Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft to Buy Rational and/or Borland?

oblivious writes "I got this in e-mail this evening: According to a Reuters report that crossed the wires late today, the speculation is that Microsoft will make bids to buy both Rational and Borland. Shares of both Rational and Borland are up on the news, and so far both IBM and Microsoft have no comment on this report." We recently ran a story about IBMs planned purchase of Rational. Chris didn't make clear in here - it's not that Microsoft might buy both, but that Borland might be a likely target, if a bid to buy Rational out from under IBM fails, which it is likely too. Rational and IBM have signed the substantive portion of the agreement already, so any sort of counter bid would have some fun legal consequences for all involved.

475 comments

  1. first fist by jrs+1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    first fist is when you fist someone first in quake 3 arena

    1. Re:first fist by eno2001 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If only I had moderation points today... this WAS truly funny if you are a Quake player. Someone please mod this up as funny.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  2. C++ Builder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't take away my C++ Builder... :(

    1. Re:C++ Builder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The benifits of mergers and buyouts is to remove overlap, (or competition in MS's case).
      C++ builder will die, likely so will Kylix.
      I imagine they'll keep delphi since it only sort of competes with Visual Basic.

    2. Re:C++ Builder by omibus · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is left after that??!! True, Delphi kicks VB's ass in every possible catigory...but after you take out C++Builder and Kylix you are left with
      1. Delphi -- Competes with VB
      2. JBuilder -- ya, MS just loves Java!
      3. Interbase -- already got SQL Server, Access and Fox Pro
      4. People -- oh wait, they already hired all of them away.

      Consider this, Borland is MS biggest competitor in the compiler market. MS would buy Borland and gut it. Once again, the superior technology (Borland) looses.

      --
      Bad User. No biscuit!
    3. Re:C++ Builder by GeckoFood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real loss will not be C++Builder. The true loss will be Kylix.

      While C++Builder is a reasonable approach to C++ development, you need to consider the quality of what it generates. In my experience, the executables that C++Builder generates are very large and very slow to execute. Being a fan of Delphi, I expected fairly small and fast executables when I purchased C++Builder, but there is a definite difference between the runtimes and the resulting executable code.

      If you compare the floating point code generated between Delphi and C++Builder, there is an immense difference. The Pascal code generates much faster executables -- and that ought not to be! However, this is the case for Borland's C++ product line and it has been this way for over 10 years.

      Practically every other C++ compiler out there generates tighter code than Borland's, especially in the area of floating point math. I am no fan of M$, and never have been, but I must say that their binary code is tighter, by quite a margin, than Borland's. If they acquire Borland and kill off C++Builder, they will be killing off a great GUI front end with a miserable code generator. Yes, I know Borland's is more ANSI compliant...so what? If the binary is slow, and you care about run times, ANSI compatibility is not your primary concern.

      Where we will lose as developers will be in the loss of Kylix. It might not be perfect, and it might not be the most efficient code creation engine, but if it creates projects that can be ported to Linux, M$ will want to kill that off quick! And I can't say that I blame them (even if I disagree with the idea).

      --
      Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
    4. Re:C++ Builder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up as informative

    5. Re:C++ Builder by BestNicksRTaken · · Score: 1, Interesting

      MS can only be doing this to kill off Borland technology!

      As an IDE/RAD C++Builder kicks VisualC++'s arse.

      Kylix will be killed off, being for UNIX, and especially the free Linux version. So that pretty much gets rid of Delphi as a language altogether.

      I guess we don't really need bcp5 as we already have gcc and intelcpp....

      This is so typically M$, I'm ready to give up C++ programming on Windows if they get rid of C++Builder, might as well give up GUI-based C++ too if they get rid of Kylix - wxWindows/Qt etc. are too dificult and need commercial frontends to make them usable.

      I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing VisualStudio working like Kylix?

      --
      #include <sig.h>
    6. Re:C++ Builder by WWE-TicK · · Score: 0

      wxWindows too difficult? You're just spoiled.

    7. Re:C++ Builder by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 1

      Perhaps an objection to the DOJ upon the review should focus on getting Kylix sold to a competitor.

