f



Microsoft not content with "dissing" just the Classic VB Developer Army....

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/microsoft.public.msdn.general/browse_thread/thread/9d7e8f9a00c1c7da/459ca99eb0e7c328?q=%22Proposed+MSDN+subscription+changes%22&rnum=1#459ca99eb0e7c328

Damn!  To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug.......  It must be 
nice.

Jim Hubbard 


0
Jim
4/6/2005 10:42:49 AM
comp.lang.basic.realbasic 2744 articles. 0 followers. spam127 (8) is leader. Post Follow

75 Replies
546 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 25

"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote in message 
news:6mpa511s6ggnbgqpdad16s1dma34fddcjb@4ax.com...
> On 6 Apr 2005 15:21:07 -0700, geoff@realsoftware.com wrote:
>
>
> � I believe VB Express does not include the ability to create a stand
> � alone application so that's not a fair comparision. VB Express will not
> � be a good solution for anyone that wants to distribute their
> � applications. It's also not available at the moment so we don't know
> � what will happen with it ultimately. BTW, students can get REALbasic
> � Standard Academic Edition for $69.95.
> �
> � Lastly, the comparison of our Pro product to Visual Studio Pro is not a
> � good one. Visual Studio only compiles for one platform: Windows. And
> � while REALbasic provides only one language, I wonder how many VB
> � programmers use the other languages that are a part of Visual Studio?
>
> It's all about choice. While we may not use more than one language we do 
> have a choice. We also have
> a choice with respect to other features, such as the development of 
> components for distributed
> applications and shared code libraries, the development of web 
> applications and services - choices
> notably absent from REALBasic.

You're right.  Those things are absent right now.  But, it is something the 
REALbasic team is working on.

>
> While touting the advantage of a multi-platform development tool I think 
> it's also important to note
> that this feature is not particularly significant with respect to demand.

While still far behind Windows, the demand for Linux is growing by leaps and 
bounds....if I may....

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5145332.html

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1004138,00.html

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/45850.htm

http://www.cioupdate.com/trends/article.php/2237451

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-821073.html

http://www.cio.com.au/index.php/id;952191873;fp;4;fpid;21

http://www.itweb.co.za/office/FirstTechnology/0405120751.htm

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4570

http://www.tolkienonline.com/docs/6678.html

http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2004111201626NWBZDP

http://itpapers.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?dtid=3&scid=264&docid=88285

http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200310/ij_10_03_03a.html

http://www.novell.com/products/linuxenterpriseserver/why_novell.html

These links were chosen to show that the adoption of Linus is not new and is 
not slowing.  If you'd like more let me know.

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.

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.

Don't worry....it'll be fun.  I promise.

>The cost to support
> multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.

Again, you are right.

In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly.  This, for 
the most part, negated any potential gains from supporting Linux or MAC 
operating systems.

But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software.  Just click 
and run on a different OS.  There is no additional development required. 
Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute your app 
on and click "Build".

REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected. 
Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be any easier than 
that.

Jim Hubbard 


0
Jim
4/1/2005 9:57:20 PM
"james" <jjames700ReMoVeMe at earthlink dot net> wrote in message 
news:u$9Wwo8OFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message 
> news:25udnSWM8-ZUA8jfRVn-> These links were chosen to show that the 
> adoption of Linus is not new and is
>> not slowing.  If you'd like more let me know.
>
> <Snipped links>
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Don't worry....it'll be fun.  I promise.
>>
>>>The cost to support
>>> multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.
>>
>> Again, you are right.
>>
>> In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly.  This, 
>> for the most part, negated any potential gains from supporting Linux or 
>> MAC operating systems.
>>
>> But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software.  Just 
>> click and run on a different OS.  There is no additional development 
>> required. Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to 
>> distribute your app on and click "Build".
>>
>> REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected. 
>> Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be any easier than 
>> that.
>>
>> Jim Hubbard
>
>
> Jim, you do know that several of those links you posted are the same 
> article don't you?

I grabbed the links quickly, so I did not read them all as thoroughly as I 
would have liked to.  Arguing against points that have already been proven 
to be false is a pet peeve of mine and one thing that I loathe to waste time 
doing.

>  And some are almost 2 years >old.  And if you read those articles, it 
> clearly states that Linux is not any cheaper than Windows from a support 
> standpoint.

The support costs are about the same for both platforms, but the original 
cost of hardware and software is MUCH less on Linux.

> As for RealBasic and cross-platform support, have you tested it?

Only for XP Pro and SUSE 9.2 Professional.  I don't have a MAC handy....but 
I will have one by this weekend for testing.

>Having downloaded the Free standard version, I can say that in the case of 
>a simple app, that RB will compile to Linux (haven't tested on Mac).
> But, not being able to build a complicated app and fully test it in Linux 
> (due to the 5 minute time limit in the Standard edition) I cannot say for 
> sure how well Linux or Mac OS is supported.

I talked to Geoff about this today.  I told him that 5 minutes was way too 
short a demo time for complicated applications, and he has an idea of how to 
lengthen that time for more complicated applications.  I hope he can get it 
in for the version 6 release in the next 60 days.

>So, if you are like me and have not used the PRO version of RB, I would 
>think it would not be a good idea to make a broad statement on how easy to 
>develop a cross-platform >application

Actually, I have been accepted into the beta program and am currently using 
the latest beta to test the app out.  So far, I love the look. (Geoff really 
needs to show more of the interface on the website - it puts version 5.5 to 
shame.)

> using RB is.   You cannot (or should I say , I cannot) fully stress test 
> an application in 5 minutes in a different OS than >it was developed in 
> and be certain that you/I will not have problems.

I agree, and so does Geoff.  He's working on changing that.

> My final questions to you is why are you spending so much time on bashing 
> Microsoft over all this? If you have >decided to migrate to Linux and 
> leave Microsoft products behind, why are you still posting on all these 
> different newsgroups?

I am in the process of deciding.  Who knows?  Microsoft could make a 
decision tomorrow to actually support VB6 or even offer a valid upgrade 
tool....or (GASP!) not charge $10,000 per developer for the top MSDN 
subscription.  If any of those things happened it would have a definite 
impact on my final decision.

Hopefully these posts will help others to decide whether REALbasic is an 
alternative for them.  It's not for everyone.  It's more for the "task 
oriented" developer than the professional C++ or C# developer.  At any rate, 
it's certainly worth checking out.

>Wouldn't it be better to get up to speed on RealBasic and Linux?

I'm working on that.  Playing with the beta......and trying a simple app or 
2.  If those go well, I will try and port a 95,000 line application from 
Visual Basic to REALbasic to really test out the limits of the conversion 
process.

One step at a time.

> Just a few thoughts and my .02 and worth exactly what you paid for 
> them...........
> james

I always appreciate any honest questions or even criticisms.  It's the 
flaming I can do without....

Jim Hubbard 


0
Jim
4/2/2005 2:23:26 AM
"Aaron Smith" <thespirit-1-@smithcentral.net> wrote in message 
news:y5h5e.30833$hU7.12072@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Jim Hubbard wrote:
>> That's just great.  Whenever a company doesn't want to do anything about 
>> a problem, but they want the bad press and problem to go away, they send 
>> out the talkers.  I'm tired of talking.  FIX THE DAMNED ISSUE BY PUTTING 
>> UNMANAGED VB6 SUPPORT INTO THE VISUAL STUDIO IDE!  Nothing else is going 
>> to make this go away.
>
> Never going to happen. I personally don't want it to happen. If the apps 
> run for the next 5 years, that will be long enough for me to convert my 
> customers over to .Net.

But, what happens when a .Net patch breaks your code?  Not many people have 
caught onto the fact that Microsoft issues patches for .Net (although you 
have to call them to get one).

If you find an error (or just some weird behavior) in the .Net framework, 
Microsft may have a patch for it that you can get and apply to your systems. 
You can even have it installed with your application (which would be 
neccessary if you used it - as others most certainly won't have it 
installed).

Problem is, if another application is already installed (or gets installed 
later) that writes around the error in .Net, your patch will cause that 
author's app to malfunction.

It works the other way too.  If you code around all of the bugs found in 
..Net (yes, I know....every program has bugs - I'm not digging at Microsoft 
for not having perfect code - remeber, I liked VB6) but, another author 
patches the framework, (BAM!) your code malfunctions.

It looks like trading DLL Hell for Patch Hell.  What's the difference?

>Most of my customer's are just now upgrading to XP, so I really won't have 
>to worry about it for a long time, if at all. By the time they start to 
>migrate to Longhorn, they will need to upgrade our software too.. Selling 
>upgrades and new features in software is what makes us money. If a customer 
>buys it and wants to use it for 15 years, that's fine, but we only make 
>money on that initial sale and then support contracts. I'd rather sell them 
>better software with more features every few years plus the support 
>contracts.

All valid points.  But, usually business changes dictate that software be 
updated and enhanced regardless of the OS or programming language status. 
That's where we make most of our money.  We service clients with volatile 
business climates.  They always need a change for something.

>
>>
>> You did it for C++, and you can do it for classic Visual Basic......the 
>> question is will you?  Or, will you continue to walk away from the 
>> largest army of programmers the world has ever seen......the people that 
>> made you great?
>>
>
> Don't compare C++ to Visual Basic.

(awww crap!  One of *those*.....)

>
>> Speaking of going away, I am setting up my Novell Linux box and MAC today 
>> to do more thorough testing of REALbasic.  Looks like fun.  At least I 
>> won't have to worry about Microsoft abandoning me if I finally choose the 
>> MAC/Linux/REALbasic route.  (Go to www.realbasic.com for your FREE copy 
>> of REALbasic 5.5 standard until April 15, 2005.)
>>
>> There is one thing, and only one thing, that will get Microsoft's 
>> attention. Mass defection to Linux/MAC and a different programming 
>> language.  They have forgotten that the customer is always right.  And, 
>> only something big will drive that point home for them.
>>
>> Although that sounds quite radical, it is no more radical than the change 
>> that classic Visual Basic developers already have to go through with 
>> Microsoft.  And, you will at least be the partial master of your own 
>> destiny then.....not a gnat to be swatted by the monopolistic hand of 
>> Microsoft.
>>
>
> So, let me get this straight... You would rather spend your time and your 
> customer's money by downgrading them to real basic, than upgrading them to 
> a .Net language?

I guess it depends on how you look at it.  I consider creating applications 
that link everything into a single executable (as opposed to a framework 
that may or may not be "patched") a more stable solution - therefore an 
UPgrade.  I consider being able to service my clients needs on Windows, MAC 
or Linux another advantage.  I consider the added ability to write code for 
any Windows, MAC or Linux customer good for my company - as it expands our 
potential client base to those desktops and increasingly includes more 
goverments and school systems around the globe.

In all, I'd say that I consider true safety from DLL Hell (or Patch Hell), 
an increased customer base, the ability to adjust to a changing desktop 
market and the ability to assist our customers in choosing the best 
desktop/server environments for them an UPgrade.

>Especially when that company is really small in comparison to Microsoft?

Microsoft's size is one of the disadvantages of doing business with them. 
No longer do Microsoft customers call the shots.  Microsoft is doing 
anything it damn well pleases....just because it can.

Real Software has to listen to it's customers.  And, (as a potential 
customer) I like that.

I don't know of any customers that like being told what to do by the company 
they are doing business with.  What would happen if you told one of your 
customers that you were going to change their technologies even though they 
didn't want you to?  You could even assure them that it's in their best 
interest.  But, I doubt you'd be around much longer.

However, Microsoft pulls this off.  How?

It's two-fold.  Microsoft doesn;t have to convince business.  They convince 
programmers that they have a new and improved thingy that is "the new big 
thing" in programming.  Developers make their living developing.  So, in 
attempt to keep stay on top (thus keeping an income stream going) they rush 
to adopt the latest from Microsoft.  Then, the devlopers try and convince 
their bosses and clients that they jsut have to get "the new big thing" or 
they will be left in the dust.

Microsoft uses fear to sell their products.

Does a business really need the very latest from Microsoft to compete? 
Rarely.

> Hmm... If I were your customer, I'd be pissed and running from you.

You'd never be my customer.  We screen better than that.  We only take 
clients that we know we can make happy.  Fortunately, in the last 2.5 years 
we've only had to turn away 3 clients.

