Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kylix in Limbo

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the near-abandonware-spotting dept.

Programming 443

IgD writes "Kylix, Borland's Linux port of their popular Delphi compiler has been covered on Slashdot before. LinuxWorld is reporting that Kylix development is in limbo. Many speculate this is a politically correct way of saying the project has been abandoned. There hasn't been any updates to Kylix 3.0 in well over a year. One user who attended BorCon this year wrote in his blog that Borland didn't have any updates to Kylix planned for 2004. This is really disheartening news. Why didn't Kylix sell? Does this say something about the application or about the difficulties of marketing a commercial Linux application?"

cancel ×

443 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413931)

FP

Re:First Post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413940)

FUCK YOU

Kylix should change its name to Kylie (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413933)

Remember: Sex Sells!

WHAT IS BIG & BLUE & SITS ON MY FRONT PORC (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414261)

My nigger, and I'll paint his ass any color I want.

Beeeee-yotch!!

tsarkon reports greased up yoda doll in the ass (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413937)

tsarkon reports THE GREASED YODA DOLL GREASED YODA !

8 steps to greasing your anus for yoda doll insertion

1) defecate. preferably after eating senna, ex lax, prunes, cabbage and hot sauces.
2) wipe ass with witch hazel, soothes horrific burns
3) prime anus with anal ease.
4) slather richly a considerable amount of vaseline or other anal lubricants into your rectum at least until the bend and also take your yoda doll or yoda soap on a rope and liberally apply it.
5) pucker your ballon knot several times actuating the sphincter muscle in order to work it in
6) slowly rest yourself onto your yoda figurine
7) make sure to have a mechanism by which to fish yoda out of your rectum, the soap on the rope is especially useful because that is built in.
8) gyrate gleefully in your computer chair while your fat sexless geek nerd loser fat shit self enjoys the prostate massage you'll be getting. Read slashdot. Masturbate to anime. Email one of the editors hoping they will honor you with a reply. Join several more dating services - this time, you dont check the (desired - speaks english) and (desired - literate). You figure you might get a chance then. Order some fucking crap from Think Geek. Get Linux to boot on a Black And Decker Appliance. Wish you could afford a new computer. Argue that IDE is better than SCSI because you cant afford SCSI. Make claims about how Linux rules. Compile a kernel on your 486SX. Claim to hate windows but use it for Everquest. Admire Ghyslain's courage in making that wonderful star wars movie. Officially convert to the Jedi religion. Talk about how cool Mega Tokyo is. Try and make sure you do your regular 50 story submissions to Slashdot, all of which get rejected because people who arent fatter than CowboyNeal can't submit. Fondle shrimpy penis while making a yoda voice and saying, feel the force, padawan, feeel the foooorce, hurgm. Yes. Yes. When 900 years you reach, a dick half as big you will not have.

All in a days work with a yoda figurine rammed up your ass.

Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Take your ass grease pills and put your helmet on
Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Commencing countdown, engines on
Check ignition and may God's love shove up you
Ten, Nine, Eight, Seven, Six, Five, Four, Three, Two, One, Shove Up
This is Ground Control to Yoda Doll
You've really made the grade
And the papers want to know whose butts you tear
Now it's time to leave the suppository if you dare
"This is Yoda Doll to Ground Control
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm stinking in a most peculiar way
And the ass look very different today
For here am I sitting in an ass can
Far inside the butt
My face is turning blue
And there's nothing I can do
Though I'm past one hundred thousand bowels
I'm feeling very still
And I think my buttship knows which way to go
Tell my wife I ream her very much, she knows"
Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong
Can you hear me, Yoda Doll?
Can you hear me, Yoda Doll?
Can you hear me, Yoda Doll?
Can you....
"Here am I floating in my ass can
Far inside his Moon
My face is turning blue
And there's nothing I can do."

Re:tsarkon reports greased up yoda doll in the ass (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414018)

Mod up! This is one of the best posts I have read in a while.

Delphi? (3, Insightful)

Qweezle (681365) | more than 10 years ago | (#7413941)

I don't know much about Delphi, but I know a good deal of Java, and it seems that the "new thing" for Linux is Java.

I'm sure there's a market for Delphi, but why not just use C or C++?

Re:Delphi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413991)

In an announcement that has stunned the computer industry, Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan admitted that the Unix operating system and C programming language created by them is an elaborate April Fools prank kept alive for over 20 years. Speaking at the recent UnixWorld Software Development Forum, Thompson revealed the following:

"In 1969, AT&T had just terminated their work with the GE/Honeywell/AT&T Multics project. Brian and I had just started working with an early release of Pascal from Professor Nichlaus Wirth's ETH labs in Switzerland and we were impressed with its elegant simplicity and power.

Dennis had just finished reading 'Bored of the Rings', a hilarious National Lampoon parody of the great Tolkien 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy. As a lark, we decided to do parodies of the Multics environment and Pascal. Dennis and I were responsible for the operating environment. We looked at Multics and designed the new system to be as complex and cryptic as possible to maximize casual users' frustration levels, calling it Unix as a parody of Multics, as well as other more risque allusions. Then Dennis and Brian worked on a truly warped version of Pascal, called 'A'. When we found others were actually trying to create real programs with A, we quickly added additional cryptic features and evolved into B, BCPL and finally C. We stopped when we got a clean compile on the following syntax:

for(;P("\n"),R-;P("|"))for(e=C;e-;P("_"+(*u++/8) %2 ))P("|"+(*u/4) %2);

To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that allowed such a statement was beyond our comprehension! We actually thought of selling this to the Soviets to set their computer science progress back 20 or more years. Imagine our surprise when AT&T and other US corporations actually began trying to use Unix and C! It has taken them 20 years to develop enough expertise to generate even marginally useful applications using this 1960's technological parody, but we are impressed with the tenacity (if not common sense) of the general Unix and C programmer. In any event, Brian, Dennis and I have been working exclusively in Pascal on the Apple Macintosh for the past few years and feel really guilty about the chaos, confusion and truly bad programming that have resulted from our silly prank so long ago."

Major Unix and C vendors and customers, including AT&T, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, GTE, NCR, and DEC have refused comment at this time. Borland International, a leading vendor of Pascal and C tools, including the popular Turbo Pascal, Turbo C and Turbo C++, stated they had suspected this for a number of years and would continue to enhance their Pascal products and halt further efforts to develop C. An IBM spokesman broke into uncontrolled laughter and had to postpone a hastily convened news conference concerning the fate of the RS-6000, merely stating 'VM will be available Real Soon Now'. In a cryptic statement, Professor Wirth of the ETH institute and father of the Pascal, Modula 2 and Oberon structured languages, merely stated that P. T. Barnum was correct.

