It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen), but
now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a small or mid-sized business. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...9ca99eb0e7c328
Damn! To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug....... It must be
nice.
Jim Hubbard
Nov 22 '05
92  2571 
"Aaron Smith" <th**********@smithcentral.net> wrote in message
news:1E*****************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m... Jim Hubbard wrote: Tom,
I'm certain that you can be very productive in those languages. But
the point that I was trying to make is that most developers are "task
oriented" developers and not professional developers such as yourself.
In most cases, these task oriented developers have a main job that is
not programming, but they needed a quick way (without spending a large
amount of time learning a more complex programming language and without
learning about the internal workings of the IDE or framework) to create
applications to make their jobs easier.
Classic Visual Basic was the king of RAD, and fit this bill more than
any language in the world.. It made programmers of CEOs, mail clerks,
secretaries, attorneys......and so on. Because of the extreme ease of
use, the component architecture and the English-like syntax, classic
Visual Basic made developers out of more people than any other language
in the world and made Windows the champion of small businesses and task
oriented developers the world over.
Classic Visual Basic saved money in that small businesses did not
have to hire professional programmers to get applications that helped
them streamline their operations. And, as more businesses used classic
Visual Basic, 3rd party developers cropped up to deliver components to
make it even easier to use. This resulted in more adoption of the
classic Visual Basic and Windows platform.
Not to get all philisophical here... But, isn't this one of the biggest
problems that a lot of professional developers face? I'm not talking about
losing money to people who become simple programmers... I'm talking about
professional programmers having to always go back and fix broken or
misused code because a mail room clerk wrote a program that a business now
has to rely on, and that clerk did something wrong. I have only run into
this a few times in my career, but I have read countless articles that
pointed out the fact that classic VB created a ton of bad code. It was
these people that don't have the fundamental knowledge of programming, or
even computers, that created a ton of programs that ran, but had problems
and when they leave a company, now they are forced to hire someone to
rewrite it. It would have just been easier to have it done professionally
once instead of paying to have it written once unprofessionally then pay
someone twice as much to fix it.
While it is true that a lot of code written by task oriented developers does
not conform to proper use of the language (from the point of view of
professional programmers) and may require rewriting, the very fact that the
task oriented developer could write the program in the first place helped
the small business along and showed the usefulness of the task oriented
developers idea.
I have been called upon to enhance and "fix" these applications for most of
my career. But, I have also seen many ingenious methods of solving problems
that have streamlined businesses and departments that were not only adequate
for their purpose, but whose usage saved companies thousands of dollars each
year.
In my experience, the companies that needed rewrites were the companies that
rushed the employees instead of giving them the time to learn and use Visual
Basic correctly. These same companies frequently assign ridiculous
deadlines to professional developers while changing specs constantly and
will have the same problems as before (not every time, but most of the time
I see this as being the case).
In VB.Net, Microsoft has lost the RAD edge that task oriented
developers loved (and actually needed). The VB.Net books that I have
read (all 54 of them) are even more of an affront to the task oriented
developer. The vast majority of task oriented developers simply don't
want to be professional programmers. If they did, they'd stop being
attorney's or mail clerks or whatever and devote themselves to it full
time. For the most part, they just want a simple IDE to make
applications to make making a living easier.
For the majority of them, C#, Mono and related languages are not
nearly as easy to use and learn as languages like Visual Basic and
REALbasic. This is the reason I suggest that classic Visual Basic
developers that feel slighted by Microsoft take a look at REALbasic.
REALbasic offers the ability to use a much less expensive desktop
(like Linspire, SUSE or even Red Hat) with applications that interact
with Microsoft Office and offers the developer the chance to develop on
MAC, Linux or Windows and distribute their apps to all 3 platforms.
The REALbasic/Linux platform will not be for everyone. But, for task
oriented developers, developers that would like to target all 3 platforms
from a single set of source code and developers and small businesses
looking for a more cost effective solution than Microsoft's ridiculous
pricing of its products.....REALbasic is worth a look.
A look is even free. They can get a free copy at
http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=GVVDPQFY .
Jim Hubbard
If real basic is so great for these "task oriented" developers, than why
are you even asking for VB.Com?
I signed the petition before I was introduced to REALbasic.
If the programs they wrote were so simple and a mail clerk could do it,
then the switch to real basic would be simple and they could do it with no
problem. If there are other tools out there that these people can use, then
let them go use them.
I agree. REALbasic is not the only alternative. However, it is the
alternative that allows for upgrading of VB6 apps and uses a similar syntax
to VB6 and runs its apps on Mac, Linux or Windows.
In all, I find that REALbasic offers more "bang for your buck" than the
other alternatives that I have looked at so far. If you have any suggested
alternatives, please post them here. I'd love to look at them.
Remember that REALbasic is only FREE for 2 more days, so download your copy
from http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=GVVDPQFY ASAP.
Jim Hubbard Me to. Don't get me wrong. I like and use MS products - but, I also
like and use Linux. It's nice to have something that will work on both.
I have been a long time fan of Microsoft and their products (although these
posts may make that less than clear at times). But, with the direction they
have taken VB.Net (which is anti-RAD, IMHO) and the continued rising costs
Microsoft products that, let's be honest, really don't add that much value
for the average office user (like MS Office 2002 to 2003) and with the trend
towards intentionally breaking backwards compatibility - we need another
option.
<snipped> > Here are the current supported OS's for Mono:
> Linux, Windows (2K and up), OSX, BSD, Solaris
The only real concern I have is that it is basically unsupported.
Not really true. Mono is supported by Novell. You can purchase support
and technical consulting if you so desire/need it.
I knew that they were a major backer, but I did not know that they sold
support for Mono.
For your enjoyment...
http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_General...e_Mono_Project
Will Novell offer Mono commercially?
Novell will offer a commercial support and services for Mono. Mono
components are also available to be licensed commercially. For
licensing details, contact mo************@novell.com
Thanks again!
<snipped> I just bought 9.2 Pro a couple of weeks ago and have enjoyed playing with
it
(although I wish it would run under VMWare - they only support version
9.1
at this time).
To be totally up front... I haven't been all that impressed with SuSE.
It's not that it's bad - I just don't like RPM based packaging. I have
really fallen in love with my Gentoo system and it's portage package
manager.
I'll have to try Gentoo......but, they'll have a hurdle to make it easier
than Linspire - which I installed 4 times in the last 3 days. Linspire is
the easiest Linux system I have ever seen. The 5.0 version desktop is very
user friendly and the CNR (Click N Run) way that you can instll new
applications from their library by just clicking on them is just great.
The only problem I see is a lack of polished software when compared to
Windows. That's why I think that a RAD IDE like REALbasic would help Linux
a great deal. The more poeple we have coding for Linux, the more polished
apps we will have to choose from, the more viable the Linux desktop becomes.
I support any IDE that makes Linux easier to write polished, professional
applications on. I do so because I believe that competition is good for
consumers.
Pepsi is good for Coke (or we'd probably be still stuck with that "New Coke"
crap). Canon is good for Xerox - it keeps them on their toes. Many choices
in cars makes the manufacturers build better (and less expensive) cars. We
need that competition for the desktop too. And, if I can do anything to
helop bring it about - I will.
Like recommending that anyone reading this thread that has not downloaded a
FREE copy of REALbasic do so BEFORE THE APRIL 15, 2005 DEADLINE by clicking http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=GVVDPQFY .
Thanks, Tom, for the Mono information.
Jim Hubbard
"Aaron Smith" <th**********@smithcentral.net> wrote in message
news:mN*****************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m... Jim Hubbard wrote: Fortunately, REALbasic isn't caught in that trap andcan move in any
direction that their developers need without really worrying too much
about how Microsoft does things.
Careful with that. They are a business too. Just because they say they
listen to the developer doesn't always make that the case. I've seen, and
heard that before.
This is where competition is helpful to consumers. We need more than one
option. Then, consumers can go where they are listened to.
I have spoken with the President of Real Software (Geoff Perlman) and he
seems to understand the need to keep the customers in charge of the
direction of the product. From the conversations and emails that we have
traded, I have to say that I have faith in him that this is true if him, his
company and team.
The only real concern I have is that it is basically unsupported. As a
business owner and having to deal with ISO9000 issues, most executives
that I deal with demand accountablity in the products that they adopt and
feel that this is missing with Mono. It's the same reason that companies
adopt RedHat instead of their own version of Linux. They need a support
team ready when they need help.
Who on the Mono team can we call if we need help today with a project?
Just like every other linux project that crops up, there is always
community support, just like what you get with Microsoft. And I'm sure a
ton of support companies will crop up once it starts to get adopted more.
That's a good thing.
REALbasic has a great support team.
So, if it's so great, why are we all still arguing? Why don't the people
that have a big problem with Microsoft dumping classic VB just switch to
real basic?
Who says they're not?
Perhaps people are rushing to download their FREE copy of REALbasic BEFORE
THE APRIL 15, 2005 DEADLINE by clicking on http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=GVVDPQFY . We'll see.
Jim Hubbard
In article <C8********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote: Me to. Don't get me wrong. I like and use MS products - but, I also
like and use Linux. It's nice to have something that will work on both.
I have been a long time fan of Microsoft and their products (although these
posts may make that less than clear at times). But, with the direction they
have taken VB.Net (which is anti-RAD, IMHO) and the continued rising costs
Microsoft products that, let's be honest, really don't add that much value
for the average office user (like MS Office 2002 to 2003) and with the trend
towards intentionally breaking backwards compatibility - we need another
option.
<snipped>
>> Here are the current supported OS's for Mono:
>> Linux, Windows (2K and up), OSX, BSD, Solaris
>
> The only real concern I have is that it is basically unsupported.
Not really true. Mono is supported by Novell. You can purchase support
and technical consulting if you so desire/need it.
I knew that they were a major backer, but I did not know that they sold
support for Mono.
For your enjoyment...
http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_General...e_Mono_Project
Will Novell offer Mono commercially?
Novell will offer a commercial support and services for Mono. Mono
components are also available to be licensed commercially. For
licensing details, contact mo************@novell.com
Thanks again!
<snipped>
I just bought 9.2 Pro a couple of weeks ago and have enjoyed playing with
it
(although I wish it would run under VMWare - they only support version
9.1
at this time).
