Slashdot Mirror
Metrowerks Putting Linux on Hold
yamla writes "Metrowerks, developer of the CodeWarrior development tools, has decided to put their professional Linux tools on hold. Since being bought out by Motorola, they've changed product emphasis and although their Linux guy in R&D wants to go ahead, management has put the product on indefinite hold. I want to develop using CodeWarrior 5 for Linux but apparently, this program may now never see the light of day. " I've talked with some folks over at Metrowerks and have confirmed this - from what they've said, the earliest it would be out is next Fall. Click below to read their account - and remember that it's better to sign the various petitions around than it is to flame people.
We currently have our plans for the Professional Linux on hold. Our head Linux guy in R&D wants to develop the product, but management has the project on hold. We have had some product changes since Motorola bought us out. You can keep checking the website for any news on the product, but the earliest it could possibly be release would be next Fall.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Metrowerks
Besides Open Source tools like Glade and JX Builder, Code Fusion (and other commercial tools like the Motif based BX pro) make for some very serious competition for Code Warrior. Maybe the abundance of such tools (and the availability of excellent Open Source ones) killed Codewarrior?
So instead of worrying too much about this (admittedly heavy) loss, look forward to new tools, and try one of the other ones!
"There are hundreds of web browsers, too, but most of them suck. CodeWarrior is robust, fast, and mature, and it has a large user base already."
:-)
Only in the Mac community and to a lesser extent in the Windows community. And, there is one free alternative and one no-so-free alternative that stand out as being usable and as good as (or better than- depending on how you view it...) CodeWarrior.
Code Crusader is the freebie and is a best of breed IDE and is what I've been using for some of my work projects and all of my at home projects. It's worth a look-see.
CodeFusion, from Red Hat, is the other one. It's a little clumsy to use at first, but once you get the hang of it, it's also a great alternative to CodeWarrior. (It's what we're using for our stuff at work now- we're needing cross-platform...
"However, I think that having CodeWarrior available for Linux would help entice developers coming from the Windows/Mac world."
Actually, we've got a lot there with the other two- if MetroWerks/Motorola aren't interested in us, it's their loss.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
One imagines the "GNU Edition" of CodeWarrior for Linux hasn't been selling very well. I hope they didn't think it was because you can't sell commercial software to Linux heads. Not true.
The GNU Tools edition of Code Warrior was missing all the things that made me want the Pro version for my shop: it had no SCM integration, no other team development features, it was only for C/C++, and it had no form painter. Among other things.
Without at least some SCM integration (say, with CVS, PVCS and MKS for a start), what development shop is going to bother? Sure, it's an easy transition from Windows or Mac Codewarrior, but what good is it without most of the things that make a professional IDE so good?
Right now, as far as C++ tools go on Linux, KDevelop's actually ahead in some key areas. It's got a (Qt) form painter, CVS integration, auto-completion and very good integration not only with the old core GNU tools but also with modern things like autoconf.
But there's still a market ripe and hungry for professional-level tools on Linux. professiona; developers are one group that's already adopting Linux on the desktop. They're often not locked in by a need to use MS Office heavily, and are plenty happy to run development tools on a stable, sturdy platform. IBM gets it. Borland gets it. And Metrowerks shouldn't be so afraid of Cygnus. Cygnus makes swell compilers and specialized tools, among other things, but they're not about to make general-purpose IDE vendors lose much sleep.
You know, this type of attitude really ticks me off.
I'm a decent programmer, but I'm not a compiler writer, or a kernel hacker, or a device driver guru. I have no doubt that if I absolutely had to, I could modify gcc, the kernel, or some device driver to fix a bug or add a minor feature. But you know what? Instead of spending thousands of hours building the tools I need to work with, I rely on someone else to write my compiler, my editor, my device drivers, my filesystems, and the kernel that runs 'em all.