Re:Delphi? (5, Insightful)

omibus (116064) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414021)

It is called ease of use, also known as a RAD development. Fact is, using delphi you can get a program done in roughly half the time, complete with a gui ui. That is why Delphi/Kylix is importaint. That is why C# exists (and looks like delphi).

Re:Delphi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414037)

A GUI UI? You can borrow my shotgun if you need it. Just give me time to put on my poncho.

Re:Delphi? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414157)

DUMBASS

Re:Delphi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414039)

It says everything about Borland. They suck. They are a has been just like SCO. They priced it out of reach for any small developers. Sure they gave away a version, but if the app was meant to be sold/non-GPL, you were not even supposed to develop it with the free version. That is shit. Then, to get a real version, a person had to pay 6 times the price of M$ Visual Studio. Maybe Kylix is 6x the language and environment, but that isn't gonna cut it when people look at the sticker and see the price. Borland has priced themselves out of the market for years - this is not a surprise to me.

Linux users are cheap (2, Insightful)

king_ramen (537239) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414087)

Linux users by their nature are averse to paying for software. I would rather roll my own stuff using Java, Tcl, PHP, etc. and then not be dependent on a company like Borland.

I looked at Kylix as it looked cool but now it appears I was correct in avoiding it. I pity companies who try to sell software to people like me who are addicted to free (as in beer) software.

Re:Delphi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414134)

Try and get Kylix running under a non-supported distribution. That includes Red Hat 8 and 9. Very difficult, and not supported out of the box.

So much about Linux changes all the time - qt, the kernel, wine, glibc, and so on. Trying to write a proprietary, native-compiled application (let alone development environment!) is a huge exercise in maintenance.

Kylix didn't sell well enough to justify the huge development costs. Sadly, that's all it takes for a product to die. Kylix rocked.

The Problem (1, Insightful)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 10 years ago | (#7413946)

Does this say something about the application or about the difficulties of marketing a commercial Linux application?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the problem may lie with Delphi, dontcha think?
By comparison, even if you could port a Windows app over to Linux tomorrow, that doesn't mean that every company out there is going to do it.

Re:The Problem (2, Interesting)

uradu (10768) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414227)

Insightful?!

> but the problem may lie with Delphi, dontcha think?

Elaborate please. It's still the best tool for whipping out large native Win32 apps. Sure, it's dwarfed by the number of users of MS development tools, but then which other development system isn't? The very fact that Borland survived the development tool shakeout and is still around is pretty amazing. Just because MS languages have such an overwhelming market share says nothing about the (lack of) quality of other tools.

Hmm... (1)

GregThePaladin (696772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7413948)

So, Red Hat isn't good for homes, and this isn't good for commerical use. Does this mean Linux is out of the game? No. It just means there's diffrent distros for diffrent things. FP, by the way.

YOU LOSE, FATALITY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413958)

No FP for you.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414274)

Yes linux is out of game.

Loki went under a long time ago...

I can tell you why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413952)

Why didn't Kylix sell?

Well, did you buy any licenses, you GNU hippies?

Oh, and expect the product manager to say that home users better stick to Visual Studio .NET 2003 Enteprise Architect Edition.

Re:I can tell you why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414203)

Or, you fasicist W' boy, it is more likely that people have decided that Kylix did not offer enough above and beyond what kdevelop and other things offer to warrent the price. I have no problem paying for software, but all too often companies offer an incrmentally better (and all too often worse) product, but expect money for it. Kinda of like the MS world.

To be honest, I did buy the it, but I am not impressed by it. Sadly, Kdevelop offers more.

Uhm, Delphi (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413953)

Because, uhm, Delphi is a terrible, terrible waste of time?

Eclipse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413956)

Maybe the developers it was aimed at adopted Eclipse instead?

Kylix (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413957)

For the Older crowd who will understand My Mom used to cut chicken, chop eggs and spread Mayo on the same cutting board with the same knife and no bleach, but we didn't seem to get food poisoning. My Mom used to defrost hamburger on the counter AND I used to eat it raw sometimes too, but I can't remember getting E-coli. Almost all of us would have rather gone swimming in the lake instead of a pristine pool (talk about boring), the term cell phone would have conjured up a phone in a jail cell, and a pager was the school PA system. We all took gym, not PE ... and risked permanent injury with a pair of high top Ked's (only worn in gym) instead of having cross-training athletic shoes with air cushion soles and built in light reflectors. I can't recall any in juries but they must have happened because they tell us how much safer we are now. Flunking gym was not an option ... even for stupid kids! I guess PE must be much harder than gym. Every year, someone taught the whole school a lesson by running in the halls with leather soles on linoleum tile and hitting the wet spot. How much better off would we be today if we only knew we could have sued the school system. Speaking of school, we all said prayers and the pledge and staying in detention after school caught all sorts of negative attention. We must have had horribly damaged psyches. I thought that I was supposed to accomplish something before I was allowed to be proud of myself. I just can't recall how bored we were without computers, PlayStation, Nintendo, X-b ox or 270 digital cable stations. I must be repressing that memory as I try to rationalize through the denial of the dangers could have befallen us as we trekked off each day about a mile down the road to some guy's vacant 20, built forts out of branches and pieces of plywood, made trails, and fought over who got to be the Lone Ranger. What was that property owner thinking, letting us play on that lot? He should have been locked up for not putting up a fence around the property, complete with a self-closing gate and an infrared intruder alarm. Oh yeah ... and where was the Benadryl and sterilization kit when I got that bee sting? I could have been killed! We played king of the hill on piles of gravel left on vacant construction sites and when we got hurt, Mom pulled out the 48 cent bottle of mercurochrome and then we got our butt spanked. Now it's a trip to the emergency room, followed by a 10-day dose of a $49 bottle of antibiotics and then Mom calls the attorney to sue the contractor for leaving a horribly vicious pile of gravel where it was such a threat. We didn't act up at the neighbor's house either because if we did, we got our butt spanked (physical abuse) here too ... and then we got our butt spanked again when we got home. Mom invited the door to door salesman inside for coffee, kids choked down the dust from the gravel driveway while playing with Tonka trucks (remember why Tonka trucks were made tough ... it wasn't so that they could take the rough Berber in the family room), and Dad drove a car with leaded gas. Our music had to be left inside when we went out to play and I am sure that I nearly exhausted my imagination a couple of times when we went on two week vacations. I should probably sue the folks now for the danger they put us in when we all slept in campgrounds in the family tent. Summers were spent behind the push lawnmower and I didn't even know that mowers came with motors until I was 13 and we got one without an automatic blade-stop or an auto-drive. How sick were my parents? Of course my parents weren't the only psychos. I recall Donny Reynolds from next door coming over and doing his tricks on the front stoop just before he fell off. Little did his Mom know that she could have owned our house. Instead she picked him up and swatted him for being such a goof. It was a neighborhood run amuck. To top it off, not a single person I knew had ever been told that they were from a dysfunctional family. How could we possibly have known that we needed to get into group therapy and anger management classes? We were obviously so duped by so many societal ills, that we didn't even notice that the entire country wasn't taking Prozac! How did we survive?