To be totally up front... I haven't been all that impressed with SuSE.
It's not that it's bad - I just don't like RPM based packaging. I have
really fallen in love with my Gentoo system and it's portage package
manager.
I'll have to try Gentoo......but, they'll have a hurdle to make it easier
than Linspire - which I installed 4 times in the last 3 days.
Actually... Gentoo doesn't even try to make it easier :) Gentoo is a
source based distro. It has no graphical installer, like most distro's.
In fact, it doesn't really have what you would call an installer at all.
You basically, boot from a cd, manually partition your disks, download a
source tarball based on the level of install you want, and the run some
scripts to compile stuff. The documentation is pretty good - but you
HAVE to follow it. You can't just skip ahead because you think you know
something.
The thing I like about Gentoo is the fact that it is pretty minimal in
it's base form (it doesn't even install X by default). I can add stuff
as I need it with a simple command from the command line, and it works
out and installs all the dependencies... If you ever worked with a
FreeBSD system and there ports collection, portage is pertty similar.
Linspire is
the easiest Linux system I have ever seen. The 5.0 version desktop is very
user friendly and the CNR (Click N Run) way that you can instll new
applications from their library by just clicking on them is just great.
Does it still have you run as root by default? That was one of it's bad
points in the past...
The only problem I see is a lack of polished software when compared to
Windows. That's why I think that a RAD IDE like REALbasic would help Linux
a great deal. The more poeple we have coding for Linux, the more polished
apps we will have to choose from, the more viable the Linux desktop becomes.
I support any IDE that makes Linux easier to write polished, professional
applications on. I do so because I believe that competition is good for
consumers.
That I agree on. It's one of the main reasons I support Linux. It's
not that I dislike MS or that I want to see them go away... I just want
to see them have to compete a little :)
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
In article <O6**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Tom Shelton wrote: On 2005-04-14, james <jj*******@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... Ah, so were not talking about proffesional hackers... I guess I missed
that. For that, I agree you are right. I know of nothing in linux that
is as easy to use as VB.CLASSIC.
I apologize for my misunderstanding.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
Tom, there is a Linux-only, VB Like language, with a pretty nice IDE called Gambas.
Here's the link: http://gambas.sourceforge.net/ (free)
I have messed with it and it seems to be prettty nice and easy to use. I have built a couple of test apps in Linux using Gambas
and it ran just fine in both KDE & Gnome.
(Just thought you might be interested in another alternitive)
james
James - thanks. I'll have to check that out...
Just a follow up... I installed gambas immediately after posting this.
First impression - definately worth a closer look.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:00:37 -0700, Tom Shelton <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com>
wrote:
¤ <snip>
¤
¤ > ¤ While still far behind Windows, the demand for Linux is growing by leaps and
¤ > ¤ bounds....if I may....
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > Well that's what some folks having been saying for the last five years. You would have thought by
¤ > now that Linux would have passed up Windows by now. ;-)
¤ >
¤
¤ Do you read the news much? Linux is being adopted... Not so much on the
¤ desktop (though that is happening) - but on the server side it is
¤ growing pretty darn fast.
¤
Yes, it's being adopted by Unix users. Windows has typically lagged behind in
the server market but that is changing as well since it's continued to gain
market share in that venue.
I'm afraid the slaughter rule still applies on the desktop.
¤ > ¤ It's like the adoption of Firefox in place of IE. Firefox is making great
¤ > ¤ strides in the browser market, with no signs of stalling. People will adopt
¤ > ¤ the best technology for their enterprise, whether that is MAC, Windows or
¤ > ¤ Linux.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > Don't get me started on the Firefox issue. As market share increases it becomes a much bigger target
¤ > to hackers and those looking to exploit security holes. If probably won't help that MS is now
¤ > working on an updated version of IE.
¤ >
¤
¤ I agree that Firefox is not as big a target at the moment... But, you
¤ need to look at the fix rate as well:
¤
¤ http://www.tigertools.net/board/?topic=topic8&msg=7567
¤ According to Brussels-based ScanIT, users of Microsoft's Internet
¤ Explorer (IE) were "unsafe" 98 percent of the time during 2004, while
¤ Mozilla users -- which would include those using Mozilla and Firefox
¤ -- were "unsafe" only 15 percent of last year.
¤
¤ The fact is that Firefox IS more secure, not to mention it is just a
¤ better browser. I have high hopes for IE7, but right now Firefox just
¤ plain kicks IE's butt.
¤
We won't know how secure FireFox is until it becomes a much bigger target. I'm
sure we all thought IE was secure at one point, probably when it was overtaking
Netscape. But the fact the FireFox does not support some features targeted as
security risks you could say it's inherently more secure in that sense.
Personally I've found some compatibility issues with FireFox that annoy me. In
addition, it doesn't have the rendering smarts that IE does. If try FireFox
periodically but I always end up going back to IE when I hit a usability road
block.
¤ > ¤ The adoption of Linux will happen sooner than you think, in more places than
¤ > ¤ you think. There are things in the works right now that will make Linux the
¤ > ¤ premier desktop of small and mid-sized businesses worldwide. Add them to
¤ > ¤ the governments making the switch, and you have yourself a little
¤ > ¤ revolution.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > They way Linux has been hyped over the last several years I would have expected a significantly
¤ > higher adoption rate. Problem is there's literally no money to be made in this market in comparison
¤
¤ Tell that to Novell and IBM. Both major Linux players.
¤
Novell has been on life support for quite a while now. IBM is getting out of the
PC hardware business. They also both have a grudge against Microsoft.
¤ > to the Windows market so quality applications lag behind.
¤
¤ Some do, some don't.
¤
Well they either do or don't. ;-) It's typically true, although you can find
some good Linux apps that are competitive with Windows apps.
¤ > In addition, there's simply too many user
¤ > interfaces and variations for this OS so standardization becomes virtually impossible.
¤ >
¤
¤ To be honest, I actually like having the choices. But, this makes no
¤ sense really. It is quite simple for a distro maker to standardize on a
¤ particluar interface, if they so choose.
Nothing wrong with having choices, but the Linux market is over saturated so
there never is a settlement in the Linux community on a distro, which makes it
difficult to establish a standard UI.
Plus the vendors seem to come and go. That doesn't speak highly of the support
and stability of the product.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
>>>> I just bought 9.2 Pro a couple of weeks ago and have enjoyed playing with
it
(although I wish it would run under VMWare - they only support version
9.1
at this time).
To be totally up front... I haven't been all that impressed with SuSE.
It's not that it's bad - I just don't like RPM based packaging. I have
really fallen in love with my Gentoo system and it's portage package
manager.
I'll have to try Gentoo......but, they'll have a hurdle to make it easier
than Linspire - which I installed 4 times in the last 3 days.
Actually... Gentoo doesn't even try to make it easier :) Gentoo is a
source based distro. It has no graphical installer, like most distro's.
In fact, it doesn't really have what you would call an installer at all.
You basically, boot from a cd, manually partition your disks, download a
source tarball based on the level of install you want, and the run some
scripts to compile stuff. The documentation is pretty good - but you
HAVE to follow it. You can't just skip ahead because you think you know
something.
The thing I like about Gentoo is the fact that it is pretty minimal in
it's base form (it doesn't even install X by default). I can add stuff
as I need it with a simple command from the command line, and it works
out and installs all the dependencies... If you ever worked with a
FreeBSD system and there ports collection, portage is pertty similar.
This level of control seems great for businesses and professional software
people, but the Linspire thing looks more like something that could make a
real difference on end user desktops. And, I think that's the market they
are shooting for. They have just done a huge deal with WalMart and are
selling new Linspire Laptops for $598 and Desktops for $318 to $348.
It is an affordable alternative for the masses to Microsoft.......we just
need more polished apps for the desktop.
Linspire is
the easiest Linux system I have ever seen. The 5.0 version desktop is
very
user friendly and the CNR (Click N Run) way that you can instll new
applications from their library by just clicking on them is just great.
Does it still have you run as root by default? That was one of it's bad
points in the past...
Yes it does. Why is that a bad point? Don't you need to be root to install
and tweak stuff? I think they may opt for this to make the OS as easy as
possible for the end user. The end user may have trouble learning the
difference between root and other levels of desktop users. Look at
Windows.....most users run as system administrator. Although this makes the
system less secure, it seems that end users would rather have a less secure
desktop with more power in their hands than a safe, limited use desktop.
The only problem I see is a lack of polished software when compared to
Windows. That's why I think that a RAD IDE like REALbasic would help
Linux
a great deal. The more poeple we have coding for Linux, the more
polished
apps we will have to choose from, the more viable the Linux desktop
becomes.
I support any IDE that makes Linux easier to write polished, professional
applications on. I do so because I believe that competition is good for
consumers.
That I agree on. It's one of the main reasons I support Linux. It's
not that I dislike MS or that I want to see them go away... I just want
to see them have to compete a little :)
Amen to that!
Jim Hubbard
Jim Hubbard wrote: While it is true that a lot of code written by task oriented developers does
not conform to proper use of the language (from the point of view of
professional programmers) and may require rewriting, the very fact that the
task oriented developer could write the program in the first place helped
the small business along and showed the usefulness of the task oriented
developers idea.
I have been called upon to enhance and "fix" these applications for most of
my career. But, I have also seen many ingenious methods of solving problems
that have streamlined businesses and departments that were not only adequate
for their purpose, but whose usage saved companies thousands of dollars each
year.
In my experience, the companies that needed rewrites were the companies that
rushed the employees instead of giving them the time to learn and use Visual
Basic correctly. These same companies frequently assign ridiculous
deadlines to professional developers while changing specs constantly and
will have the same problems as before (not every time, but most of the time
I see this as being the case).
So, if a company has to give the employee ample time to learn and
correctly use VB6, why not just hire it out? I realize not all software
shops are reasonably priced, and we may be an exception, but we can
crank out solutions for people faster than what it would take them to
let an employee learn the language and then write the app. Most
employees won't do this stuff on their own time, they want to get paid
to do it. So you have to pay the employee to sit there and read a book,
read a website, post messages, and "play" with the software while they
learn the process or write the app. Seems way cheaper to me if you just
call a software shop that specializes in writing custom software.