>
>> And, it's much cheaper than the Microsoft solutions.  Only $89.95 for a 
>> COMPLETE desktop in Novell Linux (SUSE) 9.2 Professional.  That includes 
>> Open Office, free email clients, free IM clients, free photo editing 
>> clients......really everything you need for day-to-day operations in most 
>> businesses.  Contrast that to XP Professional at $279.99 (for a new 
>> install) and Office Professional 2003 at $499.99 and the $89.95 option is 
>> at least worth a test drive.
>>
>> The $780 for basic daily activities with a Microsoft desktop is more than 
>> the hardware needed to run it......twice as much as the hardware for a 
>> simple business workstation.  And, for what?  So we can say we work on a 
>> Windows desktop?  Who gives a rat's ass what desktop is in place as long 
>> as I can accomplish my daily job of making more, cheaper and better 
>> widgets to sell.
>
> 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.

>
>>
>> Most company's don't get paid because they are using Microsoft 
>> products.....they get paid to deliver goods and services, and their 
>> clients really don't care what OS or desktop the company uses internally. 
>> Come to think of it.....neither do the workers.
>
> Really? What market are you in? In ours, it matters. In fact, some IT 
> departments kicked us out before we switched to VB because they didn't 
> want non-Microsoft products in house.

If we adopt REALbasic as our core tool. we wouldn;t be a good fit for those 
companies.  I can live with that.

Increasingly, governments, large companies and school systems are moving to 
Linux.  Maybe we're just a little ahead of the curve.

>The same went for MySQL. Open source? No way.. They were having none of 
>that....

And, that's fine.  We are not a one-size-fits-all software shop.

> And the workers want to get their job done. If they can't, they get fired.

Right.  It's your job to make sure they can get that job done.  Usually, 
though, if they can't get their job done because of the software, ot would 
be you gettig fired......wouldn't it?

It should be.  It's your job to get your customers the best solution for 
them.  IT may be Windows.  It may be Mac,  It may be Linux.  They look to us 
to know and guide them in this decision.  That's what we get paid for.

I would never suggest an operating system that would slow production or harm 
productivity.  That would hurt them and our reputation.  I'd rather not have 
the job at all, and recommend them to another shop that can help them.

> Try putting a linux desktop in an manufacturing environment. It won't 
> last. I've seen it happen.

Every business and situation is different.

>
>>
>> So, who does care (besides Microsoft, of course)?
>
> I personally don't really care what happens to VB6 at this point. I've 
> started to upgrade my skills from it to VB.Net, because I saw the need.

Good.  You should do what makes you happy.

> My customers need more advanced features and better support for newer 
> technologies.

Interesting.  I have yet to get the customer that cares what technology I 
use to write their applications.  They just want to be able to compete and 
share info with other businesses as inexpensively as possible.

>I can do that and stay with Microsoft by moving everything to VB.Net, or 
>even C# if I wanted to.

REALbasic is not for everybody.  I wish you well with Microsoft 
technologies.  I am just looking at this from my point of view and what is 
needed to satisfy the real estate companies, home builders and attorney's 
offices that I support.

> I look at this as an opportunity, not a hinderance.

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.

Jim Hubbard 


0
Jim
4/2/2005 3:21:07 AM
"Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message 
news:6K6dnSlXduanIM7fRVn-rA@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/microsoft.public.msdn.general/browse_thread/thread/9d7e8f9a00c1c7da/459ca99eb0e7c328?q=%22Proposed+MSDN+subscription+changes%22&rnum=1#459ca99eb0e7c328
>
> 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.)


0
Jim
4/6/2005 12:05:54 PM
Curious, I wonder where MS main customer base resides, the US or Offshore? 
MS is fully aware that Windows became a hit on the PC's because the 
Developers supported it. Can there really be that much money in the selling 
of Development software that it can risk upsetting its OS Developers. I 
think MS and us all are facing a changing world.


"Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message 
news:6K6dnSlXduanIM7fRVn-rA@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/microsoft.public.msdn.general/browse_thread/thread/9d7e8f9a00c1c7da/459ca99eb0e7c328?q=%22Proposed+MSDN+subscription+changes%22&rnum=1#459ca99eb0e7c328
>
> Damn!  To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug.......  It must be 
> nice.
>
> Jim Hubbard
> 


0
Evan
4/6/2005 12:07:47 PM
Jim,

You told us a week ago that you was starting to investigate how you could 
use Visual.Studio Net and its tools. Are you proceeding already with that?

Cor 


0
Cor
4/6/2005 12:14:09 PM
"Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message 
news:%23DutuIqOFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Jim,
>
> You told us a week ago that you was starting to investigate how you could 
> use Visual.Studio Net and its tools. Are you proceeding already with that?
>
> Cor

I have been playing with VB.Net 2005 Beta.  It looked much better than the 
2003 version and even got it's groove back a little with the simplified 
interface.

But, faced with the outrageous pricing of the MSDN subscriptions, I am 
forced to look at alternatives in making my decisions.

I also have to have my customers' best interest at heart, as well as my own. 
I cannot, at this time, justify the continuation of the purchase and use of 
the Microsoft OS, software and development tools when taking their pricing 
into consideration VS the alternatives available to myself and my customers.

A company that makes Widgets can make and sell Widgets on Linux or MAC just 
as easily as on Windows if they choose their development tools and desktop 
software wisely.

So, why continue to pay the high "tea taxes" of Microsoft?

Although I have not made my final decision, I am leaning towards throwing 
the Microsoft desktop into the harbor.

Jim Hubbard


0
Jim
4/6/2005 12:26:34 PM
why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is 
really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do it 
all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the .NET 
framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont want 
to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't mean you 
need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the .NET framework 
SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you need a 
graphical experience also.


"Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message 
news:EaednWZDjeIRSM7fRVn-iA@giganews.com...
>
> "Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message 
> news:%23DutuIqOFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Jim,
>>
>> You told us a week ago that you was starting to investigate how you could 
>> use Visual.Studio Net and its tools. Are you proceeding already with 
>> that?
>>
>> Cor
>
> I have been playing with VB.Net 2005 Beta.  It looked much better than the 
> 2003 version and even got it's groove back a little with the simplified 
> interface.
>
> But, faced with the outrageous pricing of the MSDN subscriptions, I am 
> forced to look at alternatives in making my decisions.
>
> I also have to have my customers' best interest at heart, as well as my 
> own. I cannot, at this time, justify the continuation of the purchase and 
> use of the Microsoft OS, software and development tools when taking their 
> pricing into consideration VS the alternatives available to myself and my 
> customers.
>
> A company that makes Widgets can make and sell Widgets on Linux or MAC 
> just as easily as on Windows if they choose their development tools and 
> desktop software wisely.
>
> So, why continue to pay the high "tea taxes" of Microsoft?
>
> Although I have not made my final decision, I am leaning towards throwing 
> the Microsoft desktop into the harbor.
>
> Jim Hubbard
>
> 


0
Brian
4/6/2005 12:38:58 PM
"Brian Henry" <brianiupmsdn@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message 
news:Oiz4ZWqOFHA.1932@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is 
> really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do 
> it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the .NET 
> framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont 
> want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't 
> mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the .NET 
> framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you 
> need a graphical experience also.

Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be 
competitive with other .Net development shops.

The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's 
development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy.  That 
puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.

Like the Mono project.  It's far behind the Microsoft C# IDE and the VB 
version of the Mono project is even worse.

You have to be able to compete in the arena that you choose to fight in. 
That's one reason all developers want the highest MSDN subscriptions. 
Besides having to wear many hats at their jobs (especially at small 
businesses), they also need to be able to do anything that is possible with 
..Net (like when your boss sees another competing app do something and says 
to make your do it too) .  With free IDEs, most of the time, this simply 
isn't possible.

The IDE is only the tip of the iceberg.  Breaking backwards compatibility 
and the ridiculous cost of the Microsoft OS and software ($500 for Office 
2003 pro - give me a break) are also main factors in the decision that needs 
to be made by all small businesses before they got to .Net and on to 
Longhorn.

If you can do your business on a different OS for less money, that's the 
financially responsible thing to do.

Increasingly I am coming to see that there's simply no reason to continue to 
allow your business to be held for ransom by Microsoft.

Jim Hubbard 


0
Jim
4/6/2005 12:53:37 PM
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:53:37 -0400, "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote:

I don't know anything about you, Jim, but Brian was right about doing it for
free, and if you've had an MSDN subscription in the past, then you already have
a license to use the tools that came with it forever.  So why don't you continue
to use the tools you have (the MSDN subscription has included VB6 since it's
release, so you have a copy of it) and get on with making money instead of
whining.  I suspect you spend more time writing crap like that below than
working anyway...

just my opinion.  I could be wrong.
  
>
>"Brian Henry" <brianiupmsdn@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message 
>news:Oiz4ZWqOFHA.1932@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is 
>> really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do 
>> it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the .NET 
>> framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont 
>> want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't 
>> mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the .NET 
>> framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you 
>> need a graphical experience also.
>
>Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be 
>competitive with other .Net development shops.
>
>The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's 
>development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy.  That 
>puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.
>
>Like the Mono project.  It's far behind the Microsoft C# IDE and the VB 
>version of the Mono project is even worse.
>
>You have to be able to compete in the arena that you choose to fight in. 
>That's one reason all developers want the highest MSDN subscriptions. 
>Besides having to wear many hats at their jobs (especially at small 
>businesses), they also need to be able to do anything that is possible with 
>.Net (like when your boss sees another competing app do something and says 
>to make your do it too) .  With free IDEs, most of the time, this simply 
>isn't possible.
>
>The IDE is only the tip of the iceberg.  Breaking backwards compatibility 
>and the ridiculous cost of the Microsoft OS and software ($500 for Office 
>2003 pro - give me a break) are also main factors in the decision that needs 
>to be made by all small businesses before they got to .Net and on to 
>Longhorn.
>
>If you can do your business on a different OS for less money, that's the 
>financially responsible thing to do.
>
>Increasingly I am coming to see that there's simply no reason to continue to 
>allow your business to be held for ransom by Microsoft.
>
>Jim Hubbard 
>

Otis Mukinfus
http://www.otismukinfus.com
0
Otis
4/6/2005 1:48:44 PM
Jim Hubbard wrote:
> "Brian Henry" <brianiupmsdn@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message 
> news:Oiz4ZWqOFHA.1932@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> 
>>why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is 
>>really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do 
>>it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the .NET 
>>framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont 
>>want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't 
>>mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the .NET 
>>framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you 
>>need a graphical experience also.
> 
> 
> Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be 
> competitive with other .Net development shops.
> 
> The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's 
> development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy.  That 
> puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.

That may not always be true. With sufficient numbers of
developers jumping ship, that adds a significant incentive
to make better 3rd party IDEs faster. Also, while those
who -copy- MS tend to be inferior, there are a number
of third parties who offer superior features that use
a different idea of how to do things.

> Increasingly I am coming to see that there's simply no reason to continue to 
> allow your business to be held for ransom by Microsoft.

Which a lot of people may decide to do.
0
Ron
4/6/2005 2:14:21 PM
"Otis Mukinfus" <otis@mukinfus.com> wrote in message 
news:4qp751p8rp0punbj3qo81rrp870bs1rhii@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:53:37 -0400, "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> 
> wrote:
>
> I don't know anything about you, Jim, but Brian was right about doing it 
> for
> free, and if you've had an MSDN subscription in the past, then you already 
> have
> a license to use the tools that came with it forever.  So why don't you 
> continue
> to use the tools you have (the MSDN subscription has included VB6 since 
> it's
> release, so you have a copy of it) and get on with making money instead of
> whining.  I suspect you spend more time writing crap like that below than
> working anyway...
>

You are right.  You can use the tools forever.  But, Microsoft is actively 
breaking backwards compatability with the old tools.  Case in 
point....Outlook 2003.

Now, you'd think that Outlook 2003 would be backwards compatible with Office 
2002.  I mean, most professional companies provide backwards compatability 
for 2 major versions.  Microsoft used to.....but now they've chosen a path 
of abandonment and intentionally breaking backwards compatibility.  Why?

Nevermind the why......that's another thread.....

VB6 runtimes will not be supported on Longhorn.  So, if you keep using the 
VB6 tools, your audience dwindles to nothing.  Can't do that.

