Borland support
Luigi Bianchi
me: support. I usually develop long terms projects (several years of
developing and support), and I have a lot of problems with Borland products.
A couple of them are still using OWL, that Borland does not support anymore.
Now the question is: if Borland does NOT support anymore it, why does not
release it as open source?
Why should I use a Borland product? There are fewer programmers that use
them with respect to Microsoft ones.
There are *NOT* satisfactory patches (See the tremendous and ridicolous BCB4
path bug)
You can forget to have support for old tools.
Should I continue?
I've bought about 10 different releases of Borland C++ compilers, starting
from BC3.0 till BCB4. I did the fortune of Borland.
May I pretend that Borland releases OWL as open source?
One of the reasons was that M$ didn't supported well their tools as Borland.
Today the things are different.
Bye, Luigi
--
Luigi Bianchi
http://www.luigibianchi.com
Dfm2API : Delphi / C++ Builder Form Converter
Brain Computer Interface SDK
VCL/OWL/C/C++ source code
Uncommon Controls
Harold Howe (TeamB)
>
> I've bought about 10 different releases of Borland C++ compilers, starting
> from BC3.0 till BCB4. I did the fortune of Borland.
> May I pretend that Borland releases OWL as open source?
What do you mean "pretend that Borland released owl as open source"? What would you
do with it? Seems to me that you have already bought and paid for OWL. You can do
what you want with it, with the exception that you can't give the owl source to
others.
Personally, I think it is a shame that Borland has not open-sourced OWL. I think it
makes the company look bad. If I choose to use Borland, and they abandon the product
that I bought, am I going to be hosed? In the case of OWL, that is precisely what has
happened.
Harold Howe [TeamB]
http://www.bcbdev.com
Luigi Bianchi
news:3A6C44A8...@bcbdev.com...> Luigi Bianchi wrote:
> What do you mean "pretend that Borland released owl as open source"? What
would you
> do with it?
I mean that I'd like to see no obstacles to the OWLNext project. Borland
convinced me that using a true C++ class framework was a good idea, better
than using language extensions (do you remember OWL1 and OWL2?). I still
believe in what Borland said. But if Borland does not believe anymore in
OWL, why can't the community continue to develop it? I've had a lot of
problems for this. OWLNext must spend a lot of times to allow to
redistribute itself through the patches mechanism.
Now the point for me is:
if Borland does not fix the problems (as M$)
if I need to buy a new release every year (not as M$) to see them fixed;
If M$ tools are a standard de facto;
if there is a much better integration of M$ tools with OS (see DirectX,
etc...)
if Borland obstacles the customers that made its fortune;
Why should I buy BCB5? (I have bc3.0, 3.1, 4, 4.52, 5.0, 5.01, 5.02, BCB1,
BCB3, and BCB4)
>
> Personally, I think it is a shame that Borland has not open-sourced OWL. I
think it
> makes the company look bad. If I choose to use Borland, and they abandon
the product
> that I bought, am I going to be hosed? In the case of OWL, that is
precisely what has
> happened.
Not exactly: what I'm asking Borland is not to continue to develop it, but
to allow me to do that AND REDISTRIBUTE it. That's a big difference. Borland
does not have to do anything! Just to release OWL to the community.
Colin Attwell
> Personally, I think it is a shame that Borland has not open-sourced
> OWL. I think it
> makes the company look bad. If I choose to use Borland, and they
> abandon the product
> that I bought, am I going to be hosed? In the case of OWL, that is
> precisely what has
> happened.
Whilst in principle I think that what you say is true, if we switch the
paradigm the argument's wheels fall off.
If ten tears ago I bought a new motor car should I now expect the
manufacturer to contine to "support" it, and even give me the blueprints
so that I can modify and improve it, and maybe even sell it for a
profit. Not blooming likely! Besides which, your OWL isn't worn out or
broken, at least not any more than it was when you bought it!
However, in the same vain, I wonder how motorcar manufacturers would
fare if they sold patently defective products, or made erroneous claims
about the features of their products, and then expected their customers
to pay money to buy upgrades to get their cars fixed. I suspect they too
whould soon face dwindling market penetration and profits, no matter how
good they said the cars were....
Just my 2 cents worth.
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice;
In practice, there is. -Chuck Reid
Michael Harris
I had always thought OWL was the VCL test-bed.
--
Michael Harris
AlisdairM
> I had always thought OWL was the VCL test-bed.
From what I have seen OWL and VCL are completely different. The whole
philosophy each library is built around is different, and that reflects
in the library design and the way you use it. OWL is much more
'traditional' C++ while VCL feels much more like a RAD toolkit with a
C++ compiler bolted on. There is a library to use, but it ignores many
familiar concepts from C++ that don't apply to the toolkit's native
environment.
Of course, I haven't looked at the later OWLs, but I suspect the
deviation would be greater, rather than less.
AlisdairM
Thomas J. Theobald
up to me, it'd be a download alongside the free compiler on the BCB page.
However, unfortunately, it's not up to me...and because of these legal
restrictions we can't release it in the way you suggest.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings,
T
--
Thomas J. Theobald
Product Manager - RAD Tools
Borland Software Corporation
www.borland.com
Harold Howe (TeamB)
>
> Do you think OWL source may reveal secrets of VCL source ?