My point? You can apply this description to both proprietary and OSS software; and in both cases, if the folks who are writing your software (Metrowerks, MS, the Apache Group, etc.) decide to stop working on a project/feature/enhancement you were waiting for, you're SOL. In both cases, you have the same choices - buy a replacement product; build your own replacement product; or hire someone to build you a replacement product. The only real advantage the OSS case has is that you have access to the source code, which means that it will be less expensive (although not neccesarily inexpensive) to choose either of the development options.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Okay, I'll let you argue your point. How about this... GCC is targeted at over a 30 microprocessors.
Can run under
Not that I don't mean to say that your prefered environment isn't FANTASTIC.. but it is certainly not the best cross platform(if judged by this merit alone) tool available. I too would like to see a better interface developed for GNU.. but it's not there yet.
Also, don't you even TRY and argue that you are more a more professional developer because you bought your tools. The software and web-sites I have single-handedly designed and wrote over the past 5 years has brought on over 150 Million dollars of revenue a year. And yeah.. I still prefer perl, gnu c, and make.
And you comment about managing "large complicated projects" doesn't even push wind. Please.. someone do a wc -l on
I would argue that our "antiquated" tools are MUCH better designed for large, complicated, and geographically devided development teams. It just doesn't hold water to compare them. Good tools fit the developer, not the other way around. Good tools can use command line AND gui environments well. I havn't use Metrolink in 3 years.. but it wasn't there yet.
Besides, it makes you look like a ranting asshole. If you have a preference for the Metrolink development environment - then that's A-OK. Enjoy it. But why the need to take cheap pot-shots at the rest of us?
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Open Source software is not always an option if you are writing cross-platform code: most Open Source development tools are available for Linux and various flavours of UN*X, but not for MacOS, Windows 95/98/NT/2K, Windows CE (a totally different beast), EPOC, PalmOS and so on. If you start with a product that was developed on the Mac and you want to port it to Linux, chances are that the product was relying on CodeWarrior, because CodeWarrior is one of the best integrated environments available on the Mac and there is no Open Source equivalent that comes close. If CodeWarrior is not available for Linux, then it will be harder to convert this product.
I am sure that many companies would not mind using Open Source tools, be it only for being sure that they have their future in their hands. But this is not always possible. And many companies do not have the resources (time and money) to invest in porting the best Open Source tools to their target platforms before starting to develop their products. They just have to live with the closed source IDEs, and hope that their suppliers will support their target platforms in the future.
At work, I am developing some software that is ported to Linux, Solaris, Windows 95/98/NT, Windows CE, EPOC, and maybe a few others soon. We decided to use Makefiles (handwritten or generated) for most of our build system, and to rely on included Makefiles (with nested includes) for making it easier to maintain the global settings and so on. Still, this can be a pain to maintain when you have dozens or hundreds of directories with their own Makefiles. I think that we made the right decision because Makefiles are future-proof and we have more control over what is going on in your build system. But we have to pay the price for that, and it is counted in extra hours when some significant change has to be applied to the build system.
Many companies prefer to set up their build system around some tools such as CodeWarrior, which are supposed to make it much easier to manage large projects. I don't blame them for that, because this is probably what gives them the best benefits compared to the set-up and maintenance costs in the short- or medium-term, especially for (very) large projects. If you have the opportunity to even think about the long term (not always an option when you have to get a product out of the door in the next few weeks), then I would always recommend using a system that does not rely on closed source products, such as Makefiles.
You can make your life easier under UN*X by using autoconf, automake and various other goodies for generating your Makefiles automatically, but these tools do not exist (yet) for Windows or for the Mac. And the cross-compilers are not always an option either. I'm still dreaming of a system that would allow me to have only one Makefile for compiling my code with the correct options under any system (or at least UN*X, Windows and MacOS)...
-Raphaël
They're aiming for 2 million signatures, which is a bit high, but if a significant number of people actually take the time to sign this petition then there is a greater chance that hardware companies will take note. If you've ever written an inflamatory note about some hardware company not releasing drivers for Linux, this is your chance to cast your vote.