> just my opinion.  I could be wrong.
>
>>
>>"Brian Henry" <brianiupmsdn@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
>>news:Oiz4ZWqOFHA.1932@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there 
>>> is
>>> really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can 
>>> do
>>> it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the 
>>> .NET
>>> framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont
>>> want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't
>>> mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the 
>>> .NET
>>> framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you
>>> need a graphical experience also.
>>
>>Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be
>>competitive with other .Net development shops.
>>
>>The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's
>>development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy. 
>>That
>>puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.
>>
>>Like the Mono project.  It's far behind the Microsoft C# IDE and the VB
>>version of the Mono project is even worse.
>>
>>You have to be able to compete in the arena that you choose to fight in.
>>That's one reason all developers want the highest MSDN subscriptions.
>>Besides having to wear many hats at their jobs (especially at small
>>businesses), they also need to be able to do anything that is possible 
>>with
>>.Net (like when your boss sees another competing app do something and says
>>to make your do it too) .  With free IDEs, most of the time, this simply
>>isn't possible.
>>
>>The IDE is only the tip of the iceberg.  Breaking backwards compatibility
>>and the ridiculous cost of the Microsoft OS and software ($500 for Office
>>2003 pro - give me a break) are also main factors in the decision that 
>>needs
>>to be made by all small businesses before they got to .Net and on to
>>Longhorn.
>>
>>If you can do your business on a different OS for less money, that's the
>>financially responsible thing to do.
>>
>>Increasingly I am coming to see that there's simply no reason to continue 
>>to
>>allow your business to be held for ransom by Microsoft.
>>
>>Jim Hubbard
>>
>
> Otis Mukinfus
> http://www.otismukinfus.com 


0
Jim
4/6/2005 4:34:32 PM
Jim Hubbard wrote:

> VB6 runtimes will not be supported on Longhorn.  So, if you keep using the 
> VB6 tools, your audience dwindles to nothing.  Can't do that.

So Microsoft has been lying about the VB6 runtime being included in 
Longhorn and supported? I think not..

-- 
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks.
0
Aaron
4/6/2005 4:51:28 PM
"Aaron Smith" <thespirit-1-@smithcentral.net> wrote in message 
news:ksU4e.19665$DW.2522@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Jim Hubbard wrote:
>
>> VB6 runtimes will not be supported on Longhorn.  So, if you keep using 
>> the VB6 tools, your audience dwindles to nothing.  Can't do that.
>
> So Microsoft has been lying about the VB6 runtime being included in 
> Longhorn and supported? I think not..

I hadn't seen anything from Microsoft indicating support of the VB6 runtime 
in Longhorn.  And, since you did not feel the need to back up your statement 
with a link - I went on a fact-finding mission to see if Microsoft said 
anything like this on their website.

After searching for over an hour, I finally found somebody at Microsoft that 
says (via his blog - not on an official Visual Basic page on the Microsoft 
website) that the VB6 runtime will be shipped with Longhorn and supported 
for the lifecycle of Longhorn.  Read it here - http://blogs.msdn.com/JRoxe/.

I doubt this is the reference that you had in mind as it was just posted 
yesterday. Could you please post your Microsoft references?  I am curious as 
to when this was first stated openly by Microsoft.  Was it yesterday, or did 
I miss something earlier (which could also be the case).

In fact, the blog directly speaks to the millions of concerned VB6 
programmers and directly addresses the petition at 
http://classicvb.org/petition.  It seems Microsoft is trying to make the 
petition go away without actually DOING anything to make up for tossing out 
a language that so many are so dependent on.

In part, Jay's blog states "There are strong feelings on all sides of the 
issue that sparked this petition and I know that this note is not going to 
address all of these concerns.  However, I hope that we can continue to have 
an open dialog around this issue.  Some of these discussions will continue 
in the public forum, but please also feel free to contact me directly."

That's just great.  Whenever a company doesn't want to do anything about a 
problem, but they want the bad press and problem to go away, they send out 
the talkers.  I'm tired of talking.  FIX THE DAMNED ISSUE BY PUTTING 
UNMANAGED VB6 SUPPORT INTO THE VISUAL STUDIO IDE!  Nothing else is going to 
make this go away.

You did it for C++, and you can do it for classic Visual Basic......the 
question is will you?  Or, will you continue to walk away from the largest 
army of programmers the world has ever seen......the people that made you 
great?

Speaking of going away, I am setting up my Novell Linux box and MAC today to 
do more thorough testing of REALbasic.  Looks like fun.  At least I won't 
have to worry about Microsoft abandoning me if I finally choose the 
MAC/Linux/REALbasic route.  (Go to www.realbasic.com for your FREE copy of 
REALbasic 5.5 standard until April 15, 2005.)

There is one thing, and only one thing, that will get Microsoft's attention. 
Mass defection to Linux/MAC and a different programming language.  They have 
forgotten that the customer is always right.  And, only something big will 
drive that point home for them.

Although that sounds quite radical, it is no more radical than the change 
that classic Visual Basic developers already have to go through with 
Microsoft.  And, you will at least be the partial master of your own destiny 
then.....not a gnat to be swatted by the monopolistic hand of Microsoft.

And, it's much cheaper than the Microsoft solutions.  Only $89.95 for a 
COMPLETE desktop in Novell Linux (SUSE) 9.2 Professional.  That includes 
Open Office, free email clients, free IM clients, free photo editing 
clients......really everything you need for day-to-day operations in most 
businesses.  Contrast that to XP Professional at $279.99 (for a new install) 
and Office Professional 2003 at $499.99 and the $89.95 option is at least 
worth a test drive.

The $780 for basic daily activities with a Microsoft desktop is more than 
the hardware needed to run it......twice as much as the hardware for a 
simple business workstation.  And, for what?  So we can say we work on a 
Windows desktop?  Who gives a rat's ass what desktop is in place as long as 
I can accomplish my daily job of making more, cheaper and better widgets to 
sell.

Most company's don't get paid because they are using Microsoft 
products.....they get paid to deliver goods and services, and their clients 
really don't care what OS or desktop the company uses internally.  Come to 
think of it.....neither do the workers.

So, who does care (besides Microsoft, of course)?

Jim Hubbard 


0
Jim
4/6/2005 9:03:29 PM
"Ron Ruble" <raffles2@att.net> wrote in message 
news:19S4e.48058$cg1.39628@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Jim Hubbard wrote:
>> "Brian Henry" <brianiupmsdn@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message 
>> news:Oiz4ZWqOFHA.1932@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is 
>>>really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do 
>>>it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the 
>>>.NET framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you 
>>>dont want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio 
>>>doesn't mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get 
>>>the .NET framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE 
>>>if you need a graphical experience also.
>>
>>
>> Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be 
>> competitive with other .Net development shops.
>>
>> The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's 
>> development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy. 
>> That puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.
>
> That may not always be true. With sufficient numbers of
> developers jumping ship, that adds a significant incentive
> to make better 3rd party IDEs faster. Also, while those
> who -copy- MS tend to be inferior, there are a number
> of third parties who offer superior features that use
> a different idea of how to do things.

I wish this were the case.  But, it seems that no other company has put 2 
and 2 together yet.....

Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients 
that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money and 
the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and 
applications.

You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE), Mandrake, 
even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and you don't have to lie and 
say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft.  The thing 
they are missing is an easy way to develop applications (like Visual Basic 
was for Microsoft).

You see, the combination of affordable desktop, plus and affordable, 
easy-to-use development platform is the key to winning the war with 
Microsoft.  You win the war in the trenches.....by defection - like 
introducing democracy into a totalitarian society.

When you have an affordable desktop, people WILL buy it.  People will try 
it.  And, if there is an easy development platform for it 
(say.....REALbasic), millions of disatisfied classic Visual Basic 
programmers (and many non-programmers) will write applications for the 
cheaper OS, because (A) they can afford to and (B) they like to write 
applications for fun and to sell.

Once this starts, more and more applications become available for your 
affordable OS.  Then, more and more poeple will buy the OS because of the 
vast number of applications available for it.

This model has been proven (and evidentally forgotten) by none other than 
Microsoft itself.  I told my sister, just the other night, that had I a 
compnay that produced an OS like Apple's MAC, Linspire or Novell Linux and 
if I could acquire a product like REALbasic to bundle with my OS.....that I 
would change the world.

And, I would.

Jim Hubbard 


0
Jim
4/6/2005 9:17:42 PM
Inline:
"Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:ON6dnceX-OqXz8nfRVn-hw@giganews.com...
>
<snip>
>
> Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a 
> run for their money and the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and applications.
>
> You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE), Mandrake, even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and 
> you don't have to lie and say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft.  The thing they are missing is an easy 
> way to develop applications (like Visual Basic was for Microsoft).

Windows XP Home Edition can be had for less than $100.00 (USD) almost anywhere.  And extra licenses are not that expensive.


> You see, the combination of affordable desktop, plus and affordable, easy-to-use development platform is the key to winning 
> the war with Microsoft.  You win the war in the trenches.....by defection - like introducing democracy into a totalitarian 
> society.

I think the affordable desktop Windows XP & development platform , Visual Basic Express (announced to be $49) will be a good, 
cheap, combination for the non- programmers you mention in the paragraph below.


> When you have an affordable desktop, people WILL buy it.  People will try it.  And, if there is an easy development platform 
> for it (say.....REALbasic), millions of disatisfied classic Visual Basic programmers (and many non-programmers) will write 
> applications for the cheaper OS, because (A) they can afford to and (B) they like to write applications for fun and to sell.
RealBasic, is not a cheap alternative to VB.  Especially comparing their cheapest version , Standard, which sells for $99. ( I 
know it's free for now, they are moving to a new version and it might pay them to give the Standard(current version) version 
away to VB developers for free)
Where as , Visual Basic Express , will be sold for $49 and might be bundled in some other products (like books maybe) . And 
having used VB Express Beta1, I can say it is and will be , a great product for the price.
To get full cross platform capability from RB requires their PRO version which sells for almost $500.00.
That is more than Visual Studio 2003 PRO currently sells for.  And you get access to more than one programming language.  Pretty 
good deal if you need it.


> Once this starts, more and more applications become available for your affordable OS.  Then, more and more poeple will buy the 
> OS because of the vast number of applications available for it.
>
> This model has been proven (and evidentally forgotten) by none other than Microsoft itself.  I told my sister, just the other 
> night, that had I a compnay that produced an OS like Apple's MAC, Linspire or Novell Linux and if I could acquire a product 
> like REALbasic to bundle with my OS.....that I would change the world.
>
> And, I would.
>
> Jim Hubbard


In fact, Linux can be had for free.  Along with all kinds of development tools.  They are available for download everywhere. 
Where the free part ends, is in the support department.  Although there is plenty of online support for Linux from users and 
developers, the real costs appear when a business decides to use Linux and has to retrain people to use it and support it 
in-house.   And for home users that are not
real computer knowledgeable, Linux is a real problem.  In this case, Windows XP (to me) is a clear winner.  If a home user 
manages to get a Linux destro installed, (which has improved a lot) they had better be satisfied with the installed apps. 
Because, if there is a special application they need or want, it may not be so easy to install (or available).  And a messed up 
install in Linux CAN kill the entire OS.  Something, that I have not seen in a while in XP (except for Norton products.....).
   I don't think the "Classic VB Developers" will be dumping Microsoft Products in favor of Linux solutions.   Better to do what 
they are doing and pressuring Microsoft for more support.  And at least
a better migration path to newer tools. ( I tried moving a couple of my apps. to VB.NET 2003 and had so many ToDo's that it 
turned out to be easier to just do a rewrite)
Anyway, I just wanted to jump in here and add my .02 to all this.  I have tried RB Standard. And it is no replacement for VB6. 
The only thing that RB has going for it in my opinion is being able to compile
executables for more than one OS. But, the Standard edition only does that in a very limited way. And is not good enough for 
complete testing.   As you probably did, I received an email from RS offering a FREE(one of my favorite words) copy of RB PRO , 
if I managed to be one of the top 100 people to get others to download and try RB Standard, thru a specialized link.   Well, I 
tried that and promptly got flamed for it. (in the "classic" VB newsgroups & one Linux newsgroup)  So, I won't be doing that 
again!!
Good luck on your quest (whatever it is)........  ( I don't think you are going to convience people to drop MS products)
james

Help me get free software at: http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC
Good till April 15, 2005




0
james
4/6/2005 10:09:47 PM
james wrote:

> Where as , Visual Basic Express , will be sold for $49 and might be
bundled in some other products (like books maybe) . And
> having used VB Express Beta1, I can say it is and will be , a great
product for the price.
> To get full cross platform capability from RB requires their PRO
version which sells for almost $500.00.
> That is more than Visual Studio 2003 PRO currently sells for.  And
you get access to more than one programming language.  Pretty
> good deal if you need it.>

> Help me get free software at:
http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC
> Good till April 15, 2005


James,

I believe VB Express does not include the ability to create a stand
alone application so that's not a fair comparision. VB Express will not
be a good solution for anyone that wants to distribute their
applications. It's also not available at the moment so we don't know
what will happen with it ultimately. BTW, students can get REALbasic
Standard Academic Edition for $69.95.

