless I'm missing the boat on this and it DOES
indeed run "under linux" just as it does under windows -- I had best check
that site out at some point ... ;) )

I know some might consider this blasphemous, but all I really want is
something comparable to visual-basic, but completely native to the Linux
platform [my "day job" is as a mainframe {cobol} and PC {visual basic}
programmer, which doesn't contradict what I said above: the {windows}
machines I'm using are "not mine", but rather the company's machine, hence
I really don't have a "windows" machine for my spare-time/just for fun
stuff] As most of you will attest, Kylix is/was the closest thing out
there that would fit this bill :) One "down side" to flipping between
systems and methodologies is that I keep trying to use VB components as if
they were Kylix components, and getting frustrated when things don't work
"as easily as they should"
Darian Miller
2004-10-23 15:00:11 UTC
Permalink
I know some might consider this blasphemous, but all I really want is
Post by Tom Emerson
something comparable to visual-basic, but completely native to the Linux
platform [my "day job" is as a mainframe {cobol} and PC {visual basic}
programmer, which doesn't contradict what I said above: the {windows}
machines I'm using are "not mine", but rather the company's machine, hence
I really don't have a "windows" machine for my spare-time/just for fun
stuff] As most of you will attest, Kylix is/was the closest thing out
there that would fit this bill :) One "down side" to flipping between
systems and methodologies is that I keep trying to use VB components as if
they were Kylix components, and getting frustrated when things don't work
"as easily as they should"
Did you check out Gambas? http://gambas.sourceforge.net/
Mike Margerum
2004-10-28 20:50:22 UTC
Permalink
http://www.realbasic.com/
Darian Miller
2004-10-28 21:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Are you using this? It does look pretty cool as a cross platform tool.

Is it stable?
Post by Mike Margerum
http://www.realbasic.com/
Tom Emerson
2004-11-07 04:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darian Miller
Are you using this? It does look pretty cool as a cross platform tool.
Is it stable?
Post by Mike Margerum
http://www.realbasic.com/
the deal killers (for me) are price (stuff I do for myself is at the
hobbyist level, not enterprise development :) ) and NO linux IDE (so far as
I can tell)

Now, item 1 can easily change should someone ask me to write something for
them [and pay me as appropriate], however I don't see any point in
DEVELOPING from a windows platform just to make a linux executable -- at
that point I might as well write it in VB 5 or 6 [which I have] and hope it
runs under wine :)
Dean
2004-11-07 12:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Emerson
however I don't see any point in
DEVELOPING from a windows platform just to make a linux executable
It's a great convenience if you write cross-platform applications.

-- at
Post by Tom Emerson
that point I might as well write it in VB 5 or 6 [which I have] and hope it
runs under wine :)
That would be silly given how easy it is to create a native linux app.

Dean
Marco van de Voort
2004-11-07 15:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean
Post by Tom Emerson
however I don't see any point in
DEVELOPING from a windows platform just to make a linux executable
It's a great convenience if you write cross-platform applications.
And if you are windows based of course. Otherwise you'd want the other
way around :)

However I would want to have a linux IDE anyway, since I can then do
straight full GUI debugging, even if I would work from Windows most of the
time.
Chuck J
2004-11-05 16:26:55 UTC
Permalink
In short - N O. The future of Kylix is bleak at the very best. The
protestations to the contrary sound much like the ol' Monty Python skit
about the "dead" parrot not being dead.
Loading...