It only takes a minute and it won't hurt a bit.
The petition link is broken, or at least the evil proxy I'm sitting behind doesn't like it.
Fixed link here.
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
Metrowerks makes by far the most popular development environment for the Mac. Symantec used to, but during Apple's transition from 68K to PPC chips, Metrowerks got there first with PPC support, and Symantec was late. Symantec's product is no longer even available. Metrowerks probably realizes that with Mac OS X on the way, someone could do to them what they did to Symantec if they're not careful.
It will require significant resources to bring CodeWarrior to Mac OS X, so it's possible that Linux development had to be scaled back. Of course the fact that Mac OS X runs on PPC, while Linux is mostly used on x86 machines probably plays some part in this as well.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
I don't see the point of complaining. A cavaliar [sic] attitude towards customers is an inherent feature of closed source software.
This is nonsense, of course. Any business that adopts a cavalier attitude towards its customers is dead, but doesn't know it. Unless a monopoly barrier to entry exists, the company will be devastated by its competition in due course.
The decision to focus limited resources in favor of an existing customer base over a potential new or expanded customer base is rational, and reflects due attention to, not neglect of, one's customers.
As Bork wrote, the truth is far more interesting. Market-based proprietary systems tend to be far more responsive to broad-based customer demands than does individual open-source work, precisely because there is no individual who is accountable to the marketplace. A company can justify expending significant resources because the spending of a dollar generates greater return.
For PRECISELY THIS REASON, however, open source can far more effectively serve minority, or orphaned market needs. Here, the minority customers do end up being unserved, because no one can justify building the larger infrastructure to build an entire application with the minority-needed feature, but the entity with the big shell is busy handling majority-market requirements. With open source, the infrastructure is there, and if it is effectively reusable, minority interests can be economically served if truly needed.
So, there is truth to both positions. However, to accuse Metrowerks of ignoring present non-customer and minority customer interests precisely when they are attending to majority customer interests with their limited resources is sophistry at best.
This is a non-argument. We have only two platforms to support currently (Win32, Mac) and would like to add Linux. That gcc is a Swiss Army Knife of command line options and back ends is irrelevant.
The ONLY relevant issue is that we have a staff of engineers that is familiar with a specific tool, namely CodeWarrior. We have development, QA, and release processes based on this tool. We also have a long standing relationship with the vendor, Metrowerks. That gcc or g++ exists and that some people find it an acceptable development environment in no way makes a compelling case for us abandoning a highly productive environment for one that is clearly an old-style way of doing business and not one our engineers are comfortable in.
So I reiterate my original statement. You probably won't see our products on Linux unless there is an easier, more productive tool set than what comes with a stock Linux install. 20 years of software development has taught me that choosing the right tool for the job is paramount. And gcc/g++ simply isn't the right tool for our job.
You are free to select whatever tools you want, for whatever political, economic, or personal reasons you have. But my choice is based squarely on issues of reliability, economy, performance, and the precise needs of our business. To make our choice for us is a bit presumptuous, don't you think?
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
Our cross-platform product build process is completely based on Metrowerks' tools. We were promised on several occasions by the president and CTO of Metrowerks that the Linux tools were in the pipeline for release "soon". Metrowerks had already done most of the hard work when they ported their tools for use on Solaris. Supporting Linux just isn't that hard after that. I could give a rat's ass about signing "support Linux" petitions. It's not like corporate software execs are going to pay attention to a list of people who have a credo that says they think all software should be free. That's no motivation for them to expend R&D dollars on a product for a market that doesn't pay for software in general. What I *do* want is someone at Metrowerks to step up and honor the promises they made to hundreds of professional developers that were counting on CodeWarrior tools to deliver cross-platform versions of their product to Linux users. There are plenty of products that will now never see the light of day on Linux because the cost will be too high to retrofit them into the text-only Makefile nightmare that is g++. THAT should be a reason for Linux users to complain -- Metrowerks' decision to cancel this product deprives you of software that otherwise will never be ported from Windows or the Mac because Linux doesn't have the rich set of IDE-based tools that modern developers rely on to deliver code in a cost-effective manner. Please don't consider the previous statement flame bait. It's not. It's a cold, hard fact about managing large, complicated development tasks. There are better ways to do it now in the 21st century than using a directory full of text files glued together with a batch-oriented makefile. Metrowerks has what is arguably one of the best cross-platform environments for doing this and now you'll never see it (or the software that would have been ported with it) because Metrowerks has reneged on a long-standing promise. Boo!