    8. Re:C++ Builder by Iridar · · Score: 1

      They're not going to kill it; they're going to sell it.

      MS's purpose has always been to make money. Now that *NIX, Linux especially, is gaining ground, they are going to buy up whatever they can get their hands on for the purpose of making sure that Bill's pockets stay full.

      MS does not *really* care about the operating system. That's why it costs $200 (or less) and the Office and development suites cost $500 and up. The OS is just to make sure that you have to buy their products (because they won't run on any other OS).

      So, if they start selling the best tools and applications for the *NIX environment, it won't matter to them if the OS is GPL'ed, free, or whatever. You still have to write a check to Bill to get your software.

      --


      Information doesn't want to be anything

      .
    9. Re:C++ Builder by Slackus · · Score: 0

      I have to disagree with you. C++ Builder is by far the best C++ developement platform I've worked on. I see no performance penalty comparing C++ Builder executables with any other c++ compiler out there.

    10. Re:C++ Builder by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Qt isn't all that hard to code for, documentation could do with improvement, and a nice ide always helps.

      I'm a great fan of C++ builder though and an MS takeover would be a real shame.

    11. Re:C++ Builder by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Not having coded similar apps in VC++ and C++ builder I couldn't comment on the performace penalty point. However I'd suggest that most people using C++ builder aren't too bothered about the speed, they use it more because it's a better, and in many ways therefore faster, environment to develop applications in.

      VC++'s optimisation has also caused my more problems breaking my code than borlands... though it could be argued that that's from my poor code rather than their poor optimiser.

  3. HOLY HELL! by gralem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nothing would be worse than M$ buying borland. It would be the end of JBuilder--a fantastic java IDE. Not to mention delphi and KYLIX! This would be B*A*D.

    ---gralem

    1. Re:HOLY HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eclipse is better anyway.

      Well ok, there's no GUI builder for it yet, but eclipse is very active in development, and the 2.0 branch is excellent.

    2. Re:HOLY HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eclipse is better anyway.

      Is it finished? No? Well, then, it's not better. Pigfucker.

    3. Re:HOLY HELL! by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would it mean the end?

      Once they bought up Borland they're no longer competing, what would they have to gain by throwing away all that mindshare - thats what they're buying. Thats the only value Borland has to offer.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    4. Re:HOLY HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm.. 2.0 has been stable for several months.
      IBM's Webshpere Application Developer 5.0 is based on it.
      It could have been called "finished" at 1.0 with its target feature set in place.
      2.0 added new features and was versioned 2.0 when that list of features was completed and it was stable.

      Yes it is finished, Yes it is still in development, and Yes new features are being added.

      Pigfucker

      What's your point? Yes, I very much enjoy fucking your mother. What the hell does that have to do with the eclipse project?

    5. Re:HOLY HELL! by SerpentMage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This would be great....

      Because now finally people may get off their butt and think about buying other tools. People have become too complacent about the tools they buy. Not to say that JBuilder is bad. But Eclipse, SlickEdit are really good tools that do things in different ways.

      I am looking forward to this because it will open the playing field...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    6. Re:HOLY HELL! by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Nothing would be worse than M$ buying borland. It would be the end of JBuilder--a fantastic java IDE. Not to mention delphi and KYLIX! This would be B*A*D.

      I sure hope there's some sort of public comment allowed to the FTC on such a move, because this could, as you point out, clearly be viewed as quashing competition. As JBuilder is a excellent Java development tool, and we all know by now about how Microsoft wants to kill or cripple Java. Further, JBuilder is expanded and repackaged by Oracle, a chief DB rival of Microsoft. I'm sure if I spent the afternoon I could come up with many other reasons this is anti-competitive and in dire need of a letter stating so.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    7. Re:HOLY HELL! by ProxyUser · · Score: 3, Informative

      JBuilder has a cousin. Oracle's JDeveloper! Oracle licensed JBuilder code from Borland and started a separate branch in the late 1990s. It is a very good IDE. And yes, its free for "personal" use and it works on Linux.