Re:Kylix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413973)

Huh?

OT: vegetative state (0, Offtopic)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7413959)

Off topic... but the quote struck a nerve.

"If you can't resuscitate the patient, remove the feeding tube," the attendee said. "Don't just let it linger in a vegetative state."

As a doctor, it kills me that they are making a symbol out of that poor little girl. Please let my spouse decide what is best for me.

There's a difference in being alive and really "being alive."

Re:OT: vegetative state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414064)

This is why it's important to establish a good living will as soon as possible, preferably with reference to different desired outcomes according to your position on the Glasgow coma scale [ox.ac.uk] .

Don't put it off. By the time you need it, you'll be well beyond being able to quickly whip one up.

As a Doctor, you probably understand how important this is. But lots of people aren't even aware of the concept of living wills, or the simple importance of leaving written instructions. Of course, I don't know if LW's are recognised in all US states, so your mileage may vary.

YLFI

Re:OT: vegetative state (1, Offtopic)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414109)

Living wills are excellent supporting data; however, the family still makes the final decision in most cases.

For example, if this lady would could have had a living will that said: "Remove support if I am in a irreversible condition." The parents would argue that it's reversible and the husband would argue otherwise.

As an ICU doctor, I see people die everyday. I make sure they die with respect and painlessly.

The worse thing that can happen is that somebody lives out his/her life in ways against his/her will. People have the right to die on their terms.

Sad.

David

Re:OT: vegetative state (0, Offtopic)

Otter (3800) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414152)

I don't get this scale -- you can open your eyes in response to speech, move limbs in response to pain and speak in a confused way and you're in the middle of the coma scale?

I see the value in clarifying your will according to this standard. I'm scoring an 11 right now. How low do you plan to go (actually, I'm asking you and the grandparent seriously about this since you've thought about it and seem informed) before your spouse has you put under?

Re:OT: vegetative state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414219)

"I don't get this scale -- you can open your eyes in response to speech, move limbs in response to pain and speak in a confused way and you're in the middle of the coma scale?"

You can cut a fly's head off and it will still drink, even though the ingested fluid just spurts out the neck.

(A nifty factoid obtained from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, according to the EB, if a dragonfly's tail is positioned in front of its mouth, it may devour its own abdomen until it dies.)

Re:OT: vegetative state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414186)

In this case the spouse announced his plans to marry immediately after his wife dies, and will only let doctors approved by him see his wife. That's quite a bit different than you're making it out.

Re:OT: vegetative state (0)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414210)

Well then as a doctor you should know that the brain has a remarkable ability to rewire itself. The husband has been told that with special therapy she could even learn to feed herself. Her husband recieved 1.5 Million to get that therapy for her. To this date he has not spent any money therapy only for lawyers. Her parents believe that the husband has a 1.5 Million dollar reason to see her dead. She is not on life support, just a feeding tube. Do you know what dehydration and starvation feels like? I almost died from it and it is the most horrible way I can think of dying except for servere burns and infection dragging on as long. This is not a right to die case, it's a right to kill case! Here on ./ people always complain when people don't read the articles. Well look at the whole case not just the soundbites from the right to die crowd. Their are alot better mascots for their cause. I support the right to die, but I can't support euthanasia!

Why Didn't Kylix Sell? (5, Insightful)

TechnoGrl (322690) | more than 10 years ago | (#7413970)

Maybe it had something to do with the 1000+ price you had to pay for the full developer version? You think?

Oh yes, Borland has come a long way since Phillipe's idea of a full blown compiler as good (if not better) than anything on the market for 99 bucks. Gone are the days of Turbo Pascal and Turbo C ... hello to increasing "Shareholder Value".

And Helloooo to you too linux you cutie...you're looking better by the minute!

Re:Why Didn't Kylix Sell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414036)

Phillipe.
The only man to truly give Gates a scare.
And now I think he's playing with PDAs or something.

A good GUI front-end for dBase would've killed MS Access dead. In its tracks.
Instead, Borland, WordPerfect and Lotus have been flying in circles wondering when Bill will stop the boat.

seen the price of VS.NET? (1)

Kunta Kinte (323399) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414080)

Maybe it had something to do with the 1000+ price you had to pay for the full developer version? You think?

Isn't that about the price of many of the more popular IDEs? VS.NET Professional sticker price is also $999 ( check amazon for instance ).

Oh yes, Borland has come a long way since Phillipe's idea of a full blown compiler as good (if not better) than anything on the market for 99 bucks.

Borland has one of the best IDEs I've used, definately the best Java IDE I've used as a *free* download. I have never needed to use anything that's not available in the JBuilder Personal edition.

Re:seen the price of VS.NET? (1)

Unregistered (584479) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414170)

vs.net includes everything one componant (like VC) is not nearly that expensive. Anyway, i wish turboC existed for linux. I love that IDE.

Re:seen the price of VS.NET? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414200)

The old-style Turbo C IDE does exist for Linux. A clone called RHIDE [rhide.com] provides a very similar look and feel, and many new features.

Re:seen the price of VS.NET? (4, Informative)

DarkEdgeX (212110) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414182)

Isn't that about the price of many of the more popular IDEs? VS.NET Professional sticker price is also $999 ( check amazon for instance ).

Apple, meet Orange.

You're comparing a Win32 development tool to a Linux development tool. Now I'll pretend you know this, and debate it anyways-- with Visual Studio .NET Professional you don't just get one language, you get access to four. You get Visual C# .NET, Visual C++ .NET, Visual Basic .NET and Visual J# .NET. With Kylix all you get is Delphi (Pascal) and C++ (which I'm not entirely sure, but I think the backend uses gcc-- I may be wrong on this point though).. two languages vs. four languages in VS.

Of course the odd thing is, Kylix has an "open edition" that's free as in beer for GPL work, IIRC. It doesn't make sense that Linux developers wanting to try it out wouldn't try the OE version then pay for the retail version if they wanted to do commercial apps down the road.

Borland has one of the best IDEs I've used, definately the best Java IDE I've used as a *free* download. I have never needed to use anything that's not available in the JBuilder Personal edition.

Agreed, their IDE's have always been a winner with me, but their marketing skills leave loads to be desired. Just check out some of the prices at shop.borland.com vs. the prices list at shop.microsoft.com for examples of the travesty going on at Borland today. *shakes head*

Re:seen the price of VS.NET? (4, Interesting)

uradu (10768) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414282)

> their marketing skills leave loads to be desired

I don't think the marketing and development departments at Borland have ever met. They've had some of the best developers over the years, yet especially in the last few years their marketing and PR was filled with arrogant know-it-alls. And the hordes of apologists for whom Borland could do no wrong don't help. Microsoft may have done VB first, but Borland did it right, yet ironically it's Microsoft reaping the benefits of much of that hard work at Borland.