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
Jeez. Chill.
Metroworks is a tools company that was just bought by Motorola, a major international corporation that has a completely different way of working.
Anytime there is a buyout like this, the smaller company will go through a months long period of adjustment and resource re-allocation to be (for lack of a better word) assimilated. Becuase of these changes in company focus, there will be a number of products that are put on hold, especially smaller projects such as linux codewarrior.
Codewarrior will not killed off. It's one of the leading development environments for Mac's. Therefore Motorola has a vested interest in keeping it going becuase they make Apple's chips.
Once the realignment is complete, Metroworks will probably pick up the projects that were put on hold. If they had not recognized the value of linux tools, they would not have started the project in the first place.
Note that Motorola Computer Group was one of the first people to sign on for embedded linux. I would not be surprised if MCG has already started apply intra-corporate pressure to have the linux codewarrior project continued.
"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
CodeWarrior for both MacOS and Linux would aid portability in both directions. They do have to ask themselves a couple of questions though. In the end, code will get ported in both directions, but which way will dominate?
This will help them to go head-to-head with other processors to capture the hearts of Linux users. Can they use it to encourage us to buy their processors? They won't do it with bad optimization for other processors. That will just kill the Linux version of CodeWarrior. They'd have to find ways to make the switch appealing in a way that is cost-effective for them to implement and cost-effective for us to buy. Unfortunately, they would be jumping into a commoditized market, which generally cuts profit margins to the bone. Can anyone offer them suggestions?
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Yet Another Reason Not To Depend On Closed Source Products -- your future is not in your own hands.
I don't see the point of complaining. A cavaliar attitude towards customers is an inherent feature of closed source software. Even if you manage to get Metrowerks to reverse, what about the next closed source product you decide to depend on? You going to spend your life doing these kinds of battles?
I know a lot of you think that gmake is sexy and that real programmers debug using printf, but once you've used a real IDE like CodeWarrior, everything else seems so primitive. It would be a shame to see the Linux version dropped.
I routinely use MS DevStudio on Windows and CodeWarrior on the Mac, and there is just no comparison. DevStudio is quirky and frustrating, and their debugger is both unintuitive and limited. CodeWarrior is slick, clean, and fast, and the debugger is a joy to use. It's the little things, like dragging and dropping files into the project and having it do the right thing, or being able to click on a void * in the debugger and being able to instantly view it as an array of 100 doubles (or whatever else), that make it so much nicer. I've never found an environment with all of these features in the Unix world. Let's hope they change their minds and continue the CodeWarrior/Linux project.
Linux has made it this far without anything as extravagent as Codewarrior.
People typeset amazingly beautiful documents before LaTeX came around, and people got from point A to point B before automobiles. This is no argument that we shouldn't embrace new technology.
There's still large factions that say that the CLI is superior to the GUI.
If you're doing kernel hacking or scientific programming, sure, why even boot into X when virtual terminals are so fast? For the rest of us, we need to develop applications that have user interfaces, and visual tools speed up this process immensely.
There are hundreds of free alternative to Code Warrior.
There are hundreds of web browsers, too, but most of them suck. CodeWarrior is robust, fast, and mature, and it has a large user base already.
It seems understandable for a company to doubt how much impact their product will have on a hugely saturated market.
Here I agree with you. Most current Linux users will not switch. However, I think that having CodeWarrior available for Linux would help entice developers coming from the Windows/Mac world.