In all, I find that REALbasic offers more "bang for your buck" than the
other alternatives that I have looked at so far. If you have any suggested
alternatives, please post them here. I'd love to look at them.
VB.Net, C#
--
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks.
In article <u0********************************@4ax.com>,
Paul Clement <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:
... We won't know how secure FireFox is until it becomes a much bigger target. I'm
sure we all thought IE was secure at one point, probably when it was overtaking
Netscape. But the fact the FireFox does not support some features targeted as
security risks you could say it's inherently more secure in that sense.
...
Umm, no. I can't think of anyone I know knowledgable about security
that thought that IE was secure when it started. Even quick and dirty
analyses showed a lot of holes.
It just took a few years for the attackers to find them.
Craig
"Aaron Smith" <th**********@smithcentral.net> wrote in message
news:Sg*****************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m... Jim Hubbard wrote: While it is true that a lot of code written by task oriented developers
does not conform to proper use of the language (from the point of view of
professional programmers) and may require rewriting, the very fact that
the task oriented developer could write the program in the first place
helped the small business along and showed the usefulness of the task
oriented developers idea.
I have been called upon to enhance and "fix" these applications for most
of my career. But, I have also seen many ingenious methods of solving
problems that have streamlined businesses and departments that were not
only adequate for their purpose, but whose usage saved companies
thousands of dollars each year.
In my experience, the companies that needed rewrites were the companies
that rushed the employees instead of giving them the time to learn and
use Visual Basic correctly. These same companies frequently assign
ridiculous deadlines to professional developers while changing specs
constantly and will have the same problems as before (not every time, but
most of the time I see this as being the case).
So, if a company has to give the employee ample time to learn and
correctly use VB6, why not just hire it out? I realize not all software
shops are reasonably priced, and we may be an exception, but we can crank
out solutions for people faster than what it would take them to let an
employee learn the language and then write the app.
In our area, homesourcing costs $90-$120 an hour. Most businesses can
afford to put an internal employee on a project and spend less money even if
the employee takes considerably longer to finish the application. And, the
company then has an in-house developer that can be used for other small
projects or RAD designs that get passed on to professional developers.
Most employees won't do this stuff on their own time, they want to get
paid to do it. So you have to pay the employee to sit there and read a
book, read a website, post messages, and "play" with the software while
they learn the process or write the app. Seems way cheaper to me if you
just call a software shop that specializes in writing custom software.
Lots of small companies like the idea of having an in-house person that can
trouble-shoot apps on-the-spot rather than having to call in someone
whenever there is a problem. Training internal resources allows
this.....and using Visual Basic allows a developer to get up-to-speed a
great deal faster than using a language like C++.
In all, I find that REALbasic offers more "bang for your buck" than the
other alternatives that I have looked at so far. If you have any
suggested alternatives, please post them here. I'd love to look at them.
VB.Net, C#
Intentionally breaking backwards compatibility and hiding the fact that .Net
patches are the DLL Hell of .Net are just 2 reasons I am seeking other
solutions to .Net.
Jim Hubbard
In article <tZ********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote: > I just bought 9.2 Pro a couple of weeks ago and have enjoyed playing
> with
> it
> (although I wish it would run under VMWare - they only support version
> 9.1
> at this time).
>
To be totally up front... I haven't been all that impressed with SuSE.
It's not that it's bad - I just don't like RPM based packaging. I have
really fallen in love with my Gentoo system and it's portage package
manager.
I'll have to try Gentoo......but, they'll have a hurdle to make it easier
than Linspire - which I installed 4 times in the last 3 days.
Actually... Gentoo doesn't even try to make it easier :) Gentoo is a
source based distro. It has no graphical installer, like most distro's.
In fact, it doesn't really have what you would call an installer at all.
You basically, boot from a cd, manually partition your disks, download a
source tarball based on the level of install you want, and the run some
scripts to compile stuff. The documentation is pretty good - but you
HAVE to follow it. You can't just skip ahead because you think you know
something.
The thing I like about Gentoo is the fact that it is pretty minimal in
it's base form (it doesn't even install X by default). I can add stuff
as I need it with a simple command from the command line, and it works
out and installs all the dependencies... If you ever worked with a
FreeBSD system and there ports collection, portage is pertty similar.
This level of control seems great for businesses and professional software
people, but the Linspire thing looks more like something that could make a
real difference on end user desktops. And, I think that's the market they
are shooting for. They have just done a huge deal with WalMart and are
selling new Linspire Laptops for $598 and Desktops for $318 to $348.
It is an affordable alternative for the masses to Microsoft.......we just
need more polished apps for the desktop.
Gentoo is really more targeted for power users...
Linspire is
the easiest Linux system I have ever seen. The 5.0 version desktop is
very
user friendly and the CNR (Click N Run) way that you can instll new
applications from their library by just clicking on them is just great.
Does it still have you run as root by default? That was one of it's bad
points in the past...
Yes it does. Why is that a bad point?
Security. Linspire is the only distro that does this.
Don't you need to be root to install
and tweak stuff?
I think they may opt for this to make the OS as easy as
possible for the end user. The end user may have trouble learning the
difference between root and other levels of desktop users. Look at
Windows.....most users run as system administrator. Although this makes the
system less secure, it seems that end users would rather have a less secure
desktop with more power in their hands than a safe, limited use desktop.
It's a bad idea to run as admin on windows as well (though, I'm as
guilty as anyone...). The only reason I can see for people to run on
windows as admin is because there is so much software (games in
particluar) that just won't work as a regular user. This isn't the case
with linux. Sure, it is a slightly different mindset - but not
difficult. I think Linspire is doing a diservice to it's customers by
encouragin this practice. Do they even explain the difference between a
normal user and root?
You might want to check out Xandros. I here it's pretty windows user
friendly.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
In article <h7********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
"Aaron Smith" <th**********@smithcentral.net> wrote in message
news:Sg*****************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m... Jim Hubbard wrote:
<snip>
hiding the fact that .Netpatches are the DLL Hell of .Net
I'm not quit sure I get this one...
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
Hello,
To all VB6 developers, the things in the world are changing. Visual
Basic is evolving and if you are good developers you will evolve too.
Visual Basic 6 and previous versions are pale resemblances of the real
computer languages, Visual Basic.NET is a other story, real OOP
language, real framework. I like it.
Visual Basic 6, Delphi for Win32 and other Win32 languages are
obsolete. Now you have to think .NET style. Longhorn API will be .NET
based, Win32 is obsolete.
I know why you do not want to move to .NET...but I do not want to
offend some people here, the above stuff was for the serious
developers...
Best,
Philip.
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message news:eJ**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Just a follow up... I installed gambas immediately after posting this.
First impression - definately worth a closer look.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
Have fun with it!
james
"Philip Hristov" <ph********@gmail.com> schrieb: Visual Basic 6, Delphi for Win32 and other Win32 languages are
obsolete. Now you have to think .NET style. Longhorn API will be .NET
based, Win32 is obsolete.
This would make Visual C/C++ (without Managed Extensions) and VFP at least
as obsolete as Classic VB. Sorry, but that's simply plain nonsense.
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
news:e5*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... In article <h7********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
"Aaron Smith" <th**********@smithcentral.net> wrote in message
news:Sg*****************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m... Jim Hubbard wrote:
<snip>
hiding the fact that .Netpatches are the DLL Hell of .Net
I'm not quit sure I get this one...
Microsoft loudly and frequently touted the .Net framework as the end to DLL
Hell. But, this is not necessarily true.
If you subscribe to the free newsletter at www.KBAlertz.com (and I HIGHLY
recommend that you do) you can look up weird behavior in the .Net IDE and
framework. Last time I looked, there were 1,561 issues acknowledged with
the .Net 1.1 framework. (NOTE: I am NOT deriding Microsoft for not having
a perfect product. Nobody has a perfect product. Not Real Software. Not
Hubbard Software. Nobody. )
But, the .Net Patch Hell problem comes in like this.....
You find some buggy behavior in the .Net framework mentioned in the
Knowledge Base (most likely through a KBAlertz email). You can (as most do)
choose to work around it in code, or you can call Microsoft and request a
patch. (I will resist the temptation to rant about not being able to just
download the damned patches from the KB Articles.......for now.)
If you install the patch, it patches the .Net framework on your development
PC. Now, your development PC is out of sync with everyone that does not
have the patch. Not a problem really....just distribute the patch with your
program. Well, not a problem for you anyway.
If you decide to ship the patch with your program, there is a high
probability that other developers' programs on the target machines that used
the code work-around will no longer function correctly. Your patched code
and patch will break their code.
If you choose the common path of coding around the bugs where possible and
some else ships a patch, there goes your code!
So, it seems that we all either don't fix the problems and code around them,
or we all apply the patches. You and I both know that "all of us" will
never do anything. So, here we are.....in Patch Hell. And, how is this any
different than DLL Hell?
It's not.
There is a solution (albeit a pricey one for small ISVs) called Thinstall.
It wraps your entire .Net application (including all .Net framework
dependencies and any applied patches) into a single executable that will run
on any Windows PC from Win98 up. It's actually an incredible solution, but
it's out of the price range of most small companies and not suited for every
application (if you use hooks into the kernel for example).
If you can't afford Thinstall for all of your .Net apps, you'll be risking
Patch Hell with most of the rest of the world.
Jim Hubbard Don't you need to be root to install
and tweak stuff?
I think they may opt for this to make the OS as easy as
possible for the end user. The end user may have trouble learning the
difference between root and other levels of desktop users. Look at
Windows.....most users run as system administrator. Although this makes
the
system less secure, it seems that end users would rather have a less
secure
desktop with more power in their hands than a safe, limited use desktop.
It's a bad idea to run as admin on windows as well (though, I'm as
guilty as anyone...). The only reason I can see for people to run on
windows as admin is because there is so much software (games in
particluar) that just won't work as a regular user. This isn't the case
with linux. Sure, it is a slightly different mindset - but not
difficult. I think Linspire is doing a diservice to it's customers by
encouragin this practice. Do they even explain the difference between a
normal user and root?