Lastly, the comparison of our Pro product to Visual Studio Pro is not a
good one. Visual Studio only compiles for one platform: Windows. And
while REALbasic provides only one language, I wonder how many VB
programmers use the other languages that are a part of Visual Studio?

Geoff Perlman
President and CEO
REAL Software, Inc.

0
geoff
4/6/2005 10:21:07 PM
Hi Jim,

> Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients 
> that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money and 
> the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and 
> applications.

I agree.

Not only that, but I've always hated dealing with all the big 
non-Microsoft vendors. Up until 2001, Microsoft were a dream company to 
deal with. It was XP, and now Longhorn that put me off.

However, regarding desktops and servers; the route I'm looking into now, 
is very powerful servers (e.g. Quad 64bit Sun SPARC with a big-iron 
fibre SAN) This could run Solaris, or if no using Sun hardware, maybe 
something like OpenBSD? There's plenty options for all the web stuff, 
databases, full-text indexing and XML, and it will run a lot faster and 
more stable than Windows 2003, and it would also be easier to migrate to 
other servers and platforms at a later date.

This would cover all the mission critical stuff I need to do and all 
apps would be available world-wide and would run x-platform and x-browser.

The desktop could be something completely unrelated, e.g. one of the 
free Linux builds, but all our apps are web-enabled anyway so I'm not 
sure it would matter much. The problem would arise for when we need to 
use graphics - e.g. a flowchart, but I'm sure we'll find something.

The big piece of the jigsaw that's missing for our corporates internally 
is how to replace Active Directory, all the user accounts and NTFS ACLs 
and also an "Exchange" style mail server. These are areas I have no 
solution for as yet.

-- 
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
0
Gerry
4/6/2005 11:05:18 PM
<geoff@realsoftware.com> wrote in message news:1112826067.968251.182800@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> james wrote:
>
>> Where as , Visual Basic Express , will be sold for $49 and might be
> bundled in some other products (like books maybe) . And
>> having used VB Express Beta1, I can say it is and will be , a great
> product for the price.
>> To get full cross platform capability from RB requires their PRO
> version which sells for almost $500.00.
>> That is more than Visual Studio 2003 PRO currently sells for.  And
> you get access to more than one programming language.  Pretty
>> good deal if you need it.>
>
>> Help me get free software at:
> http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC
>> Good till April 15, 2005
>
>
> James,
>
> I believe VB Express does not include the ability to create a stand
> alone application so that's not a fair comparision. VB Express will not
> be a good solution for anyone that wants to distribute their
> applications. It's also not available at the moment so we don't know
> what will happen with it ultimately. BTW, students can get REALbasic
> Standard Academic Edition for $69.95.

You are correct that VB Express does not include the ability to create stand alone exe's.
But, I have not found that to be as big a problem with current versions of VB as some
people like to think it is.  Most end-users of an app, will (using a properly setup installer)
never notice wheather or not an application they install is a stand alone or has other files
included for it to run.
And I shouldn't have compared RB Standard to VB Express, which is not available , except
in Beta.  Instead I should have used VB 2003 Standard which is available from Amazon.com
for $89.00.   And the Academic Edition is cheaper too, $49.00 thru ccvsoftware.com.


> Lastly, the comparison of our Pro product to Visual Studio Pro is not a
> good one. Visual Studio only compiles for one platform: Windows. And
> while REALbasic provides only one language, I wonder how many VB
> programmers use the other languages that are a part of Visual Studio?
>
> Geoff Perlman
> President and CEO
> REAL Software, Inc.


Yes, RB PRO does compile for more than one platform, which is my main reason for being interested in it in the first place.  And 
also why I jumped on the chance to try the Standard version, and then after receiving the promotional email, try to get others 
to download the "currently" free Standard Edition, in hopes of
getting a chance to win a copy of the PRO version to better test the cross-platform abilities of RB.
The Standard version does compile to other OS's but, because of the 5 minute runtime limit, it is not suffecient to test an app 
properly in another OS. ( in my case Linux, using KDE)  Hence, my trying to get others to download the Standard edition.  Which, 
I have stated in another post I got flamed for, even though I made sure to put OT in the Subject line.
That does not mean I have completely given up on RB.  But, looking thru comp.lang.basic.realbasic, I have read a lot of posts 
about the short-comings of RB compared to VB6.  Maybe, the next version will address those issues. If so, then, I will be more 
interested in it.  That does not mean I will stop using VB6 or VB.NET (or other languages for that matter) as I believe in using 
the correct tool for the job.  And for one prospective client, I had hopes that RB would fill that need.  I need to build an app 
that will work both in Windows XP & Linux ( Redhat Fedora Core 3 & KDE) and would like to use something that is familiar to me 
in both enviroments.  RB, might be it.  But, short of me winning a copy of RB PRO, I will have to at least for now, write the 
demo app in two different Basic IDE's.  Gambas for Linux and VB.NET 2003 for Windows XP.  ( I cannot afford to spend a lot to 
find out that the potential client has changed his mind).
And before I get too carried away, I have used some of those other languages in Visual Studio besides VB, at one time or 
another.  Which made it worth the money I paid for Visual Studio at the time.
james


Download & register ,RealBasic Standard Edition and  help me win free software at: 
http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC
Free download good till April 15, 2005




0
james
4/6/2005 11:10:34 PM
Jim Hubbard wrote:
> 
> Now, REALbasic still has some growing to do.  Don't expect it to be anything 
> except REALbasic.
> 

yay, another REALbasic advocacy thread! whoopdiedoo

-- 
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.
0
C
4/7/2005 9:02:18 AM
On 6 Apr 2005 15:21:07 -0700, geoff@realsoftware.com wrote:


� I believe VB Express does not include the ability to create a stand
� alone application so that's not a fair comparision. VB Express will not
� be a good solution for anyone that wants to distribute their
� applications. It's also not available at the moment so we don't know
� what will happen with it ultimately. BTW, students can get REALbasic
� Standard Academic Edition for $69.95.
� 
� Lastly, the comparison of our Pro product to Visual Studio Pro is not a
� good one. Visual Studio only compiles for one platform: Windows. And
� while REALbasic provides only one language, I wonder how many VB
� programmers use the other languages that are a part of Visual Studio?

It's all about choice. While we may not use more than one language we do have a choice. We also have
a choice with respect to other features, such as the development of components for distributed
applications and shared code libraries, the development of web applications and services - choices
notably absent from REALBasic.

While touting the advantage of a multi-platform development tool I think it's also important to note
that this feature is not particularly significant with respect to demand. The cost to support
multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.

 
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
0
Paul
4/7/2005 6:42:51 PM
Jim Hubbard wrote:
> "Aaron Smith" <thespirit-1-@smithcentral.net> wrote in message 
> news:ksU4e.19665$DW.2522@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> 
>>Jim Hubbard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>VB6 runtimes will not be supported on Longhorn.  So, if you keep using 
>>>the VB6 tools, your audience dwindles to nothing.  Can't do that.
>>
>>So Microsoft has been lying about the VB6 runtime being included in 
>>Longhorn and supported? I think not..
> 
> 
> I hadn't seen anything from Microsoft indicating support of the VB6 runtime 
> in Longhorn.  And, since you did not feel the need to back up your statement 
> with a link - I went on a fact-finding mission to see if Microsoft said 
> anything like this on their website.
> 
> After searching for over an hour, I finally found somebody at Microsoft that 
> says (via his blog - not on an official Visual Basic page on the Microsoft 
> website) that the VB6 runtime will be shipped with Longhorn and supported 
> for the lifecycle of Longhorn.  Read it here - http://blogs.msdn.com/JRoxe/.
> 
> I doubt this is the reference that you had in mind as it was just posted 
> yesterday. Could you please post your Microsoft references?  I am curious as 
> to when this was first stated openly by Microsoft.  Was it yesterday, or did 
> I miss something earlier (which could also be the case).

Official comment from Eric Rudder at Microsoft:
'We have heard a large number of folks ask for VB6 runtime support on 
Longhorn. We will do this. We will also continue to monitor how this 
situation is working and make sure it works as smoothly as possible. For 
VBA, we will continue to have support in "Office 12."'

Via a microsoft chat: 
http://msdn.microsoft.com/chats/transcripts/vstudio/05_0318_VS05.aspx

This is nothing new. I've heard this for quite a while...

> That's just great.  Whenever a company doesn't want to do anything about a 
> problem, but they want the bad press and problem to go away, they send out 
> the talkers.  I'm tired of talking.  FIX THE DAMNED ISSUE BY PUTTING 
> UNMANAGED VB6 SUPPORT INTO THE VISUAL STUDIO IDE!  Nothing else is going to 
> make this go away.

Never going to happen. I personally don't want it to happen. If the apps 
run for the next 5 years, that will be long enough for me to convert my 
customers over to .Net. Most of my customer's are just now upgrading to 
XP, so I really won't have to worry about it for a long time, if at all. 
By the time they start to migrate to Longhorn, they will need to upgrade 
our software too.. Selling upgrades and new features in software is what 
makes us money. If a customer buys it and wants to use it for 15 years, 
that's fine, but we only make money on that initial sale and then 
support contracts. I'd rather sell them better software with more 
features every few years plus the support contracts.

> 
> You did it for C++, and you can do it for classic Visual Basic......the 
> question is will you?  Or, will you continue to walk away from the largest 
> army of programmers the world has ever seen......the people that made you 
> great?
> 

Don't compare C++ to Visual Basic.

> Speaking of going away, I am setting up my Novell Linux box and MAC today to 
> do more thorough testing of REALbasic.  Looks like fun.  At least I won't 
> have to worry about Microsoft abandoning me if I finally choose the 
> MAC/Linux/REALbasic route.  (Go to www.realbasic.com for your FREE copy of 
> REALbasic 5.5 standard until April 15, 2005.)
> 
> There is one thing, and only one thing, that will get Microsoft's attention. 
> Mass defection to Linux/MAC and a different programming language.  They have 
> forgotten that the customer is always right.  And, only something big will 
> drive that point home for them.
> 
> Although that sounds quite radical, it is no more radical than the change 
> that classic Visual Basic developers already have to go through with 
> Microsoft.  And, you will at least be the partial master of your own destiny 
> then.....not a gnat to be swatted by the monopolistic hand of Microsoft.
> 

So, let me get this straight... You would rather spend your time and 
your customer's money by downgrading them to real basic, than upgrading 
them to a .Net language? Especially when that company is really small in 
comparison to Microsoft? Hmm... If I were your customer, I'd be pissed 
and running from you.

> And, it's much cheaper than the Microsoft solutions.  Only $89.95 for a 
> COMPLETE desktop in Novell Linux (SUSE) 9.2 Professional.  That includes 
> Open Office, free email clients, free IM clients, free photo editing 
> clients......really everything you need for day-to-day operations in most 
> businesses.  Contrast that to XP Professional at $279.99 (for a new install) 
> and Office Professional 2003 at $499.99 and the $89.95 option is at least 
> worth a test drive.
> 
> The $780 for basic daily activities with a Microsoft desktop is more than 
> the hardware needed to run it......twice as much as the hardware for a 
> simple business workstation.  And, for what?  So we can say we work on a 
> Windows desktop?  Who gives a rat's ass what desktop is in place as long as 
> I can accomplish my daily job of making more, cheaper and better widgets to 
> sell.

You get what you pay for.

> 
> Most company's don't get paid because they are using Microsoft 
> products.....they get paid to deliver goods and services, and their clients 
> really don't care what OS or desktop the company uses internally.  Come to 
> think of it.....neither do the workers.

Really? What market are you in? In ours, it matters. In fact, some IT 
departments kicked us out before we switched to VB because they didn't 
want non-Microsoft products in house. The same went for MySQL. Open 
source? No way.. They were having none of that.... And the workers want 
to get their job done. If they can't, they get fired. Try putting a 
linux desktop in an manufacturing environment. It won't last. I've seen 
it happen.

> 
> So, who does care (besides Microsoft, of course)?

I personally don't really care what happens to VB6 at this point. I've 
started to upgrade my skills from it to VB.Net, because I saw the need. 
My customers need more advanced features and better support for newer 
technologies. I can do that and stay with Microsoft by moving everything 
to VB.Net, or even C# if I wanted to.

I look at this as an opportunity, not a hinderance.

-- 
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks.
0
Aaron
4/7/2005 8:53:50 PM
"Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:25udnSWM8-ZUA8jfRVn-> These links were chosen to show that the 
adoption of Linus is not new and is
> not slowing.  If you'd like more let me know.