Re:seen the price of VS.NET? (1)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414275)

Development environments are becoming a commodity. There are piles of good tools available, many of them are not only free, but are Free Software as well.

Kylix was a half-baked attempt at a Linux IDE, using a language that is losing marketshare. The fact that the enterprise version cost over $1000 was certainly an issue. I can get buckets of Free tools that are less buggy than Kylix, and they don't put me at the mercy of Borland.

The fact that Microsoft can still get folks to pay for VS.NET is irrelevant. People looking for Linux tools aren't likely to consider VS.NET.

Linux is in disarray (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413972)

With 20 plus distributions, at least 5 different package managers and none of them compatible with each other Linux is doomed as a desktop operating system.

End users want ease of use, up to date applications, compatiblility with the internet and other users and most important they don't want
needless complexity of an operating system.

A few reasons why Linux is going to fail:

1. Too many different distributions.
2. No standard place for putting files.
3. No standard upgrading scheme.
4. No standard package management system.
5. Cost that is approaching that of Windows and while you can get most of the things for free it is a major time waster.
6.WINE. Just the fact that WINE is needed proves that Linux does not have the applications users want and need.
7. Hardware support is dismal for new hardware. Linux drivers are months, sometimes years behind the Windows versions.
8. The applications are poor quality imitations of Windows applications. Take GAIM or XMMS for example. Winamp easily shares a soundcard, XMMS doesn't. GAIM looks like shit compared to Trillian.
9. The need to convince someone who already has Windows to shell out $89.00 for SUSE just so they can trhow away all of the Windows shrinkwrap that came with their computer.

Good luck on that one.

In fact, Linux needs a lot of help because it is simply not gaining any sort of desktop market share and rightfully so because Linux
sucks.

very true...well spoken (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414062)

infact you should look at what slashdot has to say about linux right here [slashdot.org] .

Re:very true...well spoken (0, Offtopic)

mek2600 (677900) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414146)

Bastard. :)

Not surprised (2, Informative)

rabtech (223758) | more than 10 years ago | (#7413977)

Delphi, with its ability to write Windows programs, was having trouble enough. Once Visual Basic came along, it really stole a lot of their thunder in terms of making it easy to write windows programs.

So now you look at a platform like Linux, with a minority marketshare, and look at Delphi with its already small marketshare.... that adds up for ..... yup, small marketshare.

Oh, don't forget dotnet and java, both of which have a lot of muscle behind them.

Re:Not surprised (1)

robbyjo (315601) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414031)

IIRC, Visual Basic is released much earlier than Delphi. I remember using VB3 in Win3.1 before Delphi 1 was even out. It's already pretty good. The breakthrough was IIRC the speed of Delphi. That forces the VB to fix its speed.

Re:Not surprised (4, Insightful)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414095)

Once Visual Basic came along, it really stole a lot of their thunder in terms of making it easy to write windows programs.


Actually, Visual Basic came out before Delphi did. Delphi was designed later and was for many years a better product than VB, but:

- It was based on Pascal, not C, so lots of people thought it was a toy.

- It wasn't standard Pascal, so Pascal bigots didn't like it either.

- It wasn't a Microsoft product, so people didn't think it would stay around a long time.

There were lots of other problems too: Borland financial mismanagement, MS hiring away designers, etc., but I think "Not C" and "Not Microsoft" were the big ones.

Well (2, Insightful)

jbardell (677791) | more than 10 years ago | (#7413979)

When you have a multitude of free (beer), easy to use dev tools already out there for a platform, it's gonna be tough to push a product such as this. The biggest use I can see for it is to port apps, and even that doesn't seem to be quite popular.

Re:Well (1)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414060)

Exactly. Why pay good money for development closed source development tools that leave you at the mercy of Borland when there are piles and piles of excellent Free tools with active communities and a guaranteed future. I bet that the folks that did pay for Kylix are upset that they trusted Borland.

Development tools have become a commodity boys and girls.

Kylix/CLX has too many problems (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7413983)

I've been using Kylix for about 3 months now, and I've reached the stage of considering completely abandoning Kylix and continuing with linux native C++ and Qt.

I've been developing a file manager which makes use of the components below. With every component I've described issues I've found with them.

TApplication:
- Some very weird bug caused spontaneous segmentation faults during the Application.run command. I traced the cause of the segmentation fault the a line similar to Form1.Edit1.caption := ''. If I remove that line there is no problem. This is definately weird stuff.

TForm:
- Assigning and reading the top and left properties during form creating will give wrong results and in some cases cause the form to be put in the wrong place.

TMainMenu, TPopupMenu:
- The BeforeDrawMenuItem gets buggy if boldfaced characters are used.

TListView:
- Drag and Drop implementation is completely screwed up. Whether I use CLX OnDragStart kind of commands or code which calls Qt directly, drag and drop operations will give rise to strange mouse behavior.
- Multiselect and Drag 'n Drop is not compatible. I've had to rewrite all the mouse handling in order to be able to drag 'n drop and select items. I had to deny all mouse events to CLX in order for everything to work.
- Multiple columns and an Imagelist will cause images to be displayed in the subcolumns even if the imageindex is -1.
- OnDrawItem fails miserably. In the first place there is no direct way of knowing what column your are drawing the information for. In the second place the canvas provided to draw on stretches beyond other columns. If you drag the scrollbars the drawed data gets screwed up.
-TTreeView
The TTreeView has all the same problems as the TListView, as they both are based on Qt's QListView

-TCoolBar & TToolbar
A Ttoolbar on a TCool bar gives a wrong height property for buttons on the toolbar. A Toolbar sometimes spontaneously gives itself another position on my form. This is not reproducible and happens occasionally.

General Problems:
-The FindFirst command is very limited. Instead of providing all items available in a TStatBuf buffer it does some translation to windows which eliminates some of linux's cool aspects like symbolic links. Directories and System files are indistinguishable because of bad code in CLX.

- On my Redhat 7.2 computer using Kylix is one big Illegal Operation festival.
- On my Redhat 7.1 computer I can't use the debugger because it WILL crash after 4-9 debug cycles.
- Icon support is really bad. The kylix code is unable to decode almost all ordinary .ico files.