The OWL source is already distributed with BC5. There really shouldn't be anything in
the source to hide.
Harold Howe (TeamB)
>
> If ten tears ago I bought a new motor car should I now expect the
> manufacturer to contine to "support" it, and even give me the blueprints
> so that I can modify and improve it, and maybe even sell it for a
> profit.
There is one key flaw in your analogy between buying an automobile and open sourcing
OWL: I never put my reputation and my career on the line to buy a car. I did however
put my reputation, and my job on the line, to convince my (former) boss to use OWL. I
wish that I had not.
If a car company discontinues a car model that I have invested in, it may be the pits
for me, but at least I won't lose my job over it. However, if a software vendor
ditches a product that I have lobbied hard for on the job, then that makes me look
bad on a professional level. Convincing management to use Borland is a already tough
enough. The fact that Borland abandons past technology, and basically hangs loyal
customers out to dry, does not make it any easier.
I don't *expect* borland to open source OWL. Nobody else in the industry does it, why
should Borland. But then again, I don't expect my boss to let me use Borland tools
much longer either.
Harold
PS: The C++ language has evolved substantially since Borland last updated OWL. I am
sure that OWL could use some updating.
PSS: Why is it that Borland can open source Interbase, but not OWL? They were already
deploying the OWL source with BC++. Were they deploying the interbase source with IB
5.5? I think not. IANAL, but it seems to me that open sourcing a 100 cpp files ought
to be easier than open sourcing a big beefy, cross platform, relational database.
Luigi Bianchi
cover just a part of them? If so, is it possible to know what?
It is REALLY REALLY important for the OWLNext project to know this.
Do you understand that it is useless to know that "...there are legal issues
that prevent us from open-sourcing OWL" if we don't know what they are.
Waiting for an answer,
Luigi
P.S. Thank you for caring about OWLers
--
Luigi Bianchi
http://www.luigibianchi.com
Dfm2API : Delphi / C++ Builder Form Converter
Brain Computer Interface SDK
VCL/OWL/C/C++ source code
Uncommon Controls
"Thomas J. Theobald" <tthe...@borland.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:94io57$m6...@bornews.inprise.com...
Jonathan Arnold
> manufacturer to contine to "support" it, and even give me the blueprints
But they do. They keep parts and such made for at least 10 years after the
car comes out.
+=====================================================+
| Jonathan Arnold (mailto:jdar...@buddydog.org) |
| Comprehensive C++Builder link site: |
| http://www.buddydog.org/C++Builder/c++builder.html |
+=====================================================+
Russell Hind
news:3A6CA7C0...@new.co.za...
>
> If ten tears ago I bought a new motor car should I now expect the
> manufacturer to contine to "support" it, and even give me the blueprints
> so that I can modify and improve it, and maybe even sell it for a
> profit. Not blooming likely! Besides which, your OWL isn't worn out or
> broken, at least not any more than it was when you bought it!
>
But:
If something breaks on your motor car, you can usually get a spare from
someone else who can probably just re-produce the original, or if a part is
faulty, even after the company who made it has stopped supporting it,
someone can probably machine you a new part.
But with software, that isn't the case unless they release the source. If
there is something wrong with somepart of the source, unless you have that
source, you can't get someone to fix it for you, or fix it yourself.
.
Russell
Colin Attwell
Russell Hind wrote:
> But:
>
> If something breaks on your motor car, you can usually get a spare from
> someone else who can probably just re-produce the original, or if a part is
> faulty, even after the company who made it has stopped supporting it,
> someone can probably machine you a new part.
We call them "Pirate Parts" - and they usually aren't made from the
manufacturers blueprints, i.e., they are in a sense "stolen".
> But with software, that isn't the case unless they release the source. If
> there is something wrong with somepart of the source, unless you have that
> source, you can't get someone to fix it for you, or fix it yourself.
As Harold has stated, "The OWL source is already distributed with BC5".
I wonder what the legal precedent would be for taking that source and
continuing to develop it. After all, you're not depriving Borland of any
revenue (since they've apparently abandoned it), and the source is now
in the public domain (albeit under some licensing agreement).
If some major development was jeopardized by the discontinuing of a
vital component, could you sue the vendor? - hardly, he has deprived you
of that right in his license conditions. That's why the software
industry stinks, it's controlled by skunks with law degrees....
2c
Howard Lee Harkness
>There are legal issues that prevent us from open-sourcing OWL.
Such as?
Spam Me and Get Sued <hark...@suespammers.org>
see www.suespammers.org for details & free spam-nuking email account
Harold Howe (TeamB)
>
> As Harold has stated, "The OWL source is already distributed with BC5".
> I wonder what the legal precedent would be for taking that source and
> continuing to develop it. After all, you're not depriving Borland of any
> revenue (since they've apparently abandoned it),
There are probably some people who fear that an open source OWL project would compete
with and suck revenue from VCL sales (BCB and Delphi). In reality, I don't think this
argument holds much water. For the most part, the people who want to see OWL
developed are people who invested in it heavily back before BCB was around.
Developers who have past projects to maintain and don't see the benefits of moving to
MFC or the VCL.