Not really.....at least not that I noticed during install. They do answer
questions about root on their site at
http://help.linspire.com/cgi-bin/lin...rch=1&p_page=1 .
You might want to check out Xandros. I here it's pretty windows user
friendly.
I'll try it tonight.
Jim Hubbard
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:WY********************@giganews.com...
[Snip] If you install the patch, it patches the .Net framework on your
development PC. Now, your development PC is out of sync with everyone
that does not have the patch. Not a problem really....just distribute the
patch with your program. Well, not a problem for you anyway.
If you decide to ship the patch with your program, there is a high
probability that other developers' programs on the target machines that
used the code work-around will no longer function correctly. Your patched
code and patch will break their code.
I'm not sure I agree. I have a VMWare installed with .NET 1.0 SP0, when I
compile an application with it it runs on .NET 1.0 SP3, .NET 1.1 SP1, and
..NET 2.0 Beta 1. The evidence is pretty good that MS is doing a pretty good
job of avoiding Patch Hell. Since IL uses tokens rather than specific
addresses it's actually quite difficult to break a version.
If you choose the common path of coding around the bugs where possible and
some else ships a patch, there goes your code!
No, your code should be fine unless you write code that *depends* on the
bug, which let's face it is a pretty silly thing to do if you can avoid it.
You could find third-party libraries that do what you want or you could
write your own Interop library to perform the work for you.
So, it seems that we all either don't fix the problems and code around
them, or we all apply the patches. You and I both know that "all of us"
will never do anything. So, here we are.....in Patch Hell. And, how is
this any different than DLL Hell?
It's not.
There is a solution (albeit a pricey one for small ISVs) called Thinstall.
It wraps your entire .Net application (including all .Net framework
dependencies and any applied patches) into a single executable that will
run on any Windows PC from Win98 up. It's actually an incredible
solution, but it's out of the price range of most small companies and not
suited for every application (if you use hooks into the kernel for
example).
Breaking up the .NET Framework DLL's and linking them into your application
wipes out the entirety of the .NET CAS system. Since Thinstall cannot
re-sign the Framework DLLs, they cannot be checked for tampering. Not a
problem many people worry about, I know, but it is one of my main objections
to .NET linking programs.
If you can't afford Thinstall for all of your .Net apps, you'll be risking
Patch Hell with most of the rest of the world.
Since Patch Hell has not yet materialized after 5 years, you'll forgive me
for not getting too worried yet ;D
Jim Hubbard
Hmm. And please tell me how you will develop the new applications for
Longhorn if VB 6 is not osbolete? How you will use the WinFX API? Do
you understand that .NET is the new standard of building applications?
As I see you are DotNet developer...so I do not see the point to
advocate to VB6? Also, I Visual C++ will not be obsolete when it comes
to building drivers and low level stuff - video games too. But it will
be obsolete when you are building desktop applications. So of what I
said is nonsense? Maybe that in NT 6 all Win32 code will be considered
as legacy and will be run in legacy mode.
Regards,
Philip.
"Sean Hederman" <em*******@codingsanity.blogspot.com> wrote in message
news:d3**********@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net... "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:WY********************@giganews.com...
[Snip] If you install the patch, it patches the .Net framework on your
development PC. Now, your development PC is out of sync with everyone
that does not have the patch. Not a problem really....just distribute
the patch with your program. Well, not a problem for you anyway.
If you decide to ship the patch with your program, there is a high
probability that other developers' programs on the target machines that
used the code work-around will no longer function correctly. Your
patched code and patch will break their code.
I'm not sure I agree. I have a VMWare installed with .NET 1.0 SP0, when I
compile an application with it it runs on .NET 1.0 SP3, .NET 1.1 SP1, and
.NET 2.0 Beta 1. The evidence is pretty good that MS is doing a pretty
good job of avoiding Patch Hell. Since IL uses tokens rather than specific
addresses it's actually quite difficult to break a version.
You are comparing different versions (which, BTW, are not always backwards
compatible) NOT the patches to which I refer.
Have you called Microsoft for a patch? Have you installed one? Have you
used the affected portions of the .Net framework and distributed this code
to non-patched systems?
If you choose the common path of coding around the bugs where possible
and some else ships a patch, there goes your code!
No, your code should be fine unless you write code that *depends* on the
bug, which let's face it is a pretty silly thing to do if you can avoid
it.
If you are writing a "work-around" it will naturally depend on the bug.
You could find third-party libraries that do what you want or you could
write your own Interop library to perform the work for you.
Heck, you could write your own IDE. But this still does not address the
Patch Hell problem.
So, it seems that we all either don't fix the problems and code around
them, or we all apply the patches. You and I both know that "all of us"
will never do anything. So, here we are.....in Patch Hell. And, how is
this any different than DLL Hell?
It's not.
There is a solution (albeit a pricey one for small ISVs) called
Thinstall. It wraps your entire .Net application (including all .Net
framework dependencies and any applied patches) into a single executable
that will run on any Windows PC from Win98 up. It's actually an
incredible solution, but it's out of the price range of most small
companies and not suited for every application (if you use hooks into the
kernel for example).
Breaking up the .NET Framework DLL's and linking them into your
application wipes out the entirety of the .NET CAS system.
For all of the ballyhoo surrounding the security built into the .Net
framework, I have yet to install an application or work on an enterprise
project that uses it. IMHO, lots of hype about nothing.
Since Thinstall cannot re-sign the Framework DLLs, they cannot be checked
for tampering. Not a problem many people worry about, I know, but it is one
of my main objections to .NET linking programs.
I think it really comes down to only installing applications from reputable
vendors. Anything else will not save you.
If you can't afford Thinstall for all of your .Net apps, you'll be
risking Patch Hell with most of the rest of the world.
Since Patch Hell has not yet materialized after 5 years, you'll forgive me
for not getting too worried yet ;D
You are forgiven.
In fact, I never saw DLL Hell. But, there has always been a simple way to
avoid DLL Hell, and responsible shops used it for widely distributed
applications. Simply put your executable's DLLs in the exe directory.
Windows will use those DLLs before using shared DLLs.
The point I am making, is that the potential for "X Hell" has not dissapated
with the advent of .Net. .
Net brings many good things to the table. Protection from "X Hell" is not
one of them.
Jim Hubbard
"Philip Hristov" <ph********@gmail.com> schrieb: Hmm. And please tell me how you will develop the new applications for
Longhorn if VB 6 is not osbolete? How you will use the WinFX API? Do
you understand that .NET is the new standard of building applications?
At least parts of this API will be made available to COM and/or Win32, as
far as I know. This has mainly practical and economical reasons: A rewrite
of existing applications in managed code is not accomplishable within a few
years. Take a look at the technologies supported by Windows XP today: Even
DDE is still supported, because applications rely on it, and DOS/Win16
applications can still be executed.
It's utopistic to think that Microsoft will pull the switch for Win32/COM
applications within the next ~10 years. By doing that Windows would loose
millions of customers who wrote software for Windows. It's compatibility
and interoperability which tie customers to a certain platform. If
compatibility is not one of the main goals any more and customers' assets
are rendered disposable, customers will consider turning to a more
compatible platform which preserves their assets. "Everything in .NET" is a
nice pipe dream.
As I see you are DotNet developer...so I do not see the point to
advocate to VB6?
I don't see the whole issue from a technical standpoint only. In fact I see
the economical perspective too which is the driving force for choosing a
platform over another. I don't advocate VB6 because I think it's better
than .NET. Sure, there are some things which were better in VB6, but there
are lots of things I like more in .NET. The reason why I don't think that
VB6 should be disposed are the billions of lines of code written in this
language which won't be converted within short time (some years). COBOL,
which is some decades old now, is still used for banking and financial
transactions. Programming languages are not coupled to a platform or
technology and in general their lifetime is much longer than the lifetime of
a technology. There are no technical reasons for not adding .NET support to
the Classic VB programming language like it was done with other programming
languages, for example, C++, EIFFEL, COBOL, FORTRAN, ...
Also, I Visual C++ will not be obsolete when it comes
to building drivers and low level stuff - video games too. But it will
be obsolete when you are building desktop applications.
Do you really think that Office, for example, will be fully managed when
Longhorn is released? Complete rewrites are hardly ever done because a new
technology is appearing. The costs of a rewrite are much higher than the
benefit gained by it.
Maybe that in NT 6 all Win32 code will be considered as legacy
and will be run in legacy mode.
I doubt that customers will accept that, because it will dispose assets
similar to how assets are/were disposed by discontinuing VB6. Microsoft has
lost customers and is about to loose customers by disposing VB6. Microsoft
may loose the Linux vs. Windows war by breaking compatibility. I like
Microsoft products and I use them, but I don't agree with all decisions made
by Microsoft in the last decade. I am afraid that Microsoft will go the
same way IBM and other companies did if it doesn't give their customers'
voice more importance.
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
x"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:BP********************@giganews.com...
[Snip] You are comparing different versions (which, BTW, are not always backwards
compatible) NOT the patches to which I refer.
Have you called Microsoft for a patch? Have you installed one? Have you
used the affected portions of the .Net framework and distributed this code
to non-patched systems?
Nope, never needed to... Yet.
No, your code should be fine unless you write code that *depends* on the
bug, which let's face it is a pretty silly thing to do if you can avoid
it.
If you are writing a "work-around" it will naturally depend on the bug.
Not neccesarily. If you find a bug in the .NET TcpListener class for
example, you can just write the Socket accepting code yourself. If the bug
is now fixed or unfixed it will have no impact on you whatsoever.
You could find third-party libraries that do what you want or you could
write your own Interop library to perform the work for you.
Heck, you could write your own IDE. But this still does not address the
Patch Hell problem.
Actually it does. Unless the bug is in the .NET CLR/JIT it'll be in one of
the libraries, and my point was that you could then just circumvent the bug.
[Snip] The point I am making, is that the potential for "X Hell" has not
dissapated with the advent of .Net. .
I agree wholeheartedly. The potential for a Patch Hell. or even a Framework
Hell where you try to figure out which of many frameworks is installed,
indeed still exists. However it does appear that .NET goes some way towards
ameliorating DLL Hell, and so far hasn't had a Framework Hell. Your Patch
Hell may indeed be a problem, but I haven't encountered it yet. So as far as
I'm concerned .NET is a step in the right direction.