<Snipped links>

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Don't worry....it'll be fun.  I promise.
>
>>The cost to support
>> multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.
>
> Again, you are right.
>
> In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly.  This, for the most part, negated any potential gains from 
> supporting Linux or MAC operating systems.
>
> But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software.  Just click and run on a different OS.  There is no additional 
> development required. Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute your app on and click "Build".
>
> REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected. Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be 
> any easier than that.
>
> Jim Hubbard


Jim, you do know that several of those links you posted are the same article don't you?  And some are almost 2 years old.  And 
if you read those articles, it clearly states that Linux is not any cheaper than Windows from a support standpoint.
As for RealBasic and cross-platform support, have you tested it?  Having downloaded the Free standard version, I can say that in 
the case of a simple app, that RB will compile to Linux (haven't tested on Mac).
But, not being able to build a complicated app and fully test it in Linux (due to the 5 minute time limit in the Standard 
edition) I cannot say for sure how well Linux or Mac OS is supported.  So, if you are like me and have not used the PRO version 
of RB, I would think it would not be a good idea to make a broad statement on how easy to develop a cross-platform application 
using RB is.   You cannot (or should I say , I cannot) fully stress test an application in 5 minutes in a different OS than it 
was developed in and be certain that you/I will not have problems.
My final questions to you is why are you spending so much time on bashing Microsoft over all this? If you have decided to 
migrate to Linux and leave Microsoft products behind, why are you still posting on all these different newsgroups?  Wouldn't it 
be better to get up to speed on RealBasic and Linux?
Just a few thoughts and my .02 and worth exactly what you paid for them...........
james



0
james
4/7/2005 11:33:21 PM
REALbasic does support building service applications in the
professional version, and you can also build web applications (although
a feature code-named Swordfish that has been announced for a future
version will make it much easier). If you want to know how to create an
HTTP server in REALbasic in less than 100 lines of code, I have an
article published by O'Reilly available here:
<http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2004/11/19/realbasic.html>. You
can also write Apache CGIs in REALbasic. Unfortunately, I can't seem to
locate the example online right now, but if you're interested in an
example CGI, feel free to email me off-list and I'll send you the
sample code.

Hope this helps,
Jon


-- 
Jonathan Johnson
REAL Software, Inc.

0
Jonathan
4/8/2005 1:07:05 AM
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.
0
Aaron
4/8/2005 12:35:24 PM
in article gUu5e.30998$hU7.6827@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com, Aaron Smith at
thespirit-1-@smithcentral.net wrote on 8/4/05 1:35 pm:

> It's the same thing with every OS you look at. Does a lot of the older Mac
> software run on OS X?

Yes. I still have to see one which doesn't.

> Some do.. 

Some??????

> but not all.. 

Which ones?

> 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.

Trust is earned, not given away.

Might be me but your remarks don't particularly inspire trust.

Markus

0
Markus
4/8/2005 1:17:34 PM
On 7 Apr 2005 18:07:05 -0700, "Jonathan  Johnson" <jonathanj@gmail.com> wrote:

� REALbasic does support building service applications in the
� professional version, and you can also build web applications (although
� a feature code-named Swordfish that has been announced for a future
� version will make it much easier). If you want to know how to create an
� HTTP server in REALbasic in less than 100 lines of code, I have an
� article published by O'Reilly available here:
� <http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2004/11/19/realbasic.html>. You
� can also write Apache CGIs in REALbasic. Unfortunately, I can't seem to
� locate the example online right now, but if you're interested in an
� example CGI, feel free to email me off-list and I'll send you the
� sample code.

I was referring to web services and web applications. I didn't see support for either in REALBasic.
If I missed it you may want to point it out on your web site.

Actually it might help if you could provide a bit more detail with respect to features on your web
site. I realize that this stuff can be downloaded, but some folks may not want to do this. A FAQ
would help as well in answering questions such as "Does REALBasic support 3rd Party ActiveX
controls?"


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
0
Paul
4/8/2005 4:43:08 PM
Paul Clement wrote:
> I was referring to web services and web applications. I didn't see
support for either in REALBasic.
> If I missed it you may want to point it out on your web site.

REALbasic doesn't limit you to what you can develop. It has a TCPSocket
class, and using the TCPSocket you can build basically any internet
application. While there are not built in templates (yet) to do that,
people have accomplished it.

>From our in-depth page
(<http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/indepth/>), it does show that
we support calling SOAP natively, and if you search a little on some
third party websites like <http://www.rbgarage.com/>, you can find some
RPC classes.

I didn't realize you were interested in web service applications, sorry
about that. I also have an example that if you're interested I can
email anyone offlist. It is based on the HTTP Server in my article I
mentioned previously, but provides a small framework for responding to
incomding SOAP queries.

> Actually it might help if you could provide a bit more detail with
respect to features on your web
> site. I realize that this stuff can be downloaded, but some folks may
not want to do this. A FAQ
> would help as well in answering questions such as "Does REALBasic
support 3rd Party ActiveX
> controls?"

While I understand your point, that one is actually on our website :)
It's listed under Windows-Specific Technologies on the in-depth page
mentioned above.

With that said, we are in the middle of designing a new website and are
looking at ways to help answer questions. Since my intent of replying
on this list isn't to do marketing, I don't want to go in-depth about
REALbasic's feature set on-list. However, if you, or anyone else, are
interested about the presence of a particular feature in REALbasic,
feel free to reply to me off-list, and I will answer any questions you
may have. If you feel there is something that needs to be changed or
improved upon, we are also interested in hearing that. We value
everyone's feedback.

Thanks,
Jon


-- 
Jonathan Johnson
REAL Software, Inc.

0
Jonathan
4/8/2005 8:20:30 PM
"Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message
news:cKWdnUVnKoB-Rs7fRVn-sA@giganews.com...
> The IDE is only the tip of the iceberg.  Breaking backwards compatibility
> and the ridiculous cost of the Microsoft OS and software ($500 for Office
> 2003 pro - give me a break)

    I was told the Office is $495 because that's the maximum amount most
first line managers can expense without approval from higher up.


0
James
4/8/2005 9:20:11 PM
Jim Hubbard wrote:
> But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software.  Just click 
> and run on a different OS.  There is no additional development required. 
> Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute your app 
> on and click "Build".
> 
> REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected. 
> Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be any easier than 
> that.

Whoa, Jim... you apparently don't use REALbasic a lot!

After a year porting a large application, I can tell you that it isn't 
that simple for platforms -- and I disagree with a lot of what you imply 
about RB. I use the tool a lot and just spent a few hours today dealing 
with some "issues" relating to RB and how well it does/doesn't play with 
other devices and software.

If you care at all about GUI guidelines, you have to create windows that 
reflect the platforms. Users come to expect certain behaviors on each. 
Even "OK" and "Cancel" are in a different order on the Mac than the 
Windows platform. Users do notice, so you have to spend time creating 
custom classes or code that changes things.

RB supports different controls on different platforms. Want a toolbar? 
Better be using a Mac.

The EditField renders improperly on Windows -- Real has yet to deal with 
the fact Windows assumes 96px vs 72px on the Mac. As a result, 12-point 
text is actually 10-point on the PC. Slick, guys, really slick.  It 
means you have to do your own gymnastics to get this right. (Read the RB 
NUG mailing list archives.)

You'll need to use a fair number of plug-ins, in my experience, to come 
even close to basic VB features. Open your checkbook, or do without. So 
far, I'm not anywhere near the feature set I am used to from my 
VB/Delphi days.

MySQL 4.1/5.x uses a new password scheme, for better security... except 
you cannot use it with RB. You are forced to use the older, shorter 
passwords until this is fixed. So, a client upgrades a server for 
security (ours did), and you come crashing down until you read the RB 
NUG archives. Blech.

Data grids... read the current threads on the NUG -- the grids are not 
ready for prime time. They are "listbox" controls with no where near the 
features found in VB or Delphi. (See previous posts on this.)

I could go on for quite a bit. You have HID hardware? You're out of luck 
on the Mac, but there are Active X controls for the PC. So much for 
crossplatform. What's HID? Try some USB barcode printers, cash drawers, 
medical devices, joysticks (feedback style), tablets (for artists), and 
more. Oh, well... didn't really want to use my Mac for any of those 
things. (Yeah, right! I'm still looking for solutions.)

Don't even imagine RB as a solution that doesn't break. They updated 
from 5.2 to 5.5 and along the way broke a number of third-party tools I 
use -- including a slightly better data grid and a good calendar control 
I like a lot.

On the Mac side, when Apple does an update, things do break. I've had 
FireWire drives stop working, a PowerBook trackpad started taking 
vacations, and a G3 developed random boot issues that required a 
firmware update. None of these were major issues at all -- easy to fix, 
easy to handle -- but they illustrate that computers are complex beasts.

Think you are escaping DLL hell with RB? No way. For joystick support, 
you have to locate Apple's HID.bundle folder and place it in your 
application's folder. I've already had one app replace HID.bundle with 
an older copy. That was nice.

If you use Active X, you'll still have DLL problems on Windows, too. If 
you use anything with a DLL, you have to worry about it no matter your 
language of choice.

No one is taking my Mac from me, that's for sure. I just put another PC 
out to pasture today. But don't think RB is anywhere near what VB or 
Delphi is. You will hit brick walls and learn to work around them. The 
people on the RB NUG list are great at offering solutions, when they 
can. Problem for me is that the solutions are to problems that shouldn't 
exist.

I use RB and plan to learn Cocoa over the summer... or at least start 
learning it. I am not going to sacrifice program quality for the sake of 
being cross platfrom or for some unreasonable desire to stay with BASIC. 
Porting means rewriting code no matter what, anyway.

- Scott
0
Scott
4/9/2005 7:32:36 AM
Scott Wyatt wrote:
> If you care at all about GUI guidelines, you have to create windows
that
> reflect the platforms. Users come to expect certain behaviors on
each.
> Even "OK" and "Cancel" are in a different order on the Mac than the
> Windows platform. Users do notice, so you have to spend time creating

> custom classes or code that changes things.

I wouldn't go as drastic as creating a new window for each platform.
REALbasic has a good constants system that allows you to specify a
constant that will let you associate a value with a particular
platform. I generally just use those to move the OK/Cancel buttons
around.

But I agree, making your app feel right on all platforms takes some
consideration.

> RB supports different controls on different platforms. Want a
toolbar?
> Better be using a Mac.

Or, use one of the many freely available third party controls that work
cross-platform.

> The EditField renders improperly on Windows -- Real has yet to deal
with
> the fact Windows assumes 96px vs 72px on the Mac. As a result,
12-point
> text is actually 10-point on the PC. Slick, guys, really slick.  It
> means you have to do your own gymnastics to get this right. (Read the
RB
> NUG mailing list archives.)

Well, the problem is actually that we are accounting for it, not that
we ignore it. This was a "feature" from back in REALbasic 2.x  when
Windows support was first introduced. It basically ensured that
relative to control size and window size, the application would look
the same on Windows and Mac. This was actually rather good back in the
day for people who were writing on the Mac and wanted to deploy on
Windows, they're apps basically looked the same.

However, we realize that we need to solve this in a different, better
way. All I can say is that we have it scheduled for a future release.

> MySQL 4.1/5.x uses a new password scheme, for better security...
except
> you cannot use it with RB. You are forced to use the older, shorter
> passwords until this is fixed. So, a client upgrades a server for
> security (ours did), and you come crashing down until you read the RB

> NUG archives. Blech.

Unfortunately, MySQL also changed the licensing scheme which is making
it more difficult to release a plugin legally. We are working on this,
however, and when the plugin is updated, since it is separate from the
product, you will be free to use it in older versions.

> I could go on for quite a bit. You have HID hardware? You're out of
luck
> on the Mac, but there are Active X controls for the PC. So much for
> crossplatform. What's HID? Try some USB barcode printers, cash
drawers,
> medical devices, joysticks (feedback style), tablets (for artists),
and
> more. Oh, well... didn't really want to use my Mac for any of those
> things. (Yeah, right! I'm still looking for solutions.)

(Snip)

> Think you are escaping DLL hell with RB? No way. For joystick
support,
> you have to locate Apple's HID.bundle folder and place it in your
> application's folder. I've already had one app replace HID.bundle
with
> an older copy. That was nice.

REALbasic provides "GameInput" classes which work cross platform to
provide access to HID devices. It appears you have used those on the
Mac, because that's what the HID.bundle is for.

As for the bundle -- on the Mac, you can use a free utility like Thomas
Reed's AppBundler (<http://www.bitjuggler.com/products/appbundler/>) to
package your application as a bundle, and place the HID.bundle inside
of it. This is a unique case for REALbasic, because Apple provided the
extra HID support as a separate distributable as opposed to being built
into the system.