      --
      "There's no right, there's no wrong. There's only popular opinion." --Jeffrey Goines
    8. Re:HOLY HELL! by hermescom · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well, that would be interesting. As far as I remember, Micorosoft lost it's Java lisence back in 97, after Sun got pissed at them for adding Windows-specific functionality. So if microsoft buys Borland, will they not be blocked from developing any of Borland's java products (read: JBuilder)?

      Seems like that part of the company will be utterly useless to them unless their goal is to stamp out java IDEs. But we already mentioned Eclipse on this thread.

      P.S. IANAL
      P.P.S. Neither am i anal.

    9. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I used to be one of Borland's biggest fans, back when Philippe Kahn ran the show. Since his resignation on November 24th, 1995, Borland products have not been, IMHO, all that great.

      Let them be bought out; let them discontinue all the competing products ... at this point, all it will do is drive people to learn more about open-source alternatives, anyway. And maybe Philippe will want to rejoin the fray. This could only be a good thing.

      Mind you, there may be anti-trust concerns w. M$ buying out Borland, since Borland is their biggest competitor in the computer languages market (Borland at one time had 2/3 of ALL the language market for the PC, with everyone else splitting the difference).

      Anyway, I stopped using Borland products after Delphi 3 (the newer ones didn't offer that much more, and splitting the line-up into so many different versions of the same product - Professional, Enterprise, Desktop, etc., just pissed me off). This was a far cry from the original Borland marketing philosophy: Great product, great price. I really miss the days of Turbo C / Borland C++

    10. Re:HOLY HELL! by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >> So if microsoft buys Borland, will they not be blocked from developing any of Borland's java products (read: JBuilder)?

      If they bought Borland, they'd be buying Borlands liscenses as well, I'd guess.

      I imagine Borland would continue to be Borland, and operate under MS as an umbrella corporation.

      I don't think the fact that MS has/doesnt have a liscense would affect Borland in an arrangement like this.

      I mean tech companies buy other companies for their technology, not just to knock em out of competition (though that's a nice side effect). Eg, bought 3DFX, and eventually incorporated 3DFX's patents and whatnot (stuff like their FSAA routines) into the nv30.

      But then I don't really know. Would the purchase price of Borland be less than they lose to them via competition every year?

      NOHIALSIRTMI (No one here is a lawyer so its redundant to mention it)

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    11. Re:HOLY HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oracle JDevloper 9i no longer has any remnants of the license agreement with Borland that was reached in the '90s. All Borland components were written out of JDeveloper with the release of 9i.

    12. Re:HOLY HELL! by timeOday · · Score: 2
      This would be great.... ... I am looking forward to this because it will open the playing field...
      Wait, market consolidation opens up the playing field how?
    13. Re:HOLY HELL! by hermescom · · Score: 2, Informative
      True, but in this particular case, Microsoft was specifically blocked by Sun from using Java, following a pretty lengthy trial process. The block was placed on them as a company. It's not like they didn't buy the licenses, but they actually had the licenses revoked.

    14. Re:HOLY HELL! by yog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft is trying to replace Java with C#, its own, "improved" version. They are not going to buy Borland for several billion dollars just to prop up a "legacy" language like Java. If they wanted to do that, why not just release new versions of the old Visual J++? This would cost them a few millions and to hell with Borland.

      No, Microsoft is doing this for one simple reason: to get rid of a Java powerhouse. Just as they did with Foxpro, which they bought and pretended to maintain for a few years while pushing their own products Access and Sql Server, they're going to shelve Borland and Togethersoft too. Why shouldn't they? They've got about $50 billion in cash, nothing to spend it on, and Java continues to annoy them. It's a logical move.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    15. Re:HOLY HELL! by 216pi · · Score: 1

      Please move to your next censorship.net (tm) office and ask how to refine this comment.

      *ducks*

    16. Re:HOLY HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ummmmmm....Microsoft is still selling foxpro. A new version just came out last year. There is still dev going on for FP as well.

    17. Re:HOLY HELL! by sheldon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "This was a far cry from the original Borland marketing philosophy: Great product, great price. I really miss the days of Turbo C / Borland C++"

      The original Borland marketing philosophy was to sell Turbo Pascal for $39.95 when everybody else was selling compilers for $500 or more.