Net brings many good things to the table. Protection from "X Hell" is not
one of them.
Nothings a complete protection from difficult problems. .NET does cut down
on the amount of Hell though.
Jim Hubbard
Herfried,
You are right if we look with the eyes of a bussinessman. But I am a
software developer and I am keen on new technologies and etc. I love to
learn and use new technologies. So I will be the first who will accept
WinFX and start building applications using it...I am not a
bussinessman who drives BMW to care how money I will lost. See, I am
right for myself! You are right for yourself. I just did not like that
you said I am writing nonsenses.
And one more thing...Win32 code will be run in legacy mode. It is true,
I saw one diagram where the Win32 will be considered as legacy.
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" I don't advocate VB6 because I think it's better than .NET.
Some guys like me know that you are not, however I think that you give for a
lot others the idea that you do.
I am afraid that it puts you in a wrong light. I understand your opinion.
However in my opinion have you made that clear enough to everybody active in
the dotNet newsgroups.
Just my thought,
Cor
Cor,
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> schrieb: I don't advocate VB6 because I think it's better than .NET.
Some guys like me know that you are not, however I think that you give for
a lot others the idea that you do.
I am afraid that it puts you in a wrong light. I understand your opinion.
However in my opinion have you made that clear enough to everybody active
in the dotNet newsgroups.
I don't see how advocating VB6 puts someone in a wrong light. It's a myth
that all people advocating for VB6 do that for ideological reasons.
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
Herfried, I am afraid that it puts you in a wrong light. I understand your opinion.
However in my opinion have you made that clear enough to everybody active
in the dotNet newsgroups.
I don't see how advocating VB6 puts someone in a wrong light. It's a myth
that all people advocating for VB6 do that for ideological reasons.
For me are you showing yourself in the dotNet newsgroups as the big defender
of the VBCom idea.
Although this is a very much crossposted thread, do I not see any not in the
dotNet newsgroups known MVP in this thread? While in my opinion Tom and
Paul do definitly not (at least not most of it) share your opinion in this.
However, it was a free advice do with it what you want, it does not bother
me.
:-)
Cor
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:53:39 -0000, Craig A. Finseth <ne**@finseth.com> wrote:
¤ In article <u0********************************@4ax.com>,
¤ Paul Clement <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:
¤ ...
¤ >We won't know how secure FireFox is until it becomes a much bigger target. I'm
¤ >sure we all thought IE was secure at one point, probably when it was overtaking
¤ >Netscape. But the fact the FireFox does not support some features targeted as
¤ >security risks you could say it's inherently more secure in that sense.
¤ ...
¤
¤ Umm, no. I can't think of anyone I know knowledgable about security
¤ that thought that IE was secure when it started. Even quick and dirty
¤ analyses showed a lot of holes.
¤
¤ It just took a few years for the attackers to find them.
Well *we* (in the general sense) are not all security experts. ;-)
In any event, apparently it wasn't a barrier to widespread adoption. That assumes that either people
didn't really know or didn't really care (or some of both).
As I said, we really won't know for a while whether FireFox has similar security holes. That is,
until it's usage is comparable to IE.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
In article <q9********************************@4ax.com>,
Paul Clement <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:53:39 -0000, Craig A. Finseth <ne**@finseth.com> wrote:
...¤ Umm, no. I can't think of anyone I know knowledgable about security
¤ that thought that IE was secure when it started. Even quick and dirty
¤ analyses showed a lot of holes.
¤
¤ It just took a few years for the attackers to find them.
Well *we* (in the general sense) are not all security experts. ;-)
Not a problem. But at least listen when the people who _are_ experts
are saying something.
In any event, apparently it wasn't a barrier to widespread
adoption. That assumes that either people didn't really know or
didn't really care (or some of both).
Agreed. At the initial launch, people were more interested in fancy
features than security. This is changing, and peoples' choices are
changing as a result.
Of course, marketing also comes into play (:-).
As I said, we really won't know for a while whether FireFox has
similar security holes. That is, until it's usage is comparable to
IE.
No, we know right now that it doesn't. (See my previous comment about
listening.)
I'm overgeneralizing a little here, but...
The problems with IE are due to the feature set and business
requirements. In a word, they're features.
Firefox has a different feature set that is not built around requiring
security holes in order to run.
Both products have bugs. These bugs will range from minor to severe
and will be found and fixed. (As an aside, you can't just compare
bug/patch counts: you need to look closely at the exposure resulting
from each bug/not installing the patch, and take into account what it
exposes and the difficulty of exercising it.) However with Firefox,
you're putting tape over pinprick holes in a sheet of plywood. With
IE, you're putting tape over holes in a window screen. There is a
difference.
Consider the comparison between a normal car[*] and a convertible.
Sure, convertibles are fun to drive (at least in nice weather), but
I'd think a lot longer before keeping anything important in one.
After all, no matter how good I make the locks, someone can get in by
ripping the top open. With a normal car, you have to at least break a
window: a considerably more difficult and attention-getting entry method.
[*] Around here, convertibles are not normal. Maybe if I lived in LA...
Craig
In article <q9********************************@4ax.com>,
Paul Clement <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:53:39 -0000, Craig A. Finseth <ne**@finseth.com> wrote:
...¤ Umm, no. I can't think of anyone I know knowledgable about security
¤ that thought that IE was secure when it started. Even quick and dirty
¤ analyses showed a lot of holes.
¤
¤ It just took a few years for the attackers to find them.
Well *we* (in the general sense) are not all security experts. ;-)
Not a problem. But at least listen when the people who _are_ experts
are saying something.
In any event, apparently it wasn't a barrier to widespread
adoption. That assumes that either people didn't really know or
didn't really care (or some of both).
Agreed. At the initial launch, people were more interested in fancy
features than security. This is changing, and peoples' choices are
changing as a result.
Of course, marketing also comes into play (:-).
As I said, we really won't know for a while whether FireFox has
similar security holes. That is, until it's usage is comparable to
IE.
No, we know right now that it doesn't. (See my previous comment about
listening.)
I'm overgeneralizing a little here, but...
The problems with IE are due to the feature set and business
requirements. In a word, they're features.
Firefox has a different feature set that is not built around requiring
security holes in order to run.
Both products have bugs. These bugs will range from minor to severe
and will be found and fixed. (As an aside, you can't just compare
bug/patch counts: you need to look closely at the exposure resulting
from each bug/not installing the patch, and take into account what it
exposes and the difficulty of exercising it.) However with Firefox,
you're putting tape over pinprick holes in a sheet of plywood. With
IE, you're putting tape over holes in a window screen. There is a
difference.
Consider the comparison between a normal car[*] and a convertible.
Sure, convertibles are fun to drive (at least in nice weather), but
I'd think a lot longer before keeping anything important in one.
After all, no matter how good I make the locks, someone can get in by
ripping the top open. With a normal car, you have to at least break a
window: a considerably more difficult and attention-getting entry method.
[*] Around here, convertibles are not normal. Maybe if I lived in LA...
Craig
Craigh, Consider the comparison between a normal car[*] and a convertible.
Sure, convertibles are fun to drive (at least in nice weather), but
I'd think a lot longer before keeping anything important in one.
After all, no matter how good I make the locks, someone can get in by
ripping the top open. With a normal car, you have to at least break a
window: a considerably more difficult and attention-getting entry method.
Should you not mention that it is for somebody who want to create a virus
or whatever more interesting to do that for IE.
Why
In the first place because you can hit a much wider public.
In the second place you can hit Microsoft.
When Microsoft started it were the so called professionals who told that
Microsoft was only a window dresser (Literally) while the large public was
fond of their products.
Now partially the last is changed. Most professionals are now are very fond
with Microsoft products and the large public stays with that.
However a part of those seems to see Microsoft as an enormous danger that
has to be frighten.
I cannot deny that I am as well sometimes afraid about the power Microsoft
has. However, I can as well not tell that I have ever seen that they have
used it in a wrong way.
To say it in other words, it is more the weakness from the competitors from
Microsoft that makes Microsoft big. You can Microsoft not blame for that and
use all kinds of viruses to fight them, that is the same as terrorism in my
opinion.
A better way would be in my opinion to make a better product. And a good
product needs no debate. It will be used.
Just my thought
Cor
In article <uH**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, Cor Ligthert wrote: Craigh,
Consider the comparison between a normal car[*] and a convertible.
Sure, convertibles are fun to drive (at least in nice weather), but
I'd think a lot longer before keeping anything important in one.
After all, no matter how good I make the locks, someone can get in by
ripping the top open. With a normal car, you have to at least break a
window: a considerably more difficult and attention-getting entry method.
Should you not mention that it is for somebody who want to create a virus
or whatever more interesting to do that for IE.
Why
In the first place because you can hit a much wider public.
<snip>
A better way would be in my opinion to make a better product. And a good
product needs no debate. It will be used.
And that is why Firefox is taking market share from IE. It is a better
product. At least for now. I will re-evaluate when I can get my hands
on IE7.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
Tom, A better way would be in my opinion to make a better product. And a good
product needs no debate. It will be used.
And that is why Firefox is taking market share from IE. It is a better
product. At least for now. I will re-evaluate when I can get my hands
on IE7.
Did I disagree that, confirm my reply will the future show that, even when
it means that Microsoft changes their product.
One of the things you can in my opinion not say from Microsoft. That is that
they have a misplaced feeling of superiority as in the way we see it often
in this business. When the customer wants something else they change it.
:-)
Cor
A very simple question... if anyone knows the answer:
How can Office on the Mac look and act similar to Office for Windows? I
assume MS uses Metrowerks C++ or a similar tool -- meaning they don't
even use their own compiler to port a near-clone of their Windows
applications. (I know Mac users want to recall that Word and Excel were
Mac apps, but the code base is clearly from Windows, now.)
There is no way you could write "Office" or a clone of a little Office
application in REALbasic -- it's a toy in comparison to other compilers.
You can crank a decent editor, spreadsheet, or database tool in Delphi,
VB, or C#, but don't imagine creating something similar in RB.
RB doesn't handle tab panels properly, grids stink, and database
controls have problems -- like the inability to connect to "properly" to
MySQL 4.1/5.0 or to even return the record count properly.