These are just some issues which I can think of at the moment. There are more. During development of this program I've spent more than 50% of my time solving problems with Kylix. This consists of either looking for workarounds, changing CLX code, calling Qt directly, or rewriting components entirely. So many functions provided by Qt are not available in Kylix, which in some cases severely limits the functionality of the Kylix components. The only things which went well were calls which bypassed CLX or used LibC. I'm seriously considering dumping kylix and using Qt directly. I've gotten fed up with having to debug Borland's attempt at a layer between Qt and their compiler. I don't feel like waiting for Kylix version 3.0 or whatever in which they've hopefully solved all these issues. I hope someone will convince me otherwise because I believe Kylix has great potential. I've been using Delphi for some time now and I love Delphi. It has been a great disappointment to see Kylix fail.

Cost Could Be The Reason (5, Insightful)

ShwAsasin (120187) | more than 10 years ago | (#7413985)

The problem with Kylix was it's price. Borland was charing a ridiculous price for a product that albeit good wasn't worth the price. It's also hard to convince your boss (atleast in my situation) that Linux was free and came with C/C++ compilers but I had to pay for Kylix.

If they had a reasonable price perhaps it wouldn't flown but lets be realistic, it's not going to get a lot of support without having a cheap price or an open source version available.

Another thing to consider is (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414097)

I got a greased up Yoda Doll shoved up my ass!!!!!!!!

ANAL YODA GOBS OF SHIT CHUNKS RECTAL ANAL YODA! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414107)

ANAL YODA!

Simple (4, Insightful)

keesh (202812) | more than 10 years ago | (#7413990)

Kylix didn't sell because it was a pile of crap. I used to do a lot of stuff with Delphi (paid lots of money to Borland too), but when I ditched Windows I felt no incentive to carry on with Kylix. I tried the Open Edition, and it wasn't a patch on Delphi. Klunky, buggy, lousy unportable code. Not worth it.

Was it really Marketed (1)

CrypticSpawn (719164) | more than 10 years ago | (#7413994)

I didn't hear all that much from Borland about it. Sad to hear that it will be in Limbo.

Not free - not interested (5, Insightful)

hherb (229558) | more than 10 years ago | (#7413997)

On Linux, there is a cornucopia of free programming languages and tool boxes ready to use. Why then should I use a commercial closed implementation of a proprietary non-standard language with non-standard libraries, not portable beyond merely Linux and Windows, and then only some versions of those?

I don't mind spending big bucks on good tools. After all, it is magnitudes more expensive to familairize oneself with new tools than actually buying them. But I do mind when my favourite tools suddenly become deprecated at the mere whim of a corporate - and Borland has a poor track record here.

Thus, no matter how good the performance of Kylix, and no matter how excellent and slick the IDE and libraries, I would not touch it with a ten foot pole unless I have some guarantee that I will be able to access the full source when I really need to.

Most people knowledgeable enough to develop on Linux have been burnt in the past by proprietary tools, have learnt expensive and painful lessons that way. Never more! Our freedom is too precious to sell out ever again.

Amen, Kylix had ZERO mindshare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414029)

Ever programmed in Delphi? I rest my case. Kylix had zero mindshare and for a programming language, free or not, this is the kiss of death. Its a hard enough struggle for good free/open tools like Python and Ruby to make incursions into the Java/Perl/C/C++ world...let alone a half-baked expensive commercial product.

hey borland... (5, Interesting)

maxinull (685219) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414008)

GPL it! :)

Re:hey borland... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414166)

Considering Delphi is still alive and Kylix is built on mostly shared code from Delphi, I doubt they'd GPL kylix.

Re:hey borland... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414257)

You mean like this [freepascal.org] ?

Fuck all non-free software -- you PIGS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414014)

Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us.

Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs ``owners'', most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.

The copyright system grew up with printing---a technology for mass production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and few readers were sued for that.

Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):

Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to help your friend.

Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and colleagues.

Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.

Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and failing to censor their use.

All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as ``samizdat''. There is of course a difference: the motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.

Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power to control how we use information:

Name calling.

Owners use smear words such as ``piracy'' and ``theft'', as well as expert terminology such as ``intellectual property'' and ``damage'', to suggest a certain line of thinking to the public---a simplistic analogy between programs and physical objects.

Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about whether it is right to take an object away from someone else. They don't directly apply to making a copy of something. But the owners ask us to apply them anyway.

Exaggeration.

Owners say that they suffer ``harm'' or ``economic loss'' when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.

A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought copies. Yet the owners compute their ``losses'' as if each and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration---to put it kindly.

The law.

Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of morality---yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.

This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.

It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American should know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in many states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only racists would say sitting there was wrong.

Natural rights.

Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else---or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are expected to ignore this discrepancy.)

To those who propose this as an ethical axiom---the author is more important than you---I can only say that I, a notable software author myself, call it bunk.

But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the natural rights claims for two reasons.

One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which? The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.

But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.

The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.

As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only permits a system of copyright and does not require one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress---not to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their behavior.

The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts into the natural rights of the public---and that this can only be justified for the public's sake.

Economics.

The final argument made for having owners of software is that this leads to production of more software.

Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach to the subject. It is based on a valid goal---satisfying the users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.

But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. It assumes that ``production of software'' is what we want, whether the software has owners or not.

People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance. You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free or for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference. Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste, the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.

This is true for any kind of material object---whether or not it has an owner does not directly affect what it is, or what you can do with it if you acquire it.

But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages software owners to produce something---but not what society really needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us all.

What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.

Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.

And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that helping our neighbors in a natural way is ``piracy'', they pollute our society's civic spirit.

This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not price.

The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds.

For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough incentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming.

For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF), a tax-exempt charity for free software development, raises funds by selling GNU CD-ROMs, T-shirts, manuals, and deluxe distributions, (all of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from donations. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three employees who handle mail orders.

Some free software developers make money by selling support services. Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees [when this article was written], estimates that about 15 per cent of its staff activity is free software development---a respectable percentage for a software company.

Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog Devices have combined to fund the continued development of the free GNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for the Ada language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this is the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler. [Air Force funding ended some time ago; the GNU Ada Compiler is now in service, and its maintenance is funded commercially.]

All these examples are small; the free software movement is still small, and still young. But the example of listener-supported radio in this country [the US] shows it's possible to support a large activity without forcing each user to pay.

As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary (18k characters) program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying ``No'' to proprietary software.

You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.

You deserve free software.

Paying the bills (1)

EvilAndrew (581758) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414016)

As a software developer, I need to pay the bills - back when I was single I didn't much to survive, but once you add in wife, three children, etc, you really need to pay attention to the bottom line.

I'm in the process of developing a commercial app for Linux that I'm hoping will bring in sufficient revenue for me to dedicate a reasonable portion of my time to - but I can't deny that it's not without a certain amount of trepidation.