      I agree, they started getting into trouble when they decided they could sell Delphi or Java tools for $5k and abandoned their early philosophy of low-priced quality tools for everyone. Their new strategy seems to be "How much are people willing to pay to not use Microsoft?"

    18. Re:HOLY HELL! by haggar · · Score: 2

      Out of genuine curiosity: what do you use nowadays, then?

      I second your opinion about Turbo C/Borland C++ (and I would add Turbo Pascal, too); they were really outstanding, back then.

      --
      Sigged!
    19. Re:HOLY HELL! by uradu · · Score: 3, Informative

      > I stopped using Borland products after Delphi 3 (the newer ones didn't offer that much more...)

      You stopped at the wrong version. Many useful features were added in 4 and properly debugged in 5. If you use Professional, version 5 is your best bet. There are lots of IDE improvements (in particular navigation and code completion), plus forms are stored as text. I don't think 6 and 7 added much value to Professional, mainly lots of Enterprise and Web stuff.

    20. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      Here's what I use nowadays:

      For C/C++ programming:

      • gcc as a compiler
      • vi or kate as an editor
      • multiple terms or windows as an IDE
      • grep or ctags as search tools
      • make or shell scripts as project tools
      For other programming (perl, php, shell scripts), everything pretty much stays the same, except that I don't need a compiler.

      Borland's biggest innovations were:

      1. the DOS IDE
      2. hiding "make" with a project manager
      With the ability to have multiple windows open on pretty much any OS, and the ability to pipe errors to a file or a separate terminal window, there's less need for an integrated IDE.

      Using "make" takes a bit of getting used to, but, once you get the hang of it, you can use it for all sorts of other stuff, so it's worth the learning curve.

      Oh, my environment is linux. I abandoned Windows development years ago, just as I left DOS development a decade before. Mind you, of all the tools that I miss, right after BC++ 3.1, I would have to say "Clipper". Sold some nice database apps using that (sigh) :-)

      So, what do you use?

    21. Re:HOLY HELL! by Lt+Razak · · Score: 1

      Glad you brought that point up. However, what is the long term future of FP if it isn't based on the common lib structure that VB and C++ share now?

    22. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      A friend of mine used version 4, and I didn't see anything in it that would make it worth my while to upgrade.

      Starting in version 5, Borland started taking out things in the Professional version that had been there in version 4.

      As for the forms being stored as text, you could always view and edit them as text, even in version 1 (I forget what combination of Ctl/Alt/ShiftF12 was the shortcut).

      They also dropped the report writer (ReportSmith) after version 2, which I also thought was pretty sucky of them. another attempt to milk developers for more $ from seperate licenses.

    23. Re:HOLY HELL! by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1


      Mind you, there may be anti-trust concerns w. M$ buying out Borland, since Borland is their biggest competitor in the computer languages market (Borland at one time had 2/3 of ALL the language market for the PC, with everyone else splitting the difference).

      Dude, I'm not sure ancient history counts in an anti-trust case. That would be sort of like my country declaring war on your country just because my ancestors didn't like your ancestors. Oh wait...

      -a

    24. Re:HOLY HELL! by radish · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are still people using JBuilder? Seriously you need to take a look at the new version of IntelliJ IDEA - I have yet to show it to anyone who hasn't become a dedicated convert within a couple of days. No it's not free, but at $400 for better than Jbuilder Enterprise functionality it's a damn bargain!

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    25. Re:HOLY HELL! by Gramie2 · · Score: 1

      I think you've got it a bit wrong. From version 3 to 6, Delphi included QuickReports, a piece of software that was roundly criticized for bugginess, but it WAS a report writer. Version 7 uses Rave Reports, a huge improvement from what I've heard.

      I use Delphi 5 Pro at work, and it really is a joy. I don't think that it is lacking anything that D4 Pro had; it was the standard/personal versions that were gutted of database connectivity. D3 Standard, IIRC, also lacked Internet components.

      I must agree that I don't like the current attitude of targeting the high-priced customers and ignoring independent developers and small shops.