Thomas J. Theobald
up once or twice since I came aboard, and was told there are copyright and
potential patent issues involved. If I come across more about this, I'll
perhaps write it up for the community site, if time permits.
T
George Boutwell
but I thought I'd share anyways.
What about a page that has some 'fixes' for bugs in OWL that Borland
knows about, spent resources to solve, but never have released? I bet
that would be a valuable addition to those that have 'purchased' the OWL
and have the source and could apply this fixes that way.
Just an idea.
George
Luigi Bianchi
Anyway, I started this topic because this kind of thing already exists, and
because there are programmers that for free are still developing and fixing
OWL.
The problem is that Borland does not allow them to redistribute the full OWL
source. And the community, after a couple of years, still does not know why.
We know there are patents involved, but nobody is able/wants to tell us
which are and what aspects they do cover.
This is simply absurd and an obstacle to OWL and old Borland users. I insist
to believe that Boralnd does not have to do anything: just release OWL to
the public domain.
If Borland thinks that OWL is dead (and this is true because of it is
unsupported for years), and does not earn any money for it, why is an
obstacle to old Borland users? Is this a correct point of view? Are you
happy to know that this is the way in which Borland supports old users?
Bye, Luigi
--
Luigi Bianchi
http://www.luigibianchi.com
Dfm2API : Delphi / C++ Builder Form Converter
Brain Computer Interface SDK
VCL/OWL/C/C++ source code
Uncommon Controls
"George Boutwell" <gbou...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3A6E0B79...@yahoo.com...
Pete Pedersen
Why not give your updates to Borland and let them distribute the changes
as an update off the community site?
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
Luigi Bianchi wrote:
>
>
> This is simply absurd and an obstacle to OWL and old Borland users. I insist
> to believe that Boralnd does not have to do anything: just release OWL to
> the public domain.
And potentially also lose the rights to the patents involved here. Once they
release it to the public domain the underlying patents are now at risk of being
lost. The patents can no longer be solely held once Borland releases it into
the public domain.
--
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) | Talk about failure
(Please do not email | To fall is not to fail
me directly unless | Failure isn't about falling down
asked. Thank You) | Failure is staying down (Marillion)
Jan Nilsen
"Harold Howe (TeamB)" wrote:
> There are probably some people who fear that an open source OWL project would compete
> with and suck revenue from VCL sales (BCB and Delphi). In reality, I don't think this
> argument holds much water. For the most part, the people who want to see OWL
> developed are people who invested in it heavily back before BCB was around.
> Developers who have past projects to maintain and don't see the benefits of moving to
> MFC or the VCL.
>
I'm one of these people which has a 11 years old project based on OWL.
In my case we looked outside Borland (M$) when we realized that they
really had drooped OWL. In the beginning of VCL we where told that
OWL will be supported but after 2 to 3 years we saw that this was not the case.
It was true in our case if Borland feared any losses in revenue. Basically because of
no strict information on the development of OWL and BCB's pore capacity
of project developed in Borland C++ 5.02. It is still pore even that BCB has
version 5 now.
I think that terminated technologies as OWL in form of open source project could only
lead to happy customers for Borland.
What will happen now when Kylix/CLX is out. Will we be forced to convert for the
3:e time?
1. OWL message handling changed.
2. OWL dropped in favor of VCL
3. VCL maybe dropped in favor of CLX, (don't know so much about CLX )
/
Jan Andersen,
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
Jan Nilsen wrote:
>
>
> 1. OWL message handling changed.
> 2. OWL dropped in favor of VCL
> 3. VCL maybe dropped in favor of CLX, (don't know so much about CLX )
>
The VCL is not being dropped for CLX. This has been stated many times. CLX is
the same idea as the VCL but uses the underlying Qt libraries instead of the
WinAPI. Both VCL for native Windows and CLX for cross platform will continue to
be developed in future editions.
> /
> Jan Andersen,
Colin Attwell
"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" wrote:
>
> And potentially also lose the rights to the patents involved here. Once they
> release it to the public domain the underlying patents are now at risk of being
> lost. The patents can no longer be solely held once Borland releases it into
> the public domain.
Surely the whole point of a patent is to protect an idea or object from
which you wish earn revenue either at present or at some future point.
If a patent holder subsequently abandons the item (from a revenue
perspective), the patent becomes a worthless relic.
From this one can deduce that perhaps one day Borland thinks they may be
able make some money out of OWL or some underlying technology embodied
in it. At the rate this industry evolves one can only view that concept
with skepticism, from which I deduce that Borland is only being
obstructive and giving out the message that the (long term) interests of
the users of their products don't count. I have a shelf full of
discontinued and unsupported Borland products to prove it.
Luigi Bianchi
in order to rewrite it.
Ciao, Luigi
Luigi Bianchi
news:3A6FCDA6...@ziton.com...
>
> From this one can deduce that perhaps one day Borland thinks they may be
> able make some money out of OWL or some underlying technology embodied
> in it. At the rate this industry evolves one can only view that concept
> with skepticism, from which I deduce that Borland is only being
> obstructive and giving out the message that the (long term) interests of
> the users of their products don't count. I have a shelf full of
> discontinued and unsupported Borland products to prove it.
Dear Colin, I'm 100% with you! For this reason I don't use Borland products
for any long term or strategic project in which I'm involved. And Borland
doesn't seem to understand that this is BIG problem.