You can do a lot with RB, sure, but nothing like you can with another
tool. You can do magic with RB, but you can also do magic with the
current releases of FoxPro or dBase. Some genius out there can make a
killer Windows app in Visual COBOL, for all I know.
RB is an infant or pre-teen not yet mature enough for some applications.
The lack of a serious RTF/HTML edit control, the database model (I like
n-tier systems) stinks, and it is NOT a pure OOP system -- the controls
do not map to a single "TObject" and you cannot place controls within
controls (checkbox within grid/listbox?) without resorting to tricks.
If someone spends a year or more with RB, they recognize it is an "OK"
solution, but you end up wishing for a complete widget set at the very
least. If you want to write code for each platform using compiler
switches, so the proper controls to the platform are used, then enjoy
the extra work.
RB is not "cross platform" as in "click-n-go" unless you care nothing
about UI standards on each platform. If you want to use controls like
their lousy grid, which places an "editfield" control where you type to
handle user input, or their "combobox" which is another strange hybrid
control, then that's fine. (Yes, all complex controls in other tools are
variations of tricks -- but they sure seem better-implemented!)
I use RB, like RB, but also can't imagine using RB on Windows or Linux
since there are much much much much better tools on those platforms. I'm
waiting for Tiger to play with gcc 4.0 on my Mac, which is probably my
final destination -- after fighting to make RB applications work with
any speed and proper appearance (page panels on a tab or vice-versa will
crash) on the Mac.
RB is cool for simple things and little prototypes. You can make a
"commercial" program, but only to a certain level before you still need
to know C/C++ or the blood-n-guts of the API for DECLARE statements. And
the moment you use an Active-X or .bundle control... back to "DLL HELL"
on the specific platform. (A .bundle on the Mac is no better than a
DLL... as I've said before.)
Just use RB and be content, but don't try to pitch it as a serious
option to VB without telling people a lot of re-work will be needed in
most cases. The VB-to-RB converter is proof that you can't just port a
VB application and have it work.
I'll probably keep using RB for years, but not for anything serious
after this last major project. It was painful and I don't like pain. In
the end, we had to pay another developer to create a plug-in on the Mac,
in C++, to get some basic functionality -- because we used RB up to the
point of realizing what it couldn't do and were stuck. Even knowing C++
doesn't mean you can easily create an RB plug-in; I have better things
to do.
The lesson was: if I need (take your pick) C++/C#/Objective-C anyway,
why not start there?
- Scott
Scott Wyatt wrote:
The lesson was: if I need (take your pick) C++/C#/Objective-C anyway,
why not start there?
If I'd have to write a cross-platform GUI application targeting Windows,
*nix and Mac OS X I'd give Mono and one of its OS independent widget
tools (e.g. wxWidgets) a try. Another option would be a Java based
application. I'm not sure which one is the better solution.
Gerald
PS: f'up to comp.lang.basic.realbasic
I am a Classic VB programmer. I've been one since 1991, when VB 1.0 for DOS
came out.
I love VB 6.0, but I find that the jobs want VB.Net experience now.
I tried RealBASIC, but it is different from VB 6.0, in that my code needs a
major rewrite in order to work with RB. For example the Edit boxes verses the
Text boxes work differently, and I need to convert the Edit boxes to an
Interget, and the CInt function is not supported in RB. Instead they use a
format() function which it has to be rewiritten for.
If I have to rewrite code, I think that I will learn VB.Net and have a
better chance of being employed. So far I have been unemployed since 2002,
and my VB 6.0 skills are not longer wanted. I went back to college in 2003,
and I had bought Visual Studio Pro 2002, but so far have not done anything
with it yet. I was going to buy VS.Net 2003, but now 2005 is due out.
If I would do Mac or Linux programming, Real BASIC looks interesting. Then
again C++ has more support for those platforms than Real BASIC. If I have to
rewrite, it might be worth more to learn to rewrite to C++, which has more
support for Linux and Mac platforms. Yeah, Mono looks good for Mac and Linux
platforms too.
VB 6.0 has joined Windows for Workgroups, OS/2, MS Mail, Windows 95, and
other abandoned software projects. I tried others like XBASIC, but they were
not quite the same as VB 6.0, and I doubt we can convince Microsoft to bring
out Classic VB.
Our only hope is to move on, learn something new, adapt to change, and ride
the wave instead of wiping out.
I also came from VB6 and I recommend getting into C# :)
Gabriel Lozano-Morán
Software Engineer
Sogeti
"Orion Blastar" <Orion Bl*****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:73**********************************@microsof t.com... I am a Classic VB programmer. I've been one since 1991, when VB 1.0 for DOS
came out.
I love VB 6.0, but I find that the jobs want VB.Net experience now.
I tried RealBASIC, but it is different from VB 6.0, in that my code needs
a
major rewrite in order to work with RB. For example the Edit boxes verses
the
Text boxes work differently, and I need to convert the Edit boxes to an
Interget, and the CInt function is not supported in RB. Instead they use a
format() function which it has to be rewiritten for.
If I have to rewrite code, I think that I will learn VB.Net and have a
better chance of being employed. So far I have been unemployed since 2002,
and my VB 6.0 skills are not longer wanted. I went back to college in
2003,
and I had bought Visual Studio Pro 2002, but so far have not done anything
with it yet. I was going to buy VS.Net 2003, but now 2005 is due out.
If I would do Mac or Linux programming, Real BASIC looks interesting. Then
again C++ has more support for those platforms than Real BASIC. If I have
to
rewrite, it might be worth more to learn to rewrite to C++, which has more
support for Linux and Mac platforms. Yeah, Mono looks good for Mac and
Linux
platforms too.
VB 6.0 has joined Windows for Workgroups, OS/2, MS Mail, Windows 95, and
other abandoned software projects. I tried others like XBASIC, but they
were
not quite the same as VB 6.0, and I doubt we can convince Microsoft to
bring
out Classic VB.
Our only hope is to move on, learn something new, adapt to change, and
ride
the wave instead of wiping out.
I came from VB6 and recommend getting into VB.NET (C# is quiet the same,
main differences are in syntax...so save time by learning the famework first
, then you can choose any language that you fancy)
Things have changed a lot in VB.NET, but i have to admit that VB 6 has a
little to offer when comparing its performance and capabilities with its dot
net counter part. And for sure, it goona give you more job opportunities in
near future ( Probably when Longhorn ships).
"Gabriel Lozano-Morán" <ga************@no-spam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... I also came from VB6 and I recommend getting into C# :)
Gabriel Lozano-Morán
Software Engineer
Sogeti
"Orion Blastar" <Orion Bl*****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:73**********************************@microsof t.com...I am a Classic VB programmer. I've been one since 1991, when VB 1.0 for
DOS
came out.
I love VB 6.0, but I find that the jobs want VB.Net experience now.
I tried RealBASIC, but it is different from VB 6.0, in that my code needs
a
major rewrite in order to work with RB. For example the Edit boxes verses
the
Text boxes work differently, and I need to convert the Edit boxes to an
Interget, and the CInt function is not supported in RB. Instead they use
a
format() function which it has to be rewiritten for.
If I have to rewrite code, I think that I will learn VB.Net and have a
better chance of being employed. So far I have been unemployed since
2002,
and my VB 6.0 skills are not longer wanted. I went back to college in
2003,
and I had bought Visual Studio Pro 2002, but so far have not done
anything
with it yet. I was going to buy VS.Net 2003, but now 2005 is due out.
If I would do Mac or Linux programming, Real BASIC looks interesting.
Then
again C++ has more support for those platforms than Real BASIC. If I have
to
rewrite, it might be worth more to learn to rewrite to C++, which has
more
support for Linux and Mac platforms. Yeah, Mono looks good for Mac and
Linux
platforms too.
VB 6.0 has joined Windows for Workgroups, OS/2, MS Mail, Windows 95, and
other abandoned software projects. I tried others like XBASIC, but they
were
not quite the same as VB 6.0, and I doubt we can convince Microsoft to
bring
out Classic VB.
Our only hope is to move on, learn something new, adapt to change, and
ride
the wave instead of wiping out.
"herr lucifer" <hmdz105@[Remove]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... I came from VB6 and recommend getting into VB.NET (C# is quiet the same,
main differences are in syntax...so save time by learning the famework
first , then you can choose any language that you fancy)
Things have changed a lot in VB.NET, but i have to admit that VB 6 has a
little to offer when comparing its performance and capabilities with its
dot net counter part. And for sure, it goona give you more job
opportunities in near future ( Probably when Longhorn ships).
I wouldn't be so sure about that.......most businesses haven't even bothered
adopting service pack 2 yet - http://news.com.com/Businesses+slow+...3-5650923.html.
Businesses don't readily adopt the newest Microsoft desktop. and, most home
users cannot justify the cost of the upgrade with the very few features
offered. Features, btw, that they can have with the proper 3rd party
software at much less cost and less trouble than a system update which may
break untold applications that they find very useful.
Software shops are the first adopters. It's our business to adopt first.
Then, to boost bottom lines, the software shops try and sell businesses on
how great the new software is and how much it will save the company and how
much more competitive the company will be......all of which may be true to a
certain extent. But, the cost of adaptation almost ALWAYS exceeds
expectations and that almost ALWAYS drops the ROI expected from the move.
Businesses have caught on to a lot of this and now believe about half of
what a developer promises (if that much). It's unfortunate that our
business is so full of unscrupulous software companies and developers
(mostly internal to their companies) that businesses are shying away from
new development.
At ********, I got to watch a CIO blow $14.5 MILLION on a new IT
infrastructure. With 3 weeks to go to the go-live date, it was suddenly
discovered that nobody had developed a new gui for this fabulous n-tier
system. It was crammed into an existing project's UI (despite the protests
of the outsourced developers on that team - who quit right after integrating
the 2 systems) and was a miserable failure.
As I had raised questions about the viability of the project (despite
starting at the company only 4 months prior to the launch date and being the
lead on another project) I found myself in the president's office trying to
help him figure out where the $14.5 million had gone. He wasn't happy.
They fired the CIO the day I was in the president's office, went back to the
old text-based system they had been using for 16 years, and decided to
switch the entire company from Microsoft development and servers to Sun
servers and Java under their next CIO. Another CIO.....another fiasco.