    26. Re:HOLY HELL! by uradu · · Score: 2

      > I didn't see anything in it that would make it worth my while

      There are three things in particular in 4+ that I can't live without anymore: CTRL-SHIFT-C to create method bodies for all method declarations in a class (quite tedious to do manually if you don't have to), CTRL-SHIFT-Up/Down to switch between method declaration and definition, and CTRL-Click on an identifier to take you to its declaration. Every time I have to go to pre-4 I feel naked without these aids.

    27. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      I agree, QuickReports sucked. It also wasn't a real report writer, not like ReportSmith, which they broke out into a seperate product. The internet components in Delphi 3 Pro also sucked, as they were just wrappers around activex controls (Internet Chameleon, IIRC), and not true components.

      So, it's a good thing we've got alternatives nowadays. I remember paying $500 for Delphi 1, $375 for an upgrade to Delphi 3 Pro, and being totally blown away by seeing the price increases for the "Enterprise" version of 4. That's when I said "fuck 'em".

    28. Re:HOLY HELL! by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Bingo. The ONLY reason I can see for M$ to be interested in acquiring Borland is to remove a competitor from the marketplace, and to cut down on the number of competing *classes* of products.

      Oh, sure, they'd acquire Borland's tools, but AFAIK there's nothing preventing M$ from licensing those tools right now, if they really want to. (Or developing their own, for that matter.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    29. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      These are just IDE enhancements. The core product seems (at least to me) to be suffering from three things:
      1. bloat
      2. hacks caused by the use of single-parent-hierarchy class structure (which causes bloat)
      3. trying to be all things to all people
      These carried over into Kylix, which is why I don't use it, unfortunately, because I had great hopes for it.
    30. Re:HOLY HELL! by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1
      For other programming (perl, php, shell scripts), everything pretty much stays the same, except that I don't need a compiler.
      I always recommend compiling php files through a program that strips comments and compresses whitespace. There's no need to subject the user to having to download all that chaff, and it gives the web server less work to do.
    31. Re:HOLY HELL! by uradu · · Score: 2

      > These are just IDE enhancements.

      Just? Considering that, after the class library, the IDE is what makes you most productive, that's hardly a minor thing. Sure, you could buy a third party code editor, but that's yet more money, and most people won't.

      > hacks caused by the use of single-parent-hierarchy class structure

      Well, it sounds like you have issues with the language itself then. Perhaps Delphi isn't for you after all.

      > trying to be all things to all people

      Borland's biggest problem is that most people aren't using Delphi, not inherent problems in the product itself. Maybe it's something they can't do much about, since it's hard to blame someone for failing to compete well with Microsoft. As a product, I fail to see anything majorly wrong with Delphi, especially when compared to Microsoft's offerings.

    32. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      I agree. What's really a good idea is to use a make file or shell script such that, once you're satisfied with your scripts, change all your "includes" and "requires" so that they actually insert the source file at that point, like a c #include .

      This way, your server only has to open one file handle for your script, the interpreter only has to parse one file, etc. You get the advantages of developing/testing with multiple source files, and implementing with a single file. It also makes you think your logic through a bit differently.

    33. Re:HOLY HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C# is a marginal improvement of java (which was not an improvement at all over C+@ from AT&T which it appears to have been cloned from), but technologically the ECMA CLR/CLI is a huge improvement over the JVM for support of languages beyond java (the JVM has a limited instruction set which makes it a poor choice for functional and logic languages) and for performance. The ECMA CLR/CLI is also an open standard as opposed to SUN's control over Java.

    34. Re:HOLY HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Microsoft is doing this because if IBM gets Rational, you can see the integration of .Net into Rational go to hell.

      Microsoft itself does not have any decent UML modelling tool (for some, Visio is, for others, uhm, no)

    35. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      That's just it ... there's now so much more to the computer language world than just Borland and Microsoft.