Consider how 'big' Perl is to the open source community, or PHP, or Python - and then consider how many people can afford to work full-time on them. It's a fairly sobering thought.

kylix kind of sucks (1, Troll)

Progoth (98669) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414027)

I think kylix didn't catch on for a few reasons

  1. kylix was using winelib

    linux users don't like using apps which were half-ported using a windows emulator (see wordperfect, winamp3)

  2. better alternatives exist

    you want to make gui apps? use the qt or kde libraries. use gtk even. you want a gui app in an easier language? use pyqt, pykde, or even pygtk. perl-gtk if you're really desperate. kylix doesn't offer anything over these. I personally made a few pyqt apps in a matter of hours (see pysp [progoth.com] ), how much easier can it get?

  3. external libraries

    who wants to distribute 40 megs of libraries with their application? I don't remember exactly how many libraries kylix need[s|ed], but it was fairly stupid

  4. advertising

    I signed up to download kylix, and I started getting flyers in my mailbox (my physical mailbox) from borland. nobody wants that.

  5. critical mass

    enough said

  6. pascal sucks

    again...enaugh said

Re:kylix kind of sucks (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414142)

> 6. pascal sucks
>again...enaugh said

Yup, that's like saying I won't use C++ or C# because it looks like ISO-C and that sucks.

Re:kylix kind of sucks (1)

ElGuapoGolf (600734) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414167)

kylix was using winelib

linux users don't like using apps which were half-ported using a windows emulator (see wordperfect, winamp3)


Bzzt! Wrong answer. Kylix used winelib. The applications themselves didn't. I've used kylix, and it was really barely noticable.

There were other issues however. It's a shame. JBuilder really didn't become usable until versions 4 and 5. Kylix should get the same chance.

Re:kylix kind of sucks (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414233)

There were other issues however. It's a shame. JBuilder really didn't become usable until versions 4 and 5. Kylix should get the same chance.

You are quite correct. A new product comes into this market, but attacks it like it was MS. Borland is doing the same. I own it, but I do not care for it (I am back to kdevelop and simple vi). Borland stands a good chance if they pour resources into it and chase after the Novell/Suse platform. The question is will they? I suspect not.

Re:kylix kind of sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414263)

What? That is what he said! Kylix uses winelib! It looks like Windows! We aren't talking about Kylix-created programs here, we are talking about Kylix itself! The fact that Kylix-created programs use Qt is irrelevant. Kylix uses winelib; it looks like Windows! OK? I would prefer to avoid using programs that were ported using partially complete and somewhat unstable implementation of the Windows API and GUI. When I start a program, I do not want to see a message about "building font metrics." Does OpenOffice do this? Mozilla? Sun's JDK? Majesty? Kohan? Maple?

We had been thinking about using kylix (1)

strider3700 (109874) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414034)

Kylix had been in the running as the tool we'd use when we start a complete rewrite of our companies flagship product. cross platform is one of the major requirements set down by the boss and kylix seemed quite good. When testing/evaluating it had a few bugs and we also had the issue of the majority of our programmers are not C++ gods, but it was still quite high on the list. The high license cost was another issue that we had to consider. $25,000 in licences for a company that sells $1,000,000 a year is a lot. In case your wondering other platforms being concidered are Java- Jbuilder with DB to be determined. Something called majik the boss likes, I've yet to see anything on this so I can't comment. Oracle is saying we can do everything using forms. I don't believe them. Or my choice Java with a postgres DB. This is for a moderately complex POS system. The big issue is how close to losing money our company is at any given point. Profit was a whole $25,000 last year. In my mind big software costs are both pointless and out of our cababilities if they don't give us a huge return on investment. Yes the linux desktops aren't as slick and easy to use as win 2k would be, but the cost of work arounds are far below the cost of 15 win 2k licenses. The same thinking has to be applied to our new toolset.

Re:We had been thinking about using kylix (1)

Jimithing DMB (29796) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414206)

Might I suggest you take a look at wxWindows [wxwindows.org] ? It is a full featured toolkit for Windows, Mac (Classic and OS 9/X Carbon), Linux/UNIX (GTK, Motif, and also plain old X11 using wxUniversal to draw the widgets), and now Cocoa (the native OS X framework). (NOTE: I am the lead (sole?) developer of wxCocoa)

AOL has used it for their new AOL Communicator. I have used it to write PhotoFlair [truview.com] and several other people in the same line of work as you use it on a regular basis. Support via mailing lists is excellent and almost always timely (unless you come in screaming for free support and demand an answer yesterday) and there is paid support available from almost all of the core developers.

As if that wasn't a good enough reason, Borland has announced a new C++ Builder X product which is an IDE written in Java which will feature wxWindows. Yes, I realize the IDE would be better written in wxWindows, but apparently they had a very large investment in the Java IDE long before they decided to use wxWindows.

I suggest that you go ahead and give it a shot. Download it for your platform of choice. Sign up for the wx-users mailing list and read some of the messages. Post any questions you may have to the mailing list. I have no doubt that you'll find it to be a superior toolkit.

Anyway, my two cents into this discussion is that I'll speculate the reason Kylix isn't being pushed now has something to do with the fact that C++ Builder X seems to be where Borland wants to go. A new wxWindows Software Foundation is being created with Mitch Kapor (Lotus 1-2-3 and now Open Source Application Foundation) as the chairman of the board with Julian Smart, Vadim Zeitlin, and Stefan Csomor (three core wxWindows developers) and Rob Farnum (Borland, worked on TWIN32 at a previous occupation) as board members.

kylix (2, Informative)

HBI (604924) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414041)

Some of the problems might have been that you had to run one of the mass market distros to even get the installer to run.

Obviously Gentoo was out - so I couldn't install it there.

Atop RH 8 it ran like a dog, slower than molasses. Turning off the antialiasing helped, but not that much. The Win32 version was much more responsive. It appeared like the environment was running in some kind of emulation layer.

It didn't use the GNU toolchain so porting the apps was nigh unto impossible.

It didn't seem like a winner, and I happen to like Delphi...

Re:kylix (1)

A_linux_covert (615046) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414212)

Actually I have had my best luck on Gentoo with Kylix. On Redhat, anything above 7.2 had problems with fonts in certain dialogs. On Suse it runs w/o a hitch but slow. On Gentoo it rocks and behaves like Delphi. The only catch was having to create a symlink to fake out the db access for postgres, kylix expects an older version number.

Re:kylix (1)

Nurf (11774) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414287)

Some of the problems might have been that you had to run one of the mass market distros to even get the installer to run.

Obviously Gentoo was out - so I couldn't install it there.


Hm. I've installed it at verious times on various Gentoo boxes. No issues. I had some font issues on a Debian box, but so far Kylix and Gentoo has been a very comfortable combination for me.

Kylix doesn't sell?? (2, Informative)

millette (56354) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414047)

IgD writes:

"Why didn't Kylix sell?"

I didn't see a trace of that in either the article or the blog...