Still more millions blown because the president of the company could not
recognize and differentiate platform problems from development problems.
Did he move up one of his long time employees (who really understood the
business model and capabilities of the developers inside the company) to CIO
to help the company......nope. It's always some pied piper from outside
that has some miracle development strategy, platform or whatever that gets
the job of blowing the next multi-million dollar project. The fast talking,
snake oil salesmen are good at talking themselves into the position.....but
just can't seem to deliver. (That's why they demand such high
salaries.....they know they'll be fired in 1.5 to 2 years and need a cushion
to land on.)
Upgrading to the latest technology is not always the answer. Sometimes it
delivers great things - like .Net delivered easy-to-deploy and easy-to-use
web services. But, businesses have been bitten many times by overzealous
CIOs and bleeding edge developers that they are gun-shy when it comes to new
technology.
I hope that changes......but I don't feel that it will change soon.
Jim Hubbard
"Jim Hubbard" wrote:
"herr lucifer" <hmdz105@[Remove]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...I came from VB6 and recommend getting into VB.NET (C# is quiet the same,
main differences are in syntax...so save time by learning the famework
first , then you can choose any language that you fancy)
Things have changed a lot in VB.NET, but i have to admit that VB 6 has a
little to offer when comparing its performance and capabilities with its
dot net counter part. And for sure, it goona give you more job
opportunities in near future ( Probably when Longhorn ships).
I wouldn't be so sure about that.......most businesses haven't even bothered
adopting service pack 2 yet -
http://news.com.com/Businesses+slow+...3-5650923.html.
Businesses don't readily adopt the newest Microsoft desktop. and, most home
users cannot justify the cost of the upgrade with the very few features
offered. Features, btw, that they can have with the proper 3rd party
software at much less cost and less trouble than a system update which may
break untold applications that they find very useful.
Software shops are the first adopters. It's our business to adopt first.
Then, to boost bottom lines, the software shops try and sell businesses on
how great the new software is and how much it will save the company and how
much more competitive the company will be......all of which may be true to a
certain extent. But, the cost of adaptation almost ALWAYS exceeds
expectations and that almost ALWAYS drops the ROI expected from the move.
Businesses have caught on to a lot of this and now believe about half of
what a developer promises (if that much). It's unfortunate that our
business is so full of unscrupulous software companies and developers
(mostly internal to their companies) that businesses are shying away from
new development.
At ********, I got to watch a CIO blow $14.5 MILLION on a new IT
infrastructure. With 3 weeks to go to the go-live date, it was suddenly
discovered that nobody had developed a new gui for this fabulous n-tier
system. It was crammed into an existing project's UI (despite the protests
of the outsourced developers on that team - who quit right after integrating
the 2 systems) and was a miserable failure.
As I had raised questions about the viability of the project (despite
starting at the company only 4 months prior to the launch date and being the
lead on another project) I found myself in the president's office trying to
help him figure out where the $14.5 million had gone. He wasn't happy.
They fired the CIO the day I was in the president's office, went back to the
old text-based system they had been using for 16 years, and decided to
switch the entire company from Microsoft development and servers to Sun
servers and Java under their next CIO. Another CIO.....another fiasco.
Still more millions blown because the president of the company could not
recognize and differentiate platform problems from development problems.
Did he move up one of his long time employees (who really understood the
business model and capabilities of the developers inside the company) to CIO
to help the company......nope. It's always some pied piper from outside
that has some miracle development strategy, platform or whatever that gets
the job of blowing the next multi-million dollar project. The fast talking,
snake oil salesmen are good at talking themselves into the position.....but
just can't seem to deliver. (That's why they demand such high
salaries.....they know they'll be fired in 1.5 to 2 years and need a cushion
to land on.)
Upgrading to the latest technology is not always the answer. Sometimes it
delivers great things - like .Net delivered easy-to-deploy and easy-to-use
web services. But, businesses have been bitten many times by overzealous
CIOs and bleeding edge developers that they are gun-shy when it comes to new
technology.
I hope that changes......but I don't feel that it will change soon.
Jim Hubbard
Developers and Architects alike:
We must come to admit... In most cases we are our own worst enemies when it
comes to failed development. We really are just feeding the beast
(Microsoft) at our customers expense.
Each year new technologies emerge. Promising to improve our work-flow.
However, we must become more responsible with our decisions on which
technologies to adopt.
We should be educating ourselves on some more basic priniples of development
rather than expect that newer technologies will do more for us. We are
influenced too much by the "cool factor". We must become advocates of our
users and not our technologists. Many times I push back when management is
proposing we move toward newer technologies. I even take flak from colleages
on this. I believe it is simply not fiscally responsible to adopt the newest
gadetry.
We all love new technologies. However, we should be real about what they
will deliver. The capability of such new technologies is limited by our own
understanding. Let's get educated and then decide. Too many people are in
this business to make a quick buck. They seldom have the displine it
requires to excel and they are driving the value out of the industry.
Example on missinformation: Too many times I hear the argument about
whether C# is better than VB.NET. If we were educating ourselves we would
understand the real reason for C#. It's simple. Provide an avenue for the
C/C++ developer to adopt to the .NET framework. The idea behind the .NET
framework is igenious actually. It delivers on a major issue the industry
has had for a long long time. It's the same reason VB even exists. How to
develop systems with as little effort as possible. VB introduced the visual
aided design. However, syntax is still a fact the development process. .NET
abstracts the syntax. Hence, the development of C#. The decision on which
to adopt is mute. You should be using what you know because it wouldn't be
prudent to spend time and money to learn new syntax when it will be compiled
to the same binaries.
Microsoft has missed on a serious issue though - developers are in it for
the enjoyment. We like to learn. And we will do so out everyone's expense.
How many times have I seen developers on projects who have made tall claims
of their abilities and yet they couldn't develop a simple algorithm to sort a
linked list. (The finest mathematicians don't need calculators - I new one
who could use an abacus faster). However, many of us skip the intro and go
right to the meat of the subject. Guess what, the intro states that C# is
only there to provide syntactical comfort to the C/C++ developer.
Bottom line, stop laying blame for your own short-comings. Educate,
scrutinize and decide for yourself. AND advocate the user (not the
technology)!
Sincerely,
Adam Cox
"Adam Cox" <Adam Co*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A1**********************************@microsof t.com...
"Jim Hubbard" wrote:
"herr lucifer" <hmdz105@[Remove]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >I came from VB6 and recommend getting into VB.NET (C# is quiet the same,
>main differences are in syntax...so save time by learning the famework
>first , then you can choose any language that you fancy)
>
> Things have changed a lot in VB.NET, but i have to admit that VB 6 has
> a
> little to offer when comparing its performance and capabilities with
> its
> dot net counter part. And for sure, it goona give you more job
> opportunities in near future ( Probably when Longhorn ships).
I wouldn't be so sure about that.......most businesses haven't even
bothered
adopting service pack 2 yet -
http://news.com.com/Businesses+slow+...3-5650923.html.
Businesses don't readily adopt the newest Microsoft desktop. and, most
home
users cannot justify the cost of the upgrade with the very few features
offered. Features, btw, that they can have with the proper 3rd party
software at much less cost and less trouble than a system update which
may
break untold applications that they find very useful.
Software shops are the first adopters. It's our business to adopt first.
Then, to boost bottom lines, the software shops try and sell businesses
on
how great the new software is and how much it will save the company and
how
much more competitive the company will be......all of which may be true
to a
certain extent. But, the cost of adaptation almost ALWAYS exceeds
expectations and that almost ALWAYS drops the ROI expected from the move.
Businesses have caught on to a lot of this and now believe about half of
what a developer promises (if that much). It's unfortunate that our
business is so full of unscrupulous software companies and developers
(mostly internal to their companies) that businesses are shying away from
new development.
At ********, I got to watch a CIO blow $14.5 MILLION on a new IT
infrastructure. With 3 weeks to go to the go-live date, it was suddenly
discovered that nobody had developed a new gui for this fabulous n-tier
system. It was crammed into an existing project's UI (despite the
protests
of the outsourced developers on that team - who quit right after
integrating
the 2 systems) and was a miserable failure.
As I had raised questions about the viability of the project (despite
starting at the company only 4 months prior to the launch date and being
the
lead on another project) I found myself in the president's office trying
to
help him figure out where the $14.5 million had gone. He wasn't happy.
They fired the CIO the day I was in the president's office, went back to
the
old text-based system they had been using for 16 years, and decided to
switch the entire company from Microsoft development and servers to Sun
servers and Java under their next CIO. Another CIO.....another fiasco.
Still more millions blown because the president of the company could not
recognize and differentiate platform problems from development problems.
Did he move up one of his long time employees (who really understood the
business model and capabilities of the developers inside the company) to
CIO
to help the company......nope. It's always some pied piper from outside
that has some miracle development strategy, platform or whatever that
gets
the job of blowing the next multi-million dollar project. The fast
talking,
snake oil salesmen are good at talking themselves into the
position.....but
just can't seem to deliver. (That's why they demand such high
salaries.....they know they'll be fired in 1.5 to 2 years and need a
cushion
to land on.)
Upgrading to the latest technology is not always the answer. Sometimes
it
delivers great things - like .Net delivered easy-to-deploy and
easy-to-use
web services. But, businesses have been bitten many times by overzealous
CIOs and bleeding edge developers that they are gun-shy when it comes to
new
technology.
I hope that changes......but I don't feel that it will change soon.
Jim Hubbard
Developers and Architects alike:
We must come to admit... In most cases we are our own worst enemies when
it
comes to failed development. We really are just feeding the beast
(Microsoft) at our customers expense.
Each year new technologies emerge. Promising to improve our work-flow.
However, we must become more responsible with our decisions on which
technologies to adopt.
We should be educating ourselves on some more basic priniples of
development
rather than expect that newer technologies will do more for us. We are
influenced too much by the "cool factor". We must become advocates of our
users and not our technologists. Many times I push back when management
is
proposing we move toward newer technologies. I even take flak from
colleages
on this. I believe it is simply not fiscally responsible to adopt the
newest
gadetry.