      Mind you, the class structure isn't a part of the language - it's an add-in. There's no real reason why it couldn't now be implemented as a multiple-inheritance class structure. The reason for single-class inheritance is historical. At the time, Borland wasn't able to implement the full c language into it's delphi compiler backend. In particular, multiple-inheritance wasn't going to happen any time soon, which is why CBuilder was so late in shipping. So they opted for the single-inheritance class structure, and all the kludges and "cut-and-paste" code duplication in the libraries to make it happen.

      I agree that an IDE makes you productive. I loved their DOS IDEs, and Delphi's was definitely way ahead of its' time when it came out. However, with the advent of server-centric apps, there's not much need for "visual components", not for stuff generating code on the server. And the web browser becomes the universal platform for client-side presentation, removing the need for "visual components" on the client side.

      This is what really had Microsoft's underwear in a bunch - the browser becomes the platform, then who needs their OS?

    36. Re:HOLY HELL! by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      So...
      Will we be using "MS JBuilder" in the future, or will we be forced to use something like "Visual J"? *horror*

      Hmm...
      Are there any good (read: as good as jbuilder) open and/or free IDE's that'll run in Windows?

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    37. Re:HOLY HELL! by z2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um, two words: Visual J#

      They essentially did resurrect Visual J++ by morphing Java to work with the .Net common language infrastructure. Looks like Java, smells like Java - but it's 'I can't believe it's not Java'.

      Microsoft is afraid of losing their visual modeling partner. The bad part is that Borland's new modeling solution TogetherJ doesn't support the Microsoft platform. Rational's XDE does. If IBM gets Rational, Microsoft loses it's status with Rational as a first class platform, and Borland would be something of a consolation prize. I doubt that Microsoft would want to buy Borland because it would probably take less development resources to make Visio into a decent UML modeling tool than it would to make Together support their platform. Also, if I'm not mistaken TogetherJ is written in Java, a cardinal MS no-no.

    38. Re:HOLY HELL! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      The ECMA CLR/CLI is also an open standard as opposed to SUN's control over Java.

      My major problem with the CLR (and Javas VM) is that there still can be bugs in the CLR (or VM) itself.

    39. Re:HOLY HELL! by Thomas+the+Rhymer · · Score: 1

      Zak Urlocker was driving Borland projects at Greenhills Road ten years ago. He is still at Borland, driving Delphi, driving quality. If Microsoft take over Borland (if)then surely any competition authority would have a lot to say about the Java and Linux tools. The deal has not got any chance whatsoever of getting past the EU competition office in Brussels, don't forget Microsoft is subject to that as well as US authorities even for an all US merger.

    40. Re:HOLY HELL! by uradu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > There's no real reason why it couldn't now be implemented as a multiple-inheritance class
      > structure. The reason for single-class inheritance is historical.

      I don't know where you're getting your facts. Object Pascal was never intended as a multiple-inheritance language, it had nothing to do with Borland being unable to implement MI. Borland's C++ compiler did MI capably long before Delphi came about. Delphi's single inheritance is a school-of-thought thing. Heijlsberg designed Delphi and the VCL to be THE end product, not a transition product on the way to the REAL C++ product. He was always a Pascal guy, ever since he created TP 1. They only reused the VCL in C++ Builder because it already existed and took less work than rewriting it from scratch and using a different inheritance model.

      > However, with the advent of server-centric apps, there's not much need for "visual components",

      Well, we definitely have different points of view on that. I don't think the browser will become THE platform anytime soon, at least not with current technologies. Relatively few types of applications can be expressed well in a stateless Form paradigm with the bulk of the code executing remotely. A rich user experience will ALWAYS require either lots of client-side code and components, or a very fat pipe to do X-type remoting. "Thin client" computing (as if!) looks good on paper and management loves it for all the obvious reasons, but it will never completely replace client side apps. Some things will always make more sense in a browser and others on the desktop.

      Besides, even for server side programming the component approach is gaining hold. Just look at Microsoft's ASP.NET and Borland's web components. Face it, intermingled HTML-and-script programming is a major kludge and in no way the wave of the future. The web didn't all of a sudden make proven concepts such as separation of interface and logic obsolete. It's just that the technologies were still in their infancy and were often driven by neophytes that knew Perl and HTML and thought they ruled the world.