Then in the blog:

"Simon did come out and flatly said there were no plans to update Kylix in 2004 [...] Simon was clear that Kylix has not been abandoned..."

So no, it hasn't really been abandoned. It's just Borlands usual way of releasing stuff.

I own a copy (4, Insightful)

Nurf (11774) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414053)

I bought Kylix 3.0, and my biggest complaint with it is that it feels like a Windows program forced to run on Linux. Not just the IDE (which uses WINE to run), but the language implementation itself.

It feels like the developers have hardly used it itself, and I guess that's why it just isn't as much of a pleasure to use as (say) Turbo Pascal was.

I love having a decent pascal compiler for Linux, and I like the fact that I can recompile my code on Windows, but I keep bumping into things that just shouldn't be the way they are.

For example: I have triggered segfaults when exceeding boundaries on arrays. Excuse me? I'm using a typesafe language with bounds checking specifically enabled. I expect the program to halt on the line of code that is attempting to access an out of bounds address BEFORE said access happens. I expect all variables to be current and correct. I expect to be able to see exactly what went wrong exactly as it happened. That's one of the reasons to use pascal. I'm paying 5% overhead for that luxury, now hand it over!

The other reason to use pascal is the fast compile times, which is great.

I'm happy to have a pascal compiler with a nice IDE and neat rapid application development stuff for applications, and I use it by preference. It just feels unpolished and rough.

Oh, yeah, shipping apps sucks too - they require you to make wrappers and point LD_* things to shared libraries that you have to identify yourself. VERY MESSY and STUPID. Let me make static apps if I have to, but I get pissed off when the recommended solution for messiness is to wrap every executable I make in a script. Yuk. Not likely.

*sigh* So I guess Love/Hate it is.

Love pascal. Loved Turbo Pascal. Like Kylix. Hate icky stupid bits in Kylix.

Kylix devs should be forced to eat their dogfood. When they release a fully functional IDE written in Kylix, I will be willing to believe they have actually used it. Until then, I'll use it anyway, and occasionally rant in public. :-)

ANAL YODA DOLL SHIT STAINED SLOPPY BUTTSMELLY! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414130)

YODA ANUS!

Could it be... The Price? (3, Insightful)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414058)

When it comes to selling stuff, my old man always says "there's a lot more people with 5 bob in their pocket than 5 quid."

I like Delphi, but having to spend $1,500+ to buy it means I tend to skip versions nowadays.

I remember buying Turbo Pascal for about $90.

Perhaps Borland would sell a lot more copies of Delphi and Kylix if it was $150 instead of $1,500.

Re:Could it be... The Price? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414216)

I remember buying Turbo C/C++ w/Turbo Debugger and Turbo Assembler that came with about 5 hardcopy manuals for $120.

Shame the Borland of old isn't around anymore.

Excuse me (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414074)

Hello,

This is God. All of our customer service representatives are currently assiting other customers. Please hold on the line, and your call will be answered in the order in which it was received.

hey slash-holes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414075)

um .. maybe it says more about how

o - delphi doesn't fill an unfilled niche

o - the free alternatives are more than
adequate

i get this image of all the slashdot editors just
printing out all these submissions then squatting
over them, taking a dump and posting the ones that
stink the most

Alternatives.... (3, Informative)

robnsara (135532) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414081)

Not my area really, but I know I've got a buddy working on the Lazarus project:

http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org

Might be of some interest to some Delhpi folks.

What it does say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414083)

Does this say something about the application or about the difficulties of marketing a commercial Linux application? No, what it says to me is that most (certainly not all, but most) Linux users are doing so because they're too tight-arsed to pay for a real operating system. And why get your OS for free if you have to pay for the apps to run on it?

Not the right product for Linux (4, Interesting)

Spyky (58290) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414085)

I've done some commercial development work in Delphi. It's a great environment in Windows. It's easier and faster to write than C++, it runs faster than Visual Basic or Java, and it compiles ridiculously fast. Hundreds of thousands of lines a second! Coming from C++ that is amazing, and the execution speed is pretty comparable to C/C++. It nicely wraps the Windows API and UI development is very easy.

Unfortunately, Delphi is a marginal product on Windows (for various reasons), and Windows is the platform most software development efforts target. Move it to Linux, even if you can capture the same percentage of the development market on Linux, you now have a marginal product on a marginal operating system. Not gonna work.

An additional problem is: Linux runs on a myriad of platforms, x86, PowerPC, unix workstations, you name it. Kylix/Delphi work on x86 ONLY, so although code will be portable between windows and linux, it will never be portable to any other platform. This is a problem that would be very difficult to fix, if you look at the VCL much of it is written in x86 assembler, it will take a long time, and require much effort to port it to another platform. This portability problem further reduces the market share that Kylix could ever achieve.

And then there is the problem of price, enough other people have pointed this out, so I won't repeat them. But yeah, expensive.

Just my 2 cents.

-Spyky

ANAL YODA MAKES MY SHIT ALL BLODDY AND CHUNKY! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414159)

BLOODY SHIT!

The problem is Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414086)

Would you really want to create a product for 1000 different distros that break your software every release of the distro? Miguel got at this the other day and was talked about at JOS http://snurl.com/2vc9 As a community Linux preaches standards ad nauseum, yet there is no standard Linux distro and no vendors listen to LSB. So cry all you want when the ISV's won't write for your platform. Besides, its all easy enough for granny to write a little shell script to do that task anyway. Mod me up, mod me down. No matter, I speak truth.

The Simple Answer Is: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414106)

Does this say something about the application or about the difficulties of marketing a commercial Linux application?

Both.

Kylix Failed Because... (1)

fredtheshingle (696059) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414111)

1. It's commerical 2. There are MUCH better alternatives under GNU/Linux: QT and GTK... both are solid, native frameworks used in the two most popular Desktop environments for GNU/Linux. They're also much more mature and aren't ports from VCL code written for Windows 10 years ago. Borland was just trying to get a share of the GNU/Linux market, but they failed - tough. GPL it! Hah! Riiight.

it's pretty obvious... (3, Insightful)

Dalroth (85450) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414129)

Who needs Kylix when you can write your GUIs in Python using wxWindows, GTK, or QT for FREE?

Who needs Kylix when you can write your GUIs in Perl using wxWindows, GTK, or QT for FREE?

Who needs Kylix when you can write your GUIs in C/C++ using wxWindows, GTK, or QT for FREE?

Notice a trend here? Oh, but there's more...

Linux is found on Open Source software. Why on earth would I write a program in a propietary language than costs $$$ that would be pointless to distribute to the rest of the Linux community because only *I* could compile it? Quite simply, I wouldn't. I'd write it in Java or Python because I know other Linux developers would have Java or Python.