We all love new technologies. However, we should be real about what they
will deliver. The capability of such new technologies is limited by our
own
understanding. Let's get educated and then decide. Too many people are
in
this business to make a quick buck. They seldom have the displine it
requires to excel and they are driving the value out of the industry.
Example on missinformation: Too many times I hear the argument about
whether C# is better than VB.NET. If we were educating ourselves we would
understand the real reason for C#. It's simple. Provide an avenue for
the
C/C++ developer to adopt to the .NET framework. The idea behind the .NET
framework is igenious actually. It delivers on a major issue the industry
has had for a long long time. It's the same reason VB even exists. How
to
develop systems with as little effort as possible. VB introduced the
visual
aided design. However, syntax is still a fact the development process.
.NET
abstracts the syntax. Hence, the development of C#. The decision on
which
to adopt is mute. You should be using what you know because it wouldn't
be
prudent to spend time and money to learn new syntax when it will be
compiled
to the same binaries.
Microsoft has missed on a serious issue though - developers are in it for
the enjoyment. We like to learn. And we will do so out everyone's
expense.
How many times have I seen developers on projects who have made tall
claims
of their abilities and yet they couldn't develop a simple algorithm to
sort a
linked list. (The finest mathematicians don't need calculators - I new
one
who could use an abacus faster). However, many of us skip the intro and
go
right to the meat of the subject. Guess what, the intro states that C# is
only there to provide syntactical comfort to the C/C++ developer.
Bottom line, stop laying blame for your own short-comings. Educate,
scrutinize and decide for yourself. AND advocate the user (not the
technology)!
Sincerely,
Adam Cox
I have rarely read a more lucid, applicable post. Well said.
Jim Hubbard
It's interesting that Java development comes up. I started looking at Java
about 8 years ago now as a escape from DLL MS's old DLL Hell. I've been
increasingly impressed by the versatiity it gives across backend tiers. If
it had a good interface to Office in the API, I don't think I'd ever spend
another dime on MS programming tools.
"Gerald Aichholzer" wrote: Scott Wyatt wrote:
The lesson was: if I need (take your pick) C++/C#/Objective-C anyway,
why not start there?
If I'd have to write a cross-platform GUI application targeting Windows,
*nix and Mac OS X I'd give Mono and one of its OS independent widget
tools (e.g. wxWidgets) a try. Another option would be a Java based
application. I'm not sure which one is the better solution.
Gerald
PS: f'up to comp.lang.basic.realbasic
So REALbasic comes with the enterprise class version control system, bug
tracking, unit testing, load testing, and coverage analysis tools that we
have to pay $10,000 to MS for if we need the team suite?
I don't think so...
If you're comparing apples to apples, then MS is charging less for their
product than they were before the Visual Studio Team System introduction.
While I'm still disappointed with the pricing, suggesting that MS is trying
to shut out the small business & individual developers is WAAAY overstating
the case. Especially with the cut in MSDN pricing.
Have you noticed that aside from version control, most of VSTS wouldn't be
used by an individual developer? How many small developers do you know that
run load testing? Most of us don't because LoadRunner and its ilk cost a
small fortune. And I personally don't have a flock of PCs to hammer my
webserver with.
Sure, I'd like to get all that fun stuff in VSTS for free, but if I had to
pay just an extra $500 for it all, I'm not sure I would.
Out of curiosity, how long have you been a programmer? I ask not to
disparage you, but I'm curious if you've gone through this (the retiring of a
programming language or technology that you've mastered) before. It really
sounds like you've not accepted that this diatribe is by and large a waste of
time. The market's accepted .Net (because the reality is that the framework
has a LOT of nice stuff in it that you'd otherwise have to buy or download
for other environments) and is in the process of moving on.
If software development is your career, you're eventually going to have to
accept that this happens at LEAST once a decade. I've watched Fortran,
Cobol, C, Paradox, C++, and now VB come and go. Yeah, there are still Cobol
programmers out there, but I wouldn't want to be one of them - sitting around
and drooling over the idea of having an editor with intellisense.
So, do you really want to fight this hard to become the Cobol programmer of
tomorrow?
"Jim Hubbard" wrote:
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:6K********************@giganews.com... It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen),
but now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a small or mid-sized
business.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...9ca99eb0e7c328
Damn! To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug....... It must be
nice.
Jim Hubbard
I have made no attempts to hide my displeasure at the way Microsoft has
treated the VB6 developers - as you will notice in the Microsoft.public.vb
newsgroup postings.
And, with the current pricing structure of MSDN and rising costs of
Microsoft's desktop software, I truly believe we need a valid alternative to
Microsoft developer tools. Currently, I am looking into REALbasic
(www.REALbasic.com) as just such an alternative.
Now, REALbasic still has some growing to do. Don't expect it to be anything
except REALbasic.
If you are a classic Visual Basic developer (pre-VB.Net), you will find the
interface and syntax very familiar. You will be able to upgrade your VB6
apps better than Microsoft's transition tool to VB.Net. And, the coming
2005 interface (60 days until release) has a much enhanced UI (screenshots
at http://www.realsoftware.com/demo15/).
REALbasic 5.5 is even FREE to former Visual Basic developers and they will
receive a discount on REALbasic 2005 when it gets released in 60 days (or
less). Just sign up here -
http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/vb6/index.php - BEFORE APRIL 15, 2005.
Although those reasons are all good enough to at least take a look at
REALbasic, the true value of REALbasic, for developers AND end users, is
freedom of choice with the OS. REALbasic applications are truly
cross-platform and will run on MAC, Linux or Windows machines. This means
that, as prices continue to climb for Microsoft MSDN subscriptions (almost
$10,000 for the top MSDN subscription) Microsoft OSs and Microsoft software
(like $499 for Office 2003 Pro) you and your customers have the option of
choosing a less expensive OS like MAC, a supported (but way less expensive
than XP) Linux OS like Novell's Linux desktop, Red Hat Workstation or even a
FREE OS like one of the hundreds of free Linux distros.
Microsoft has shown that they no longer value (or even listen to) their
customers. They will be the next IBM.....decimating the empire that they
have built by ignoring customer needs and pricing themselves out of Windows
development.
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft IS pricing themselves out of the
software market by pricing the small and mid-sized business out of Windows
development.
Microsoft seems to be forgetting that the ability for small and mid-sized
shops to do their own development is a large part of what has made Microsoft
the largest software company in the world. Its what drew small companies to
Windows - the ability to develop their own relatively inexpensive software
solutions in-house. Not to mention the millions of developers that used
Windows tools to develop and sell their own software.
And, while there are certainly alternatives other than REALbasic (Mono +
Linux, C++ + MAC, Java, Borland's Delphi, etc.) None of them offer the
platform dependence that REALbasic does........nope, not even JAVA.
I humbly suggest you take a look at REALbasic. Even if you don't choose it
as your development platform, at least you know what's out there and the
possibilities for true cross-platform development.
Whatever development platform you choose, may I suggest that it be
cross-platform. Not because Microsoft is big and should be crushed. I'm
not now (nor have ever been) anti-Microsoft. But, I am pro-me and pro-my
customers.
Being pro-me and pro-my customers, I have to make hard decisions to protect
them and me from future harm. One of those decisions is the decision to
begin developing cross-platform solutions for my customer base, so that they
have the freedom to move to a more-affordable OS and more affordable
development platform for their company's specific needs.
For most small businesses, not being on a Microsoft OS is not a problem.
Most, if not all of the software they write is for internal use. So, their
OS and desktop software decisions can be more financially driven. This
means that using Linux (even the MAC OS is cheaper than XP) for a desktop
solution in many small and mid-sized businesses is an easy call.
Their daily task is not to use Microsoft products.....it's to get business
done in a manner that saves time and money while not sacrificing quality.
Microsoft would do well to understand that.
I believe that responsible developers and ISVs owe it to their customers to
give themselves and their customers the option of OS independence. Giving
REALbasic a look might help you towards that goal.
Jim Hubbard
(I will not respond to flames.....although serious questions or debate is
welcomed.)
"Aaron Smith" wrote: Jim Hubbard wrote:You get what you pay for.
You sure do. Viruses, unstable IDEs, intentinal breakig of backwards
compatability and a forced march to deposit more money into Microsoft;s
$50,000,000,000 cash pile.
I think the cost is too high.
If you think this doesn't happen on Linux, you are wrong. I've even seen
this at home. It's also mostly why you only see binary packages
available for certain linux distros and versions... They change just
about every new version that is out.. Hence the reason you have to
recompile with just about every upgrade for software you download,
unless you are lucky enough to run the most popular distro. It's the
same thing with every OS you look at. Does a lot of the older Mac
software run on OS X? Some do.. but not all.. I also seem to remember a
lot of instability on the initial release of OS X. I also see a lot of
instability in Linux. I do a lot of C++ coding on Linux.. Trust me.. The
free IDEs available are not as stable as you think.
Increasingly, governments, large companies and school systems are moving to
Linux. Maybe we're just a little ahead of the curve.
You must be.. We also deal with government recreational facilities and
school districts, and none of them have had Linux so far. But hey, every
state could be different, I guess...
And, that's fine. We are not a one-size-fits-all software shop.
But I thought that was your goal in switching to realbasic?????
IMHO, it is simply an opportunity for Microsoft to pad their pockets. I was
doing fine before .Net, and I'll do fine after it. But,I have to make the
best call that I can for the future.
That doesn't include willful breaking of backwards comparability.
Ever hear of Visual DataFlex? It's a programming language by DataAccess
corporation.. It's pretty good. Very easy to use. Seperates all the
business logic from the presentation logic. It works really well.
Smaller company, huge community support, they listen to their
developers. They also break backwards compatibility all the time, leave
features out that developers want, charge license fees for software you
sell to customers. The list goes on and on... You will see this with
EVERY company you deal with. Just because Microsoft makes millions a
day, doesn't make them the bad guy, it just made them the bigger target
for people that like to complain that the "man" is coming down on them.
You will see it with all of them... It just takes time.
--
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks.
Couldn't agree more
I develop on both Windows & Mac OS, I have to say that Mac OS X breaks
backward compatibility alot more than Windows.
Cheers This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Jim Hubbard |
last post by:
It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen), but
now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
| |