If you need help getting down and dirty with the IOKit on OS X for
two-way interaction with HID devices, feel free to email me off list
and I'll point you in the right direction.

> Don't even imagine RB as a solution that doesn't break. They updated
> from 5.2 to 5.5 and along the way broke a number of third-party tools
I
> use -- including a slightly better data grid and a good calendar
control
> I like a lot.

We work with plugin authors to help ensure that things don't break. We
have plugin authors already announcing support for REALbasic 2005.
Sometimes plugins do break and fixes aren't available immediately, but
as with any major upgrade, I suggest trying the new version first to
make sure it works with you. We try extremely hard to maintain
backwards compatibility with older projects. In our examples download,
there are examples that haven't been touched in nearly 6 years.

> If you use Active X, you'll still have DLL problems on Windows, too.
If
> you use anything with a DLL, you have to worry about it no matter
your
> language of choice.

Correct. Our message is that we don't rely on packaging applications
with DLLs, which means that unless you're using declares or external
resources (like ActiveX), you won't need to worry about DLL hell. (The
above example of the HID.bundle is the only case that I can think of in
which the application cannot be built into one file, due to Apple's
decision to package that functionality the way it is)

-Jon


--
Jonathan Johnson
REAL Software, Inc.

0
Jonathan
4/9/2005 12:34:54 PM
"Scott Wyatt" <tameri@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:3ZadnWuyjLeOGMrfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> Jim Hubbard wrote:
>> But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software.  Just 
>> click and run on a different OS.  There is no additional development 
>> required. Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to 
>> distribute your app on and click "Build".
>>
>> REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected. 
>> Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be any easier than 
>> that.
>
> Whoa, Jim... you apparently don't use REALbasic a lot!

Correct.  I am new to REALbasic.

I hev read your issues with REALbasic and will certainly keep them in mind 
as I play with the beta.

>
> No one is taking my Mac from me, that's for sure. I just put another PC 
> out to pasture today. But don't think RB is anywhere near what VB or 
> Delphi is.

I agree.  But, they didn't try and be cross-platform.  Writing a coding 
platform that is platform specific is a world easier than trying to develop 
a true cross-platform development environment.....so, I'm apt to be a little 
more patient.

> You will hit brick walls and learn to work around them. The people on the 
> RB NUG list are great at offering solutions, when they can. Problem for me 
> is that the solutions are to problems that shouldn't exist.

We shouldn't have problems porting larger VB6 apps to VB.Net that results in 
rewrites most of the time, and there's no work-around for that - from 
anyone - at this time.

>
> I use RB and plan to learn Cocoa over the summer... or at least start 
> learning it. I am not going to sacrifice program quality for the sake of 
> being cross platfrom or for some unreasonable desire to stay with BASIC. 
> Porting means rewriting code no matter what, anyway.

I also agree.  While the BASIC-like syntax is convenient, it is no basis 
from which to choose a platform.  You must choose a platform based on the 
ability to deliver the functionality required by your clients and the 
stability of the platform (i.e. how well does the environment treat its 
older code base?).

Thanks for your views on REALbasic.  Have you tested these issues in the 
newest beta?



0
Jim
4/9/2005 2:07:29 PM
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:33:21 -0500, james wrote:

> "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:25udnSWM8-ZUA8jfRVn-> These links were chosen to show that the 
> adoption of Linus is not new and is
>> not slowing.  If you'd like more let me know.
> 
> <Snipped links>
> 
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Don't worry....it'll be fun.  I promise.
>>
>>>The cost to support
>>> multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.
>>
>> Again, you are right.
>>
>> In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly.  This, for the most part, negated any potential gains from 
>> supporting Linux or MAC operating systems.
>>
>> But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software.  Just click and run on a different OS.  There is no additional 
>> development required. Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute your app on and click "Build".
>>
>> REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected. Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be 
>> any easier than that.
>>
>> Jim Hubbard
> 
> 
> Jim, you do know that several of those links you posted are the same article don't you?  And some are almost 2 years old.  And 
> if you read those articles, it clearly states that Linux is not any cheaper than Windows from a support standpoint.
> As for RealBasic and cross-platform support, have you tested it?  Having downloaded the Free standard version, I can say that in 
> the case of a simple app, that RB will compile to Linux (haven't tested on Mac).
> But, not being able to build a complicated app and fully test it in Linux (due to the 5 minute time limit in the Standard 
> edition) I cannot say for sure how well Linux or Mac OS is supported.  So, if you are like me and have not used the PRO version 
> of RB, I would think it would not be a good idea to make a broad statement on how easy to develop a cross-platform application 
> using RB is.   You cannot (or should I say , I cannot) fully stress test an application in 5 minutes in a different OS than it 
> was developed in and be certain that you/I will not have problems.
> My final questions to you is why are you spending so much time on bashing Microsoft over all this? If you have decided to 
> migrate to Linux and leave Microsoft products behind, why are you still posting on all these different newsgroups?  Wouldn't it 
> be better to get up to speed on RealBasic and Linux?
> Just a few thoughts and my .02 and worth exactly what you paid for them...........
> james

James,
I've ported one of our VB apps to RealBasic in the interest of making it
more portable. The idea was to not require the VB runtimes to be installed,
and this works very well. The final exe is a bit large, but still not as
large as the VB exe and it's runtimes together. Anyway, just for fun I
compiled the program to Linux, and loandbehold, the thing ran, and for the
most part worked. That's where the kicker is, it didn't work completely as
it did in Windows. The StaticText and Caption on controls would no longer
fit in the respective field sizes. I understand that there are font
differences and such between different OS's but it does require adjustment,
my point here. As well a control array in a GroupBox didn't function
properly, again some more tweaking. Now this was simply a matter of
compiling code that works in Windows and compiling to Linux, with no
further consideration, so I'm sure more work needed to be done, but again,
my point is that it is not as simple as just setting some compiler options. 
I really kinda like RealBasic though, just wish it were'nt so Mac oriented,
although I do realize that's it's roots.

-- 
HK
0
H
4/12/2005 2:36:50 PM
"H-Man" <I-Hate@Spam.sucks> wrote in message news:sdyz8rq3vhqh$.8xxc9op9plmw$.dlg@40tude.net...
> James,
> I've ported one of our VB apps to RealBasic in the interest of making it
> more portable. The idea was to not require the VB runtimes to be installed,
> and this works very well. The final exe is a bit large, but still not as
> large as the VB exe and it's runtimes together. Anyway, just for fun I
> compiled the program to Linux, and loandbehold, the thing ran, and for the
> most part worked. That's where the kicker is, it didn't work completely as
> it did in Windows. The StaticText and Caption on controls would no longer
> fit in the respective field sizes. I understand that there are font
> differences and such between different OS's but it does require adjustment,
> my point here. As well a control array in a GroupBox didn't function
> properly, again some more tweaking. Now this was simply a matter of
> compiling code that works in Windows and compiling to Linux, with no
> further consideration, so I'm sure more work needed to be done, but again,
> my point is that it is not as simple as just setting some compiler options.
> I really kinda like RealBasic though, just wish it were'nt so Mac oriented,
> although I do realize that's it's roots.
>
> -- 
> HK

Thanks for the info.  I think you could probably make those changes for the different OS's the same way
Jim did in his example for File I/O using the #TargetBoolean to have the compiler output the correct options for the targeted 
OS.  I have not done much testing with the Standard Version that I downloaded as I feel the 5 minute run time for Linux & Mac OS 
are too short for me to fully evaluate and test anything.  Sure, something as simple as a Form's Caption should show up right 
away, but, things much deeper in an application may not show up as quickly or be as obvious.  I guess I will wait and see if I 
manage to be in the top 100 people who manage to get others to follow their personalized links. If that happens, then I might be 
able to do some better tests with the PRO version or even RB 2005.
Good luck and I hope that RB is all you hope it is and need.
james


Only a few days left to Download and get a FREE License for Real Basic Standard Edition!!!
Offer expires April 15, 2005 .
Go here for your copy:   http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC

 


0
james
4/12/2005 4:49:55 PM
In article <orWdnWOWPvwpTc7fRVn-sQ@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
> 
> "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message 
> news:6K6dnSlXduanIM7fRVn-rA@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/microsoft.public.msdn.general/browse_thread/thread/9d7e8f9a00c1c7da/459ca99eb0e7c328?q=%22Proposed+MSDN+subscription+changes%22&rnum=1#459ca99eb0e7c328
>>
>> 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.
> 

You need to do your reasearch....  Mono runs on way more platfroms than
REALbasic.  And even supports VB.NET - though, that is still not fully
operational, though should be by the end of this year.

Here are the current supported OS's for Mono:
Linux, Windows (2K and up), OSX, BSD, Solaris

-- 
Tom Shelton [MVP]
0
Tom
4/13/2005 7:44:08 PM
In article <ON6dnceX-OqXz8nfRVn-hw@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
> 
> "Ron Ruble" <raffles2@att.net> wrote in message 
> news:19S4e.48058$cg1.39628@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Jim Hubbard wrote:
>>> "Brian Henry" <brianiupmsdn@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message 
>>> news:Oiz4ZWqOFHA.1932@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is 
>>>>really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do 
>>>>it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the 
>>>>.NET framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you 
>>>>dont want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio 
>>>>doesn't mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get 
>>>>the .NET framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE 
>>>>if you need a graphical experience also.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be 
>>> competitive with other .Net development shops.
>>>
>>> The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's 
>>> development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy. 
>>> That puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.
>>
>> That may not always be true. With sufficient numbers of
>> developers jumping ship, that adds a significant incentive
>> to make better 3rd party IDEs faster. Also, while those
>> who -copy- MS tend to be inferior, there are a number
>> of third parties who offer superior features that use
>> a different idea of how to do things.
> 
> I wish this were the case.  But, it seems that no other company has put 2 
> and 2 together yet.....
> 
> Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients 
> that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money and 
> the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and 
> applications.
> 
> You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE), Mandrake, 
> even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and you don't have to lie and 
> say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft.  The thing 
> they are missing is an easy way to develop applications (like Visual Basic 
> was for Microsoft).

You really have no idea what your talking about...  The fact is, I can
be pretty productive using Mono+C#+Glade# on my Gentoo linux box.  And
once they get mbas fully up to speed, then I can use Mono+VB.NET+Glade#.

-- 
Tom Shelton [MVP]
0
Tom
4/13/2005 7:48:33 PM
"Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message 
news:OCmiHHGQFHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In article <ON6dnceX-OqXz8nfRVn-hw@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:

<snip>

>> Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients
>> that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money 
>> and
>> the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and
>> applications.
>>
>> You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE), 
>> Mandrake,
>> even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and you don't have to lie and
>> say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft.  The thing
>> they are missing is an easy way to develop applications (like Visual 
>> Basic
>> was for Microsoft).
>
> You really have no idea what your talking about...  The fact is, I can
> be pretty productive using Mono+C#+Glade# on my Gentoo linux box.  And
> once they get mbas fully up to speed, then I can use Mono+VB.NET+Glade#.

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.

    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 


0
Jim
4/13/2005 10:56:13 PM
"Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message 
news:eWdSpEGQFHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In article <orWdnWOWPvwpTc7fRVn-sQ@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
>>
>> "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message
>> news:6K6dnSlXduanIM7fRVn-rA@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/microsoft.public.msdn.general/browse_thread/thread/9d7e8f9a00c1c7da/459ca99eb0e7c328?q=%22Proposed+MSDN+subscription+changes%22&rnum=1#459ca99eb0e7c328
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> You need to do your reasearch....  Mono runs on way more platfroms than
> REALbasic.

Are you saying that Mono puts out exe's for all supported platforms with a 
single set of source code and a single compile like REALbasic does?

I haven't really been attracted to Mono because of the syntax.  I just don't 
like it.  And, I don;t like the idea of always playing catch=up with 
Microsoft.  Mono should make a clean break with Microsoft and 
innovate.....but, then it may lose it's ability to play well with .Net.

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.

>And even supports VB.NET - though, that is still not fully
> operational, though should be by the end of this year.

I'd love to take a look at it.  Hopefully it gets more back to the RAD IDE 
that wa classic Visual Basic.

> 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.  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?

REALbasic has a great support team.