I do not know a *SINGLE* developer who has Kylix, and I only know of one application our company uses that was written in Delphi. That application is a very specialized mortgage application and is not usefull to anybody outside the mortgage industry (and I even question it's usability inside the industry). To add insult to industry, they're planning a complete rewrite in C# for 2005.

Finally, we all know that Borland has been wishy-washy at best when it comes to their support of the Linux environment. The Interbase/Firebird fiasco is proof enough.

I wouldn't trust my money with them. They've been made irrelevant by Microsoft, SUN, *AND* Linux. They consistently and stubbornly refuse to get with the program. That's why nobody users their software anymore.

And Turbo Pascal used to be a really really damn good product. It's sad, really.

Bryan

Re:it's pretty obvious... (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414290)

You forgot: Who needs Kylix when you can write your GUIs in Ruby using wxWindows, GTK, FLTK or QT for FREE?

Everyone here who actually used Kylix, speak up (1)

phoebus1553 (522577) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414131)

... right, pretty quiet here. Everyone here wines about the fact that Delphi sucks, which it may very well but the fact of the matter is that the latest version of Kylix was also for C++.

That being said though, kylix sucked so hard that it could bring a bowling ball through a garden hose. Something about an environment that runs wine in the background just doesn't seem right. Sure it can help you make a cross compiling app but at what cost? Mainly the fact that Borland IDEs in general are just a little bit more buggy than you come to expect now days. We're not talking VB6 on win98 buggy, where you have to save every debug because it just 'may' crash the machine, but I hardly have a day using Builder where it doesn't die at least once.

could someone name one commercial app... (1)

Kunta Kinte (323399) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414143)

...which has strong sales on Linux?

I don't think Linux was Kylix's problem, I think .NET and Java is Kylix's problem.

But still, I can't think of a commercial application that seems to have strong sales on linux. Either the desktop or server.

Anyone?

Re:could someone name one commercial app... (1)

abe ferlman (205607) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414220)

I can't think of a commercial application that seems to have strong sales on linux. Either the desktop or server.

Oracle.

Probably Winex, but they broke their promise about freeing the source when subscriptions got to a reasonable level and never let us see the subscription levels. But they're still in business.

You kind of have a point though- the software market right now caters to idiots who don't realize they can demand the source code and only pay for real improvements. The reason people don't buy apps for linux is that in general, they don't NEED them- the free tools do their jobs perfectly well thank you.

What about... (1)

cronot (530669) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414147)

...Lazarus [freepascal.org] ?

Kylix failed because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414162)

Most Delphi developers are at small shops. These shops just want cheap, quick, and reliable. We bought RH Linux to begin developing for Kylix. But we quickly abandoned the idea after spending two weeks trying to get our test system up and running properly. The modem and sound card we never could get working. Even if I had gotten it working, my customers would be unwilling to put up with this sort of hassle. My small shop does not have the resources to be able to support all the hardware configurations under Linux. Let Microsoft have that hassle. We will stick to our little nich.

You or I might get excited and go buy Linux books and stay up late night reading them. But the corporate world is filled with lazy people that don't care about computers. Like it or not, it would take several months to get these people up to speed with Linux. The reality of it is that the $99 saved by buying Linux instead of Windows is quickly sucked up in support and training costs. Windows is good enough, so no thanks... Now OS-X.. maybe!!!

The typical progression (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7414163)

  • [Company] releases [product] for Linux.
  • The Slashbork collective enters overdrive: This is proof that Linux is a viable OS and vendors are willing to port products to it. / [Product] looks like THE killer app for Linux. / MUCH better than [Microsoft product] / Oh, I've always loved [company]'s products. / The future looks bright and I gotta wear shades / M$ is teh sux.
  • ...
  • M$ is teh sux
  • ...
  • [Company] discontinues [product]
  • The Slashbork collective enters overdrive: It was a piece of shit anyway. / It was too expensive (i.e., $100 is $100 more than I will pay for quality software). / [Company] sucks anyway. / [Product] crashed every 15 minutes. / And where's the code to [product]? I'd like to download it, plz / [Another product barely in alpha written by some Romanian teenager] looks like a good alternative! / M$ is teh sux.

Came too late (2, Interesting)

StarTux (230379) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414164)

Borland simply came too late to the Linux market, I see many more people using QT/gtk and other native tools now and Kylix probably did not have anything that the developers wanted.

It even came too late to have the Neverwinter Nights Toolset ported and usable in Linux.

StarTux

Portability (1)

DreadSpoon (653424) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414187)

The only really good use I can think of at all for Kylix is reusing old code, not written with modern development tools in mind. But Kylix didn't work for that, since Windows Delphi and Kylix were apparantly incompatible.

Who in all the world would want an application development suite that thus had absolutely no use, especially given its price?

bravo, and good riddance. (4, Insightful)

pb (1020) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414195)

No, maybe it's a sign when you take a Windows program and make a half-assed attempt to 'port' it using Wine, it doesn't work right, you slap broken registration code on top of that, and the bosses shout "SHIP!", hopefully over the objections of the engineers.

The failure of Kylix is just another example of the free market working, and in this case the value of Kylix to the consumer is less than zero. That's right, Borland would have to pay me quite a bit to 'switch' to Kylix for anything. And it still might not be enough, if it kept crashing unexpectedly.

But hey, YMMV; that was just my experience with it. And note that I managed to restrain myself to the point that phrases like 'flaming piece of festering monkey shit' never escaped my lips!

Should have followed the mozilla model. (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414230)

They should have designed their own duel licencing model like Mozilla or QT and charged $99 for a commercial licence to the product. They could then have spent most of their money enhansing and organizing the product and leaving quality assurance and bug fixes to the community and get a comercial product they could sell out of it.

Why use Kylix when Ada is available? (1)

William Baric (256345) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414250)

I never liked C so (in the 80's) I used Turbo Pascal. When I saw C++ I thought it was even worse than C so I used Delphi. When Kylix went out I thought of buying it but I then discovered Ada... I never bought Kylix nor used Delphi again. Am I the only one?

PASCAL (0)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414255)

Wasn't Delphi a pascal compiler? I was showed pascal in a class in languages. But I recieved much more education on C++, Java, Assembler and perl. My CS degree was almost all C++ & Java! I downloaded the trial version of Kylix, I didn't like it at all. I had a much easier time with C++, QT & KDevelop. And with eclipse, I can't see any reason for Delphi. Now Builder for Linux with either GTK-- or QT would rock.

Kylix vs C++ BuilderX on C++ development (1)

zero0w (572225) | more than 10 years ago | (#7414279)

I believe Kylix was designed for Delphi development from the beginning. I noticed recently Borland has released C++ BuilderX 1.0 (a Java-based C++ IDE), with Personal Edition available as free download [borland.com] . How will this affect the progress on Kylix? Any ideas?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>