Luigi Bianchi
news:3a6f01f6$1_2@dnews...
There are so many updates in OWLNext project, that almost all the OWL source
are touched. The problem is that it is not possible to redistribute the OWL
sources, but just patches to the Borland official ones. This makes the
redistribution and recompilation much more difficult: you need the official
OWL sources, then you have to patch them, and then recompile them. A lot of
work for doing something that could be much more easier...
Russell Hind
"Colin Attwell" <catt...@ziton.com> wrote in message
news:3A6FCDA6...@ziton.com...
>
> Surely the whole point of a patent is to protect an idea or object from
> which you wish earn revenue either at present or at some future point.
> If a patent holder subsequently abandons the item (from a revenue
> perspective), the patent becomes a worthless relic.
>
> From this one can deduce that perhaps one day Borland thinks they may be
> able make some money out of OWL or some underlying technology embodied
> in it.
(Joking)
Could it be that Borland are updating OWL to try and turn it into the C++
VCL that people have been asking for?
Russell
Nicola Musatti
Best regards,
Nicola Musatti
Leo Siefert
>
> I deduce that Borland is only being obstructive
No...Borland is listening to their lawyers, who are just being lawyers.
Ever try to get blood out of a turnip? (I once worked in a law office
and often saw the mentality of "Never let go of anything that's mine no
matter how little it may be worth.")
- Leo
Leo Siefert
>
> Could it be that Borland are updating OWL
No, Yura's the only one doing that these days.
- Leo
Leo Siefert
to update OWL to OWLNExt for more current technology support and to
update BC++5.02 to use the current Borland compiler (the free
command-line version) using Sirma's Tools55. This way you get the
project manager and OWL support from BC5 along with updated libraries
and compiler. This also updates the STL to the version shipped with
BCB5, but you can also switch to STLPort or SGI STL if you wish to have
a better implementation of streams. I haven't yet switched from the RW
STL, but I have switched to OWLNExt and the 5.5 compiler, and I can tell
you that it does work, although you may have to make some modifications
to your code, and there seems to be a bug in OWLNExt for
non-multithreaded compilation.
- Leo
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
Colin Attwell wrote:
>
> "Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" wrote:
> >
> > And potentially also lose the rights to the patents involved here. Once they
> > release it to the public domain the underlying patents are now at risk of being
> > lost. The patents can no longer be solely held once Borland releases it into
> > the public domain.
>
> Surely the whole point of a patent is to protect an idea or object from
> which you wish earn revenue either at present or at some future point.
> If a patent holder subsequently abandons the item (from a revenue
> perspective), the patent becomes a worthless relic.
>
Unless that patent is used in other applications sold by the same company.
> From this one can deduce that perhaps one day Borland thinks they may be
> able make some money out of OWL or some underlying technology embodied
> in it.
Or are making money on that patent current with other shipping products.
> At the rate this industry evolves one can only view that concept
> with skepticism, from which I deduce that Borland is only being
> obstructive and giving out the message that the (long term) interests of
> the users of their products don't count. I have a shelf full of
> discontinued and unsupported Borland products to prove it.
--
Erik Funkenbusch
news:3A705E31...@onramp.net...
> Colin Attwell wrote:
> > "Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" wrote:
> > >
> > > And potentially also lose the rights to the patents involved here.
Once they
> > > release it to the public domain the underlying patents are now at risk
of being
> > > lost. The patents can no longer be solely held once Borland releases
it into
> > > the public domain.
> >
> > Surely the whole point of a patent is to protect an idea or object from
> > which you wish earn revenue either at present or at some future point.
> > If a patent holder subsequently abandons the item (from a revenue
> > perspective), the patent becomes a worthless relic.
>
> Unless that patent is used in other applications sold by the same company.
You miss the point. Patents protect your technology. They don't go away
simply because you make the source code available.
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >
> > Unless that patent is used in other applications sold by the same company.
>
> You miss the point. Patents protect your technology. They don't go away
> simply because you make the source code available.
The is a difference between making the source available with the product and
licensed for single use and making the source Open Source which puts it into the
public domain. I am not missing the point. From what I have been told this is
exactly what the Borland lawyers believe could happen if the patented code was
released open sourced.
Digby Millikan
On the point of product support, how long do you the BDE will be supported
for.
Regards Digby Millikan.
Leo Siefert
>
> how long do you the BDE will be supported
I would not count on any support for BDE. Nor do I see much reason for
such support - there are much better alternatives. I would not be
surprised to see a replacement issued with the Kylix project. (No, I
have no info on this, just my feeling that BDE technology is outdated.)
If you want a database engine for current BCB projects, I would
recommend that you look at the Advantage database engine, one version of
which has been distributed at no cost.
- Leo
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
fixes and occasionally new drivers like the Oracle 8.15 driver and there should
be a IB 6.0 driver too (or so I was told). But for the most part you should
consider it a product that will not be greatly enhance in the future.
BCB6 will introduce dbExpress which will give a thinner BDE like (like in that
it can go between servers easily but does not have things like a local SQL
engine) component set. dbExpress is only for SQL backends so expect the BDE to
be around as long as people use dBase and pDox at least.