Jim Hubbard 


0
Jim
4/13/2005 11:05:53 PM
In article <ELednQe-bYJcPsDfRVn-gg@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
> 
> "Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message 
> news:OCmiHHGQFHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> In article <ON6dnceX-OqXz8nfRVn-hw@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
> 
><snip>
> 
>>> Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients
>>> that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money 
>>> and
>>> the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE), 
>>> Mandrake,
>>> even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and you don't have to lie and
>>> say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft.  The thing
>>> they are missing is an easy way to develop applications (like Visual 
>>> Basic
>>> was for Microsoft).
>>
>> You really have no idea what your talking about...  The fact is, I can
>> be pretty productive using Mono+C#+Glade# on my Gentoo linux box.  And
>> once they get mbas fully up to speed, then I can use Mono+VB.NET+Glade#.
> 
> 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.
> 

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]
0
Tom
4/13/2005 11:09:07 PM
In article <9PGdnfByK_WZO8DfRVn-rg@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
> 
> "Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message 
> news:eWdSpEGQFHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> In article <orWdnWOWPvwpTc7fRVn-sQ@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
>>>
>>> "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message
>>> news:6K6dnSlXduanIM7fRVn-rA@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/microsoft.public.msdn.general/browse_thread/thread/9d7e8f9a00c1c7da/459ca99eb0e7c328?q=%22Proposed+MSDN+subscription+changes%22&rnum=1#459ca99eb0e7c328
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> You need to do your reasearch....  Mono runs on way more platfroms than
>> REALbasic.
> 
> Are you saying that Mono puts out exe's for all supported platforms with a 
> single set of source code and a single compile like REALbasic does?
> 

Yes...  In fact, for the most part an exe compiled in VS will run on
linux under mono and a exe compiled with mono will run on windows under
..net.  There are exceptions - some classes and namespaces that haven't
been fully implemented yet (most notably, system.windows.forms - which
is also comming at the end of this year).

> I haven't really been attracted to Mono because of the syntax.  I just don't 
> like it.  

Well, it's just C# and to be honest, I like C# better anyway :)  But, if
that's not to your liking - the full VB.NET syntax will be available.
There is already a Java implementation (IKVM), and IronPython runs on
..NET and Mono.  There are several language choices on Mono as well as
..NET.

> And, I don;t like the idea of always playing catch=up with 
> Microsoft.  Mono should make a clean break with Microsoft and 
> innovate.....but, then it may lose it's ability to play well with .Net.
> 

Actually, Mono does innovate.  They have tones of libraries of their
own.

> 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.
> 

Same with Mono - since their primary goal is not actually compatability
with .NET.  That is just a side affect of implementing the ECMA/ISO
standard.  The primary goal of Mono is to make Linux development easier.
Compatability, is a secondary goal - primarily to make Linux a more
attractive platform for ISV's.  If you look at the way Mono is deployed,
it is done in 3 stacks...  The mono core that contains all of the
ECMA/ISO stuff (this is pretty much complete), the mono specific stuff
(libaries that are distributed with mono and not with .NET), and the ms
compatability stack.  The ms stack contains stuff like,
System.Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, etc.


>>And even supports VB.NET - though, that is still not fully
>> operational, though should be by the end of this year.
> 
> I'd love to take a look at it.  Hopefully it gets more back to the RAD IDE 
> that wa classic Visual Basic.
> 

Mono, like .NET is not tied to an IDE...  Yes, there is a Mono specific
IDE in the works (MonoDevelop) but it is pretty rough around the edges
at this point....

>> 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.

>  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.
> 

SuSE is begining to ship with Mono as part of the default package as of
9.3 I believe.  SuSE is a paid for distribution from Novell.  So, you
can use Mono and have support.  In fact, many of the new Novell Linux
products are based on Mono.

> Who on the Mono team can we call if we need help today with a project?
> 

You call Novell.  Or you do like you do with VB - you get on the mailing
list, and ask away :)

-- 
Tom Shelton [MVP]
0
Tom
4/13/2005 11:34:47 PM
"Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message 
news:u0mJM3HQFHA.3628@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> In article <ELednQe-bYJcPsDfRVn-gg@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
>> news:OCmiHHGQFHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> In article <ON6dnceX-OqXz8nfRVn-hw@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>> Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 
>>>> ingredients
>>>> that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money
>>>> and
>>>> the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and
>>>> applications.
>>>>
>>>> You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE),
>>>> Mandrake,
>>>> even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and you don't have to lie 
>>>> and
>>>> say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft.  The 
>>>> thing
>>>> they are missing is an easy way to develop applications (like Visual
>>>> Basic
>>>> was for Microsoft).
>>>
>>> You really have no idea what your talking about...  The fact is, I can
>>> be pretty productive using Mono+C#+Glade# on my Gentoo linux box.  And
>>> once they get mbas fully up to speed, then I can use Mono+VB.NET+Glade#.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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]

No problem.  I may have not been clear enough in my postings, and maybe this 
will help clear things up.

Thanks for the questions.

Jim Hubbard 


0
Jim
4/14/2005 12:13:20 AM
"Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message 
news:OIXJiFIQFHA.2748@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

<snip>

>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You need to do your reasearch....  Mono runs on way more platfroms than
>>> REALbasic.
>>
>> Are you saying that Mono puts out exe's for all supported platforms with 
>> a
>> single set of source code and a single compile like REALbasic does?
>>
>
> Yes...  In fact, for the most part an exe compiled in VS will run on
> linux under mono and a exe compiled with mono will run on windows under
> .net.  There are exceptions - some classes and namespaces that haven't
> been fully implemented yet (most notably, system.windows.forms - which
> is also comming at the end of this year).
>

That's good to know.  Thanks for pointing that out.

>> I haven't really been attracted to Mono because of the syntax.  I just 
>> don't
>> like it.
>
> Well, it's just C# and to be honest, I like C# better anyway :)  But, if
> that's not to your liking - the full VB.NET syntax will be available.
> There is already a Java implementation (IKVM), and IronPython runs on
> .NET and Mono.  There are several language choices on Mono as well as
> .NET.

I've been waiting on the VB.Net version.  But, seeing as it has been so 
long, and that the release will be far from the RAD environment that I loved 
with classic Visual Basic, I think it will be quite some time before the 
Mono's VB.Net version is a viable option for me.

>
>> And, I don;t like the idea of always playing catch=up with
>> Microsoft.  Mono should make a clean break with Microsoft and
>> innovate.....but, then it may lose it's ability to play well with .Net.
>>
>
> Actually, Mono does innovate.  They have tones of libraries of their
> own.

Also a good thing.  Developers should be in control of where apps go.....not 
Microsoft - or any single company.

>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Same with Mono - since their primary goal is not actually compatability
> with .NET.

Again...something I did not know....cool.

>That is just a side affect of implementing the ECMA/ISO
> standard.  The primary goal of Mono is to make Linux development easier.
> Compatability, is a secondary goal - primarily to make Linux a more
> attractive platform for ISV's.

I'm all for this!

>If you look at the way Mono is deployed,
> it is done in 3 stacks...  The mono core that contains all of the
> ECMA/ISO stuff (this is pretty much complete), the mono specific stuff
> (libaries that are distributed with mono and not with .NET), and the ms
> compatability stack.  The ms stack contains stuff like,
> System.Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, etc.
>
>
>>>And even supports VB.NET - though, that is still not fully
>>> operational, though should be by the end of this year.
>>
>> I'd love to take a look at it.  Hopefully it gets more back to the RAD 
>> IDE
>> that wa classic Visual Basic.
>>
>
> Mono, like .NET is not tied to an IDE...  Yes, there is a Mono specific
> IDE in the works (MonoDevelop) but it is pretty rough around the edges
> at this point....

I guess this is a major sticking point for me.  I want (and even need) the 
RAD IDE of a classic Visual Basic-like language to keep my productivity at 
its current levels.

VB.Net 2005 is heading back in that direction some, and I am glad.  But, 
I'll reserve final judgement on that implementation until I see the final 
product.

>
>>> 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.

>>  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.
>>
>
> SuSE is begining to ship with Mono as part of the default package as of
> 9.3 I believe.  SuSE is a paid for distribution from Novell.  So, you
> can use Mono and have support.  In fact, many of the new Novell Linux
> products are based on Mono.

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).

>
>> Who on the Mono team can we call if we need help today with a project?
>>
>
> You call Novell.  Or you do like you do with VB - you get on the mailing
> list, and ask away :)

You know....I'm actually working on a little product to make that 
easier......

Thanks for enlightening me on some Mono facts that I was ignorant 
concerning.

Jim Hubbard 


0
Jim
4/14/2005 12:26:00 AM
"Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message news:u0mJM3HQFHA.3628@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





0
james
4/14/2005 5:35:17 AM
On 2005-04-14, james <jjames700@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> "Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message news:u0mJM3HQFHA.3628@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...

-- 
Tom Shelton [MVP]
0
Tom
4/14/2005 7:46:36 AM
On 2005-04-14, Jim Hubbard <reply@groups.please> wrote:
>
> "Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message 
> news:OIXJiFIQFHA.2748@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
><snip>
>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need to do your reasearch....  Mono runs on way more platfroms than
>>>> REALbasic.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that Mono puts out exe's for all supported platforms with 
>>> a
>>> single set of source code and a single compile like REALbasic does?
>>>
>>
>> Yes...  In fact, for the most part an exe compiled in VS will run on
>> linux under mono and a exe compiled with mono will run on windows under
>> .net.  There are exceptions - some classes and namespaces that haven't
>> been fully implemented yet (most notably, system.windows.forms - which
>> is also comming at the end of this year).
>>
>
> That's good to know.  Thanks for pointing that out.
>

No problem.

>>> I haven't really been attracted to Mono because of the syntax.  I just 
>>> don't
>>> like it.
>>
>> Well, it's just C# and to be honest, I like C# better anyway :)  But, if
>> that's not to your liking - the full VB.NET syntax will be available.
>> There is already a Java implementation (IKVM), and IronPython runs on
>> .NET and Mono.  There are several language choices on Mono as well as
>> .NET.
>
> I've been waiting on the VB.Net version.  But, seeing as it has been so 
> long, and that the release will be far from the RAD environment that I loved 
> with classic Visual Basic, I think it will be quite some time before the 
> Mono's VB.Net version is a viable option for me.
>

Here's the things...  If you stick to .NET stuff, then you can actually
deploy VB.NET programs to mono right now.  At that point, it's just IL.
It's really just the mbas compiler that is in need of some work :)

>>
>>> And, I don;t like the idea of always playing catch=up with
>>> Microsoft.  Mono should make a clean break with Microsoft and
>>> innovate.....but, then it may lose it's ability to play well with .Net.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, Mono does innovate.  They have tones of libraries of their
>> own.
>
> Also a good thing.  Developers should be in control of where apps go.....not 
> Microsoft - or any single company.
>

I agree.

>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Same with Mono - since their primary goal is not actually compatability
>> with .NET.
>
> Again...something I did not know....cool.
>
>>That is just a side affect of implementing the ECMA/ISO
>> standard.  The primary goal of Mono is to make Linux development easier.
>> Compatability, is a secondary goal - primarily to make Linux a more
>> attractive platform for ISV's.
>
> I'm all for this!
>

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.

>>If you look at the way Mono is deployed,
>> it is done in 3 stacks...  The mono core that contains all of the
>> ECMA/ISO stuff (this is pretty much complete), the mono specific stuff
>> (libaries that are distributed with mono and not with .NET), and the ms
>> compatability stack.  The ms stack contains stuff like,
>> System.Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, etc.
>>
>>
>>>>And even supports VB.NET - though, that is still not fully
>>>> operational, though should be by the end of this year.
>>>
>>> I'd love to take a look at it.  Hopefully it gets more back to the RAD 
>>> IDE
>>> that wa classic Visual Basic.
>>>
>>
>> Mono, like .NET is not tied to an IDE...  Yes, there is a Mono specific
>> IDE in the works (MonoDevelop) but it is pretty rough around the edges
>> at this point....
>
> I guess this is a major sticking point for me.  I want (and even need) the 
> RAD IDE of a classic Visual Basic-like language to keep my productivity at 
> its current levels.
>
> VB.Net 2005 is heading back in that direction some, and I am glad.  But, 
> I'll reserve final judgement on that implementation until I see the final 
> product.
>
>>
>>>> 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#The_Novell_Role_in_the_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 mono-licensing@novell.com

>>>  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.
>>>
>>
>> SuSE is begining to ship with Mono as part of the default package as of
>> 9.3 I believe.  SuSE is a paid for distribution from Novell.  So, you
>> can use Mono and have support.  In fact, many of the new Novell Linux
>> products are based on Mono.
>
> 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.