--
Jogy
> to update OWL to OWLNExt for more current technology support and to
> update BC++5.02 to use the current Borland compiler (the free
> command-line version) using Sirma's Tools55. This way you get the
It's not Sirma's :) . It is written by Karst Drenth. We are only hosting the
Add-On.
> you that it does work, although you may have to make some modifications
> to your code, and there seems to be a bug in OWLNExt for
> non-multithreaded compilation.
There is a problem when using Tools 5.5 with OWLNext -
to the compiler is passed the switch to build multithread, regardless
of the setting in the Target Expert.
Warren Young
>
> The is a difference between making the source available with the product and
> licensed for single use and making the source Open Source which puts it into the
> public domain.
Open Source != public domain. Ask any lawyer. There's a very big legal
distinction.
--
= Warren -- ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
> Open Source != public domain. Ask any lawyer. There's a very big legal
> distinction.
It depends on in which the country you are.
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://delphi-jedi.org
Leo Siefert
> It's not Sirma's :) . It is written by Karst Drenth.
> We are only hosting the Add-On.
Well, thanks to Karst for the product and to Sirma for the hosting.
> There is a problem when using Tools 5.5 with OWLNext -
> to the compiler is passed the switch to build multithread,
> regardless of the setting in the Target Expert.
Is there a workaround/fix for this other than the obvious one of
compiling only multithreaded projects?
- Leo
Warren Young
>
> Warren Young wrote in <3A720715...@etr-usa.com>...
>
> > Open Source != public domain. Ask any lawyer. There's a very big legal
> > distinction.
>
> It depends on in which the country you are.
I have a hard time accepting that. All "open source" is still
copyrighted. Public domain means anyone can use it for any purpose,
including closing the source and making a derivative product. The
purpose of licenses like the GPL is that, through the copyright system,
they prevent certain actions. If the code becomes public domain, you no
longer have the ability to prevent someone from doing what they want
with the code. If that were the case, I'd think their entire copyright
system is at best wildly different from the one in the US, and at worst
completely disfunctional.
So are you _sure_ open source == public domain, and if so, in which
countries?
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
> > It depends on in which the country you are.
>
> I have a hard time accepting that. All "open source" is still
> copyrighted. Public domain means anyone can use it for any purpose,
> including closing the source and making a derivative product.
Some countries don't have a legal notion of public domain or open source,
and even copyright laws can be quite different. So enforcing the license
of an open source project can be quite hard. OTOH, in some countries
there is no open domain, and everything is copyrighted.
So it really depends on the laws of the country you are.
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
Warren Young wrote:
>
> "Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" wrote:
> >
> > Warren Young wrote in <3A720715...@etr-usa.com>...
> >
> > > Open Source != public domain. Ask any lawyer. There's a very big legal
> > > distinction.
> >
> > It depends on in which the country you are.
>
> I have a hard time accepting that. All "open source" is still
> copyrighted.
No one is talking about copyrights here, but about patents. Patents are treated
differently than copyrights by a wide margin including the requirement, like
trademarks, to make the effort to protect your patent otherwise it stands a
chance at becoming part of the public domain. A patent is not the same as a
copyright and has a totally different process to acquire and retain. Releasing
patented code Open source could very easily be interpreted by courts to mean
that the company is no longer stringently protecting their patent since they
have allowed the common public to use that patent (as opposed to the restrictive
nature of the current OWL license stopping distribution of the patented code to
non licensed people). Thus the company potentially losing the patent.
This situation it is similar to why Xerox has so stringently gone after
companies in the past who use the name Xerox to mean photocopy. Like patents,
if you don't try to protect your trademark a trademark can become public
domain. Both patents and trademarks require due diligence in protecting them,
copyrights do not.
Graham
"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" <over...@onramp.net> wrote:
> The BDE is in maintenance mode. It has been for over 2 years.
How do you know it has been in maintenance for two years (other than
trolling around in DejaNews)? I think that is one of the things that is
really frustrating to people. How many years into maintence mode is it
going to be before Borland updates their BDE Web site to indicate to
customers and potential customers the status of the BDE product? Why be so
secretive and irresponsible? They're attitude toward customers is strangely
cavalier and distant -- almost like they're annoyed that they have any
customers at all. I checked today and this is what www.borland.com\bde
tells me:
"The Borland Database Engine is the solution for Windows developers
demanding easy access to local and remote data--regardless of format or
platform. "
We switched to DOA out of panic on realizing we're one of the last rats on a
ship with no crew.
Sorry, I don't mean to make a BDE punching bag of you. I just wanted to
vent.
Respectfully yours,
Graham Farquharson
Tecskor Software, Inc.
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jogy
> compiling only multithreaded projects?
>
Try to convert the target to 5.5 Application or DLL.
I am trying to get in touch with Karst to get the latest sources
of Tools 5.5 and to try to fix some problems.
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
Graham wrote:
>
> In article <3A71AD28...@onramp.net>,
> "Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" <over...@onramp.net> wrote:
> > The BDE is in maintenance mode. It has been for over 2 years.
>
> How do you know it has been in maintenance for two years (other than
> trolling around in DejaNews)?
It was announced and repeated many times by John Kaster on these newsgroups back
then.
Graham
thinks I'm responsible for going back in dozens of news groups to try to
find an offhand remark he whispered several months ago he needs to shake his
head a few times. If that is how they routinely release important
information I'm afraid of what else they I've missed.
Respectfully yours,
Graham.
"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" <over...@onramp.net> wrote in message
news:3A76EC26...@onramp.net...
AlisdairM
not all current customers were reading two years ago. Such information
should be mentioned prominently in the help files and release notes.
Also, John does a lot more shouting in the Delphi newsgroups than the
BCB ones. Sometimes info doesn't bridge the gap.
If the VCL was being put into maintainance mode (for instance, CLX
proves wildly successful and secures all future development) I would
hope to hear more about this when purchasing BCB6/7, rather than it
being assumed I was browsing the Delphi NGs when the announcement was
made that many months before...
AlidsairM
Pete Pedersen
"AlisdairM" <alisdair.meredith@NO_SPAM_PLEASE.benettonformula.com> wrote in
message news:3A76F17B.D7B3FCE9@NO_SPAM_PLEASE.benettonformula.com...
> being assumed I was browsing the Delphi NGs when the announcement was
> made that many months before...
The key word here is "announcement". I have you ever connected to that
newsgroup? Nothing there... (except weighty decisions re: company names).
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
ago. Where was that announcement? The BDE is still being supported. It is
still being bug fixed. It is still getting new drivers (the Oracle 8 driver
came out after being put into maintenance mode and the InterBase 6 driver should
come out with Delphi 6). It is no longer getting the same level of R&D time as
before but it is also a very mature technology that does not need as much time.
Borland has committed to supporting the BDE until their customers no longer need
it (IIRC that is exactly how it was phrased).
I expect much more push towards the dbExpress technology as the BDE loses its
importance over the next few releases. Maintenance mode != dropped. It still
is getting R&D time and is still being developed, but Borland does not foresee
major changes to the architecture in the future. The fact the BDE was not
ported to Linux should be an indication that they are not going to go into major
architecture changes for the BDE in the future. That the BDE was not being
ported has been mentioned over and over. Seeing the confusion just in these few
messages as to what maintenance mode really means, I don't know what you
expected Borland to put into the readme files.
I doubt you will see an announcement when purchasing BCB6/7, instead I think you
will see the literature and boxes promoting dbExpress much more and the BDE
mentioned very rarely. That of course is just IMO. I really don't have
anything else to say on this subject so I think this will be my last post on
this thread.
AlisdairM wrote:
>
> As has been noted elsewhere, not all customers read the newsgroups, and
> not all current customers were reading two years ago. Such information
> should be mentioned prominently in the help files and release notes.
>
> Also, John does a lot more shouting in the Delphi newsgroups than the
> BCB ones. Sometimes info doesn't bridge the gap.
>
> If the VCL was being put into maintainance mode (for instance, CLX
> proves wildly successful and secures all future development) I would
> hope to hear more about this when purchasing BCB6/7, rather than it
> being assumed I was browsing the Delphi NGs when the announcement was
> made that many months before...
>
> AlidsairM
>
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
more years at least.
Graham wrote:
>
> That's great but I'm a new customer in the last two years. If John Kaster
> thinks I'm responsible for going back in dozens of news groups to try to
> find an offhand remark he whispered several months ago he needs to shake his
> head a few times. If that is how they routinely release important
> information I'm afraid of what else they I've missed.
>
> Respectfully yours,
> Graham.
>
--
Benny
"Graham" <gra...@tecskor.com> wrote:
>Respectfully yours,
>Graham Farquharson
>Tecskor Software, Inc.
>Calgary, AB, Canada
Graham,
You may want to read this:
http://community.borland.com/article/0,1410,22495,00.html
I hope this animal isn't as big as the BDE, I hope
it supports dBase as well as Paradox files.
Benny
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
Benny wrote:
>
> Graham,
> You may want to read this:
>
> http://community.borland.com/article/0,1410,22495,00.html
>
> I hope this animal isn't as big as the BDE, I hope
> it supports dBase as well as Paradox files.
>
dbExpress only supports SQL backends and will not support pDox or dBase you will
continue to use the BDE for both of those.
> Benny
Dean
patch for Oracle, and it fixed virtually nothing. Unless they're releasing
patches in obscure newsgroup threads as well. The Oracle 8 driver makes me
queasy just thinking about it. But then again, I do all kinds of fancy
things like putting things in Blob fields. I won't even go into the Mystic
SHAREDMEMSIZE and SHAREDMEMLOCATION, which apparently are the Borland
equivalent of the Caremilk secret. I apologise for the cynicism, but it's
become a conditioned reflex when talking about the BDE. In it's day, it was
a pretty good product (and well supported too), unfortunately, that day was,
by my calculations Feb 24, 1997.
Sorry Jeff, I admire your support for Borland's stuff (I'm a fairly big
supporter too), but the BDE be a big, bloated, black box of bad news when it
comes to Oracle. Even you Delphi-Guru, TeamB guys usually mention ADO, or
one of the Direct Oracle components, when it comes to dealing with problems.
Dean
ps. I wish everyone would quit pointing BDE sufferers to that page where
they describe the new dbExpress specification. I'm sure that it makes them
happy to know that there MIGHT be a solution to their current problem, with
the next release of Delphi (whenever that will be). While you're at it, you
should point out that the .NET strategy is going to help them out too, if it
ever comes out.