>>
>>> Who on the Mono team can we call if we need help today with a project?
>>>
>>
>> You call Novell.  Or you do like you do with VB - you get on the mailing
>> list, and ask away :)
>
> You know....I'm actually working on a little product to make that 
> easier......
>
> Thanks for enlightening me on some Mono facts that I was ignorant 
> concerning.

No Prob.  I'm a big mono fan.

-- 
Tom Shelton [MVP]
0
Tom
4/14/2005 8:01:44 AM
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.

>     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? 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.

-- 
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks.
0
Aaron
4/14/2005 1:56:13 PM
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.

> 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.

> 
> 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?

-- 
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks.
0
Aaron
4/14/2005 2:06:10 PM
"Aaron Smith" <thespirit-1-@smithcentral.net> wrote in message 
news:1Eu7e.1917$HK6.1269@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> 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


0
Jim
4/14/2005 2:41:52 PM
> 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#The_Novell_Role_in_the_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 mono-licensing@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


0
Jim
4/14/2005 3:02:30 PM
"Aaron Smith" <thespirit-1-@smithcentral.net> wrote in message 
news:mNu7e.1925$HK6.1621@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> 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 


0
Jim
4/14/2005 3:06:51 PM
In article <C86dnQ1v3fSmG8PfRVn-sg@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#The_Novell_Role_in_the_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 mono-licensing@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]
0
Tom
4/14/2005 3:29:37 PM
In article <O671WYMQFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Tom Shelton wrote:
> On 2005-04-14, james <jjames700@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message news:u0mJM3HQFHA.3628@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]
0
Tom
4/14/2005 3:31:58 PM
>>>> 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 


0
Jim
4/14/2005 3:40:57 PM
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.
0
Aaron
4/14/2005 3:48:02 PM
"Aaron Smith" <thespirit-1-@smithcentral.net> wrote in message 
news:Sgw7e.1955$HK6.1315@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> 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 


0
Jim
4/14/2005 4:14:32 PM
In article <tZedndAry7WiEsPfRVn-hg@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]
0
Tom
4/14/2005 4:24:02 PM
In article <h7ednWqTOdCACsPfRVn-iQ@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
> 
> "Aaron Smith" <thespirit-1-@smithcentral.net> wrote in message 
> news:Sgw7e.1955$HK6.1315@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> 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]
0
Tom
4/14/2005 4:25:46 PM
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.

0
Philip
4/14/2005 5:00:47 PM
"Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message news:eJRiZcQQFHA.3076@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


0
james
4/14/2005 5:05:27 PM
"Philip Hristov" <phristov83@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/> 

0
Herfried
4/14/2005 5:43:33 PM
"Tom Shelton" <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message 
news:e547d6QQFHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In article <h7ednWqTOdCACsPfRVn-iQ@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron Smith" <thespirit-1-@smithcentral.net> wrote in message
>> news:Sgw7e.1955$HK6.1315@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>> 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


0
Jim
4/14/2005 5:44:37 PM
>> 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/linspire.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php?p_search_text=root&p_li=&p_prod_lvl1=&p_prod_lvl2=&p_cat_lvl1=&p_cat_lvl2=&p_new_search=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 


0
Jim
4/14/2005 5:55:02 PM
"Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message 
news:WYSdnQWx7fCmMcPfRVn-qg@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 


0
Sean
4/14/2005 8:41:17 PM
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.

0
Philip
4/14/2005 8:45:14 PM
"Sean Hederman" <email.jpg@codingsanity.blogspot.com> wrote in message 
news:d3mkhc$o03$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message 
> news:WYSdnQWx7fCmMcPfRVn-qg@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 


0
Jim
4/14/2005 11:15:12 PM
"Philip Hristov" <phristov83@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/> 

0
Herfried
4/14/2005 11:45:12 PM
x"Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message 
news:BPmdnX6bhOEqZMPfRVn-ow@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 


0
Sean
4/15/2005 5:00:15 AM
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.

0
Philip
4/15/2005 8:21:27 AM
"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 


0
Cor
4/15/2005 8:46:18 AM
Cor,

"Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname@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/> 

0
Herfried
4/15/2005 11:47:16 AM
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


0
Cor
4/15/2005 12:08:14 PM
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
0
Scott
4/16/2005 9:24:44 PM
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
0
Gerald
4/17/2005 7:14:43 AM
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.
> 

The joy is, I don't care about Windows... ;)

- Scott
0
Scott
4/18/2005 1:30:06 AM
"Scott Wyatt" <tameri@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:z-2dnR_vtdQCkP7fRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> 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.
>>
>
> The joy is, I don't care about Windows... ;)
>
> - Scott

That'd be nice!  Wish I had that option myself.

Did you see what Microsoft is doing to their customers now?  They are 
putting ads out (print and television) that show Microsoft customers as 
dinosaurs because they haven't bought Microsoft's latest products.

Microsoft is such an overwhelming monopolistic giant, they feel it is OK to 
make fun of their own customers!  Damn!

It's a wonder the company can move at all......with balls that big.

Jim Hubbard


0
Jim
4/18/2005 7:44:57 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Urgent Requirement for """""""""""""""INFORMATICA DEVELOPER"""""""""""""
Hello Partners, How are you ? Please find the requirements below. Title: Database/ETL Developer Duration: 6 months Location: NY Exp: 7+ Locals preferred Database/ETL requirements (Mandatory) Candidate must have worked with financial instruments, preferably Mutual Funds but, Equities are also ok. PL/SQL - packages, Stored procs, Functions, Aggregate functions, Pipelined Functions Informatica 8.6 - especially complex mappings, complex maplets, complex workflows, transformations Oracle 10g/11g Unix/Linux shell scripting ...

Urgent need """""""""""INFORMATICA DEVELOPER"""""""""""""
Hello Partners, How are you ? Please find the requirements below. Title: Database/ETL Developer Duration: 6 months Location: NY Exp: 7+ Locals preferred Database/ETL requirements (Mandatory) Candidate must have worked with financial instruments, preferably Mutual Funds but, Equities are also ok. PL/SQL - packages, Stored procs, Functions, Aggregate functions, Pipelined Functions Informatica 8.6 - especially complex mappings, complex maplets, complex workflows, transformations Oracle 10g/11g Unix/Linux shell scripting Database/ETL requirements (Optional) ...

""""""""""""""""""""""ADD ME""""""""""""""""""""
Hi , Hope you are doing great. Please let me take this opportunity to introduce myself, Iam Karthik working with BhanInfo Inc, a NY based company. We have consultants on our bench on various technologies, my request is to add me to your distribution list and kindly do send me the requirements. i have the below list available 1. Mainframe 2. Java 3.. Financial Analyst 4. Data Architect If there is any vendor ship agreement which has to be signed then I would like to take an opportunity to represent my company and expect your cooperation... We look forward to build a ve...

"""""""""ADD ME""""""""""
Hi , Hope you are doing great. Please let me take this opportunity to introduce myself, Iam Karthik working with BhanInfoi Inc, a NY based company. We have consultants on our bench on various technologies, my request is to add me to your distribution list and kindly do send me the requirements. i have the below list available 1. Mainframe 2. Java 3.. Financial Analyst 4. Data Architect If there is any vendor ship agreement which has to be signed then I would like to take an opportunity to represent my company and expect your cooperation... ...

Urgent Requirement in """""""""""""NEW YORK""""""""""""""""
Hello Partners, Please find the requirement below. Please send the updated resume along with rate and contact no. REQ#1: Title : Java Developer ( Rating Project) Duration : 6 months Rate : open Location : NY strong java, WebLogic 9.2, Web Services, Oracle REQ#2: Title : Java Developer Duration : 4 months Rate : open Location : NY Strong java, SQL REQ#3: Title : VB.Net Consultant Location : NY Duration : 4 months Rate : open Primarily looking at someone who has Excel, VB.net a...

about "++" and "--"
why this program snippet display "8,7,7,8,-7,-8" the program is: main() { int i=8; printf("%d\n%d\n%d\n%d\n%d\n%d\n",++i,--i,i++,i--,-i++,-i--); } > why this program snippet display "8,7,7,8,-7,-8" Ask your compiler-vendor because this result is IMHO implementation-defined. Check this out: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/misc-technical-issues.html#faq-39.15 http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/misc-technical-issues.html#faq-39.16 Regards, Irina Marudina fxc123@gmail.com wrote: > why this program snippet display "8,7,7,8,-7,-8&q...

"If then; if then;" and "If then; if;"
I have a raw data set which is a hierarchical file: H 321 s. main st P Mary E 21 F P william m 23 M P Susan K 3 F H 324 S. Main St I use the folowing code to read the data to creat one observation per detail(P) record including hearder record(H): data test; infile 'C:\Documents and Settings\retain.txt'; retain Address; input type $1. @; if type='H' then input @3 Address $12.; if type='P' then input @3 Name $10. @13 Age 3. @16 Gender $1.; run; but the output is not what I want: 1 321 s. main H 2 321 s. main P Mary E 21 F 3 321 s...

"out" and "in out"
Hi i found the following explaination: In Ada, "in" parameters are similar to C++ const parameters. They are effectively read-only within the scope of the called subprogram. Ada "in out" parameters have a reliable initial value (that passed in from the calling subprogram) and may be modified within the scope of the called procedure. Ada "out" parameters have no reliable initial value, but are expected to be assigned a value within the called procedure. What does "have no reliable initial value" mean when considering the "out" parameter? By c...

"/a" is not "/a" ?
Hi everybody, while testing a module today I stumbled on something that I can work around but I don't quite understand. >>> a = "a" >>> b = "a" >>> a == b True >>> a is b True >>> c = "/a" >>> d = "/a" >>> c == d True # all good so far >>> c is d False # eeeeek! Why c and d point to two different objects with an identical string content rather than the same object? Manu Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote: >>>> c = "/a" >>>&...

why "::", not "."
Why does the method of modules use a dot, and the constants a double colon? e.g. Math::PI and Math.cos -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. On Oct 26, 2010, at 01:48 , Oleg Igor wrote: > Why does the method of modules use a dot, and the constants a double > colon? > e.g. > Math::PI and Math.cos For the same reason why inner-classes/modules use double colon, because = they're constants and that's how you look up via constant namespace. Math::PI and ActiveRecord::Base are the same type of lookup... it is = just that Base is a module and PI is a float....

"my" and "our"
Hi, while testing a program, I erroneously declared the same variable twice within a block, the first time with "my", the second time with "our": { my $fz = 'VTX_Link'; .... ( around 200 lines of code, all in the same block) our $fz = 'VTX_Linkset'; ... } So the initial contents of the $fz declared with "my" is lost, because "our" creates a lexical alias for the global $fz, thus overwriting the previous "my" declaration. It was my error, no question. But I wonder why Perl doesn't mention this - even with "use s...

"or" and "and"
Hi, I'm just getting to discover ruby, but I find it very nice programming language. I just still don't understand how the "or" and "and" in ruby... I was playing with ruby and for example made a def to print Stem and Leaf plot (for those who didn't have a statistics course or slept on it, e.g. http://cnx.org/content/m10157/latest/) Here is the Beta version of it: class Array def n ; self.size ; end def stem_and_leaf(st = 1) # if st != (2 or 5 or 10) then ; st = 1 ; end k = Hash.new(0) self.each {|x| k[x.to_f] += 1 } k = k.sort{|a, b| a[0].to_f <=&g...

A problem about "[ ]" "( )" "="
I want to read several images saved in a director,and give them to I1,I2 ,I3....,using the following codes: filelist=dir(['c:\MATLAB701\work\...\*.jpg']); for i=1 :length(filelist) I=imread(fullfile('c:\MATLAB701\work\...',filelist(i).name)); end; but failed. Then I used I(i)=imread... ,still failed. How could I do? "John" <mailofww@126.com> wrote in message news:ef19e12.-1@webx.raydaftYaTP... >I want to read several images saved in a director,and give them to > I1,I2 ,I3....,using the following codes: > filelist=dir(['c:\MATLAB701\work\.....

"In" "Out" and "Trash"
I just bought a new computer and I re-installed Eudora Light on my new computer. But when I open Eudora, the "In", "Out" and "Trash" links are not on the left side of the screen the way they were on my old computer. How can I get these links back on the left side of the screen? Thank you. On 25 Mar 2007 09:49:22 -0700, "abx" <abfunex@yahoo.com> wrote: >I just bought a new computer and I re-installed Eudora Light on my new >computer. But when I open Eudora, the "In", "Out" and "Trash" links >are ...

Web resources about - Microsoft not content with "dissing" just the Classic VB Developer Army.... - comp.lang.basic.realbasic

Resources last updated: 1/31/2016 8:11:39 AM