"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" <over...@onramp.net> wrote in message
news:3A77130E...@onramp.net...
Dean
years
> ago. Where was that announcement? The BDE is still being supported. It
is
Bwaahahaaaahaa! (Sorry) You're using MS's godawful practices to defend
Borland. Thankfully they don't build their development tools with the same
attitude.
> still being bug fixed. It is still getting new drivers (the Oracle 8
driver
> came out after being put into maintenance mode and the InterBase 6 driver
should
> come out with Delphi 6). It is no longer getting the same level of R&D
time as
Bwhaahaaa! (Again, apologies). Have you used the Oracle 8 driver? It
should be pulled over, I'm pretty sure it is impaired.
> before but it is also a very mature technology that does not need as much
time.
> Borland has committed to supporting the BDE until their customers no
longer need
> it (IIRC that is exactly how it was phrased).
>
> I expect much more push towards the dbExpress technology as the BDE loses
its
> importance over the next few releases. Maintenance mode != dropped. It
still
> is getting R&D time and is still being developed, but Borland does not
foresee
> major changes to the architecture in the future. The fact the BDE was not
> ported to Linux should be an indication that they are not going to go into
major
> architecture changes for the BDE in the future. That the BDE was not
being
Huh? The fact that the BDE was not ported to Linux seems to me an
indication that it's not in any future plans for Borland. My theory is
that they couldn't find a way to port the SHAREDMEMSIZE, and
SHAREDMEMLOCATION over because nobody knows how that little piece really
works.
> ported has been mentioned over and over. Seeing the confusion just in
these few
> messages as to what maintenance mode really means, I don't know what you
> expected Borland to put into the readme files.
Who cares what maintenance mode means? We all can see that the BDE is
falling apart, and Borland already is not including it in their new
initiative (Kylix). The least that Borland could do is take down that
misleading statement on their web page, and maybe a quick one pager on what
the future plans for the BDE are. Just so us idiots that rely on it, have
some idea what we're in for, instead of waiting for that one release of
Oracle that's going to bring the whole house of cards falling down.
>
> I doubt you will see an announcement when purchasing BCB6/7, instead I
think you
> will see the literature and boxes promoting dbExpress much more and the
BDE
> mentioned very rarely. That of course is just IMO. I really don't have
> anything else to say on this subject so I think this will be my last post
on
> this thread.
Great. Unfortunately my time machine is broken, so it will be difficult to
get my hands on these future versions of Borland's excellent products. Not
to worry though, I've already moved to a 3rd party component which is
absolutely fantastic in dealing with Oracle and is complete with source code
and has really good support. Had I been warned that the BDE was going into
maintenance mode, this transition would have been much easier and less
stressfull for everyone on my team. That, I think, is the point that Graham
was trying to make in his original post.
Leo Siefert
>
> Try to convert the target to 5.5 Application or DLL.
???? My target is a 5.5 app - I thought that was the only way to get the
IDE to use the new compiler & linker...
> I am trying to get in touch with Karst to get the latest
> sources of Tools 5.5 and to try to fix some problems.
I've been quite pleased with Tools55, but it would be nice to see an
update - especially if the 5.5 targeting could be made to cascade
through a project and/or could be set a default for new nodes. I hope
you will announce in one of the borlandcpp groups if an update is
available.
- Leo
Howard Lee Harkness
>to worry though, I've already moved to a 3rd party component which is
>absolutely fantastic in dealing with Oracle and is complete with source code
Which one?
Spam Me and Get Sued <hark...@suespammers.org>
see www.suespammers.org for details & free spam-nuking email account
Graham
> Maintenance mode != dropped. The BDE is still alive and will be for
several
> more years at least.
Jeff,
True. There must be some difference though between maintenance mode and not
maintenance mode, even if only in the perception of dummies like me --
though I think it's like when I see potato chips with 'No cholesterol', a
gross marketing ploy. "What can we call our neglect of BDE that will sound
positive to customers and avoid our having to be classy and honest?", I
imagine Borland management thinking to themselves.
Even if you are right, I still don't understand why they don't say on the
BDE Web site, "two years" atter putting the product in maintenance, anything
to that respect. Also, no real attempt to counter the hysteria of people
defecting to DOA. It just doesn't seem to be great or clever customer
service to me. Always the cynic when it comes to BDE, I orginally thought
that they renamed the company to Inprise so they could say "We know that BDE
product really sucks, who are these 'Borland' guys anyway?"
As someone argued earlier it is difficult enough to get Borland products
into sceptical organizations. Over 75% of our support calls are related to
BDE run-time issues and BDE configuration problems and I think we do a
relatively good job of implementing a BDE solution.
Thanks again for your comments, you must hate these conversations but I have
to be honest and say it would be really helpful if Team B gurus -- godlike,
all -- would publicly, on occasion, be critical and objective of Borland
where it merited. On the otherhand, if you really believe they are doing
the right thing, you are obviously entitled to say so.
Respectfully yours,
Graham.
Dean
overcome in migrating to these components, but it is worth it. They're
faster than the BDE, less than a meg deployment (unlike the 20 mB BDE), way
more scalable (if you're doing multi-threading), and best of all you get the
source code, so if you have a problem and you can't get any answers, you can
fix it yourself.
"Howard Lee Harkness" <hark...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:drag7t0i5nvmqosbh...@4ax.com...
Howard Lee Harkness
>DOA. (www.allroundautomations.nl). There are a couple of hurdles to
I see. I've dealt with these folk before. I used their PL/SQL
Developer product on another contract a couple of years ago, and it
was quite good.
Unfortunately, I need some way to (easily) switch the database backend
from Oracle to something else. My client seems to think MS SQL Server
is going to be requested by one of our customers.
I've been looking at TClientDataSet, and I've downloaded some articles
on MIDAS, but right now I'm just basically confused.
Dean
it months ago. Unfortunately, the MS support of the Long Raw datatype was
broken, I could extract Long Raw items but could not update or insert them.
I tried to use Oracle's OLE DB (ADO) driver but had nothing but problems
getting it installed, and found very little support. So I had to look
elsewhere. I would suspect that the ADO drivers for MS SQL server would be
excellent, so this might be something to consider, if you haven't already.
As for MIDAS, that I have used, and it is pretty well done. Borland seems
to be recommending its use, as it will make the move to their new dbexpress
easier. Unfortunately, it is another 'Black Box' that you plug in and have
little control over, and there are some licensing issues depending on how
you deploy it. MIDAS also requires that you still use a database Back-end
like the BDE, ADO, or other TDataSet decendent, so it creates yet another
layer of transport to talk through, and really can not replace the BDE
alone.
I have long had to live in the same situation that you are in, where you
support Oracle, but MIGHT need to support other databases in the future
(like MS SQL Server). This truly sucks, as you never truly get to use the
power of any of the databases that you are supporting.
Dean
"Howard Lee Harkness" <hark...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:fthg7tkh24ro970cv...@4ax.com...
Kalin Zahariev
From what what I've read here on the subject it seems there's a general
understadning
on the Borland's side, but the only obstacles are legal problems.
Wonder what would happen if someone wrote a completely new
C++ framework based on "ideas" from OWL (and MFC, not to be so obvious:)
and released it as an open source. This woudl not infringe any legal
pattents on the Borland's
side since the new Framework would be called differently and the classes
woudl have different names
How about WWindow, WPropertySheet, etc.
and the source code.....
Looking the the Present OWLNext sources, it has already very little to do
with the original OWL
the ideas....
You cannot go around inventing the Wheel when you want to write a C++
framework.
It HAS to look like other frameworks. They are all alike, more or less.
So why should we be so anxious about the name?
Call it whatever you like YOF (Yura's Opensource Framework) for example.
I don't care too much about names, but rather about functionality and
freedom.
I think all developers are like this.
ps. Please don't flame me for this. It's just a wild idea.
--
/******************************************************************/
// Kalin Zahariev - senior software engineer
// Sirma AI Ltd. - Artificial Intelligence Labs.
// 38A, Christo Botev Blvd, 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria.
// tel: (+ 359 2) 9810018; 9812338; fax: 9819058
// email: kal...@sirma.bg
// http://www.sirma.bg/kalinz
/******************************************************************/
Luigi Bianchi <the...@luigibianchi.com> wrote in message
news:94okeg$dq...@bornews.inprise.com...
> Yes but Borland could at least tell us "what" is covered by these patents,
> in order to rewrite it.
>
> Ciao, Luigi
>
> --
> Luigi Bianchi
> http://www.luigibianchi.com
> Dfm2API : Delphi / C++ Builder Form Converter
> Brain Computer Interface SDK
> VCL/OWL/C/C++ source code
> Uncommon Controls
>
>
>
Jogy
> I've been quite pleased with Tools55, but it would be nice to see an
> update - especially if the 5.5 targeting could be made to cascade
> through a project and/or could be set a default for new nodes. I hope
> you will announce in one of the borlandcpp groups if an update is
> available.
>
Hello,
I received news from Karst, and a new version as well.
You can download it from http://www.sirma.bg/Jogy/download/Tools55.zip
The problem with non-multithread OWL seems to be fixed.
Next week I will update the site.
Jogy
Leo Siefert
>
> I received news from Karst, and a new version as well.
> You can download it from http://www.sirma.bg/Jogy/download/Tools55.zip
> The problem with non-multithread OWL seems to be fixed.
>
> Next week I will update the site.
Thanks. BTW, I'm considering replacing the RW STL with either SGI or
STLPort. Do you have any info on which of this might be more compatible
with OWLNExt/Tools5.5? Has anyone tried this yet that might have some
tips available?
- Leo
AlisdairM
> Thanks again for your comments, you must hate these conversations but I have
> to be honest and say it would be really helpful if Team B gurus -- godlike,
> all -- would publicly, on occasion, be critical and objective of Borland
> where it merited. On the otherhand, if you really believe they are doing
> the right thing, you are obviously entitled to say so.
It happens Graham, just not very often!
I have seen it happen enough to accept that TeamB probably give borland
the benefit of the doubt in 100% of all cases (fair enough, there is
doubt) but when beyond doubt they can be just as critical of Borland as
the rest of us.
AlisdairM