    41. Re:HOLY HELL! by axxackall · · Score: 2
      JBuilder has a cousin. Oracle's JDeveloper! Oracle licensed JBuilder code from Borland and started a separate branch in the late 1990s. It is a very good IDE. And yes, its free for "personal" use and it works on Linux.

      Oracle JDeveloper is not very good IDE. I know several development teams who bought JDeveloper license, tried to use it, and then switched to Together, Eclipse or even Netbeans.

      Oracle JDeveloper is good only for novices, who wants to creat own first Java applicatin, and Oracle database is a part of it. I don't know any commercial Java application developed in JDeveloper up to the QA point.

      --

      Less is more !
    42. Re:HOLY HELL! by Mannerism · · Score: 3, Informative

      And while we're on the topics of JDeveloper and Rational, it's worth noting that JDev now integrates class and activity UML diagramming tools. Also, the 9i developer suite includes an Oracle repository-based SCM tool. So, apparently, Oracle has decided to go their own way on the UML and SCM fronts (although, oddly enough, I recall that a couple of years ago some Oracle people I was working with were discussing rumours of Oracle buying Rational).

      I'll second the opinion that it's a good IDE. It's straight Java...I run it on Win2K, Linux, and Solaris. Get it here if you're curious.

    43. Re:HOLY HELL! by half-troll · · Score: 1

      Nonesense. It would be worse if M$ bought the US Congress. No danger of that. Right?

    44. Re:HOLY HELL! by half-troll · · Score: 1

      Borland has anounced plans to buy TogetherSoft (http://www.togethersoft.com). Togethersoft produces an impressive integrated toolset for modeling tool for J2EE, .Net, XML, etc., round trip engineering, etc. Many of us prefer it to Rational's tools. Is this why MS is interested in Borland? In addition to its stand-alone product, Togethersoft is scheduled to release a WebSphereStudio version in a few days. That version is built on eclipse (www.eclipse.org) -- an open source IDE used and developed by IBM. All this would strengthen the MS position in traditional enterprises.

    45. Re:HOLY HELL! by flacco · · Score: 2
      Mind you, of all the tools that I miss, right after BC++ 3.1, I would have to say "Clipper".

      Memories.... in the corners of my mind...

      Clipper was a great DOS database tool.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    46. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      You're talking Object Pascal as opposed to pascal. Not the same kettle of fish. :-) It is possible to implement multiple-inheritance classes in pascal, just as it's possible to add multiple-inheritance schemes to most languages (though I admit that in many cases, it will be a kludge at first).

      Turbo pascal isn't pascal any more than Turbo C is C. They're both just implementations of their respective languages. There ARE other versions of pascal out there, some of which predate his work.

      The problem wasn't multiple inheritance per se, it was integrating it into the VCL. This is why the single-inheritance schema was chosen for the VCL. As you pointed out, it was bolted into CBuilder because it was already there, and made for ease of maintenance between languages.

      As for the browser, ... ok, I should have mentioned that not all server-centric apps need be browser-based. They don't even have to be TCP/IP-based, but most will be. Yes, it's a major kludge, but so were many advances in the computer world when they first came out (more than 64k address space from Intel via segments (ugh!!!), mice, color adapters (yay), sound cards, disk drives (remember paper tapes - the original "removable storage"),) :-)

    47. Re:HOLY HELL! by FatherOfONe · · Score: 2

      I use Jdeveloper 9i and have found it a good IDE for JSP and standard java applications. I don't use any of their wizards to create stuff though. You say that you know several development teams who bought it and then switched to something else. Can you give specific reasons? What didn't they like, or what couldn't they do that the other IDE could?

      I have used Jdeveloper to work with a few MySQL databases also, so I don't agree that it is just for Oracle DB. Now if you want to use their wizards to do stuff and you buy in to the whole OC4J stuff then I would agree. But you don't have to do that stuff. I don't.

      I have not tried Together or Eclips, so I cannot comment on them, but I am seriously interested in what all those development teams needed to do that Jdeveloper couldn't do well.

      Please elaborate.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    48. Re:HOLY HELL! by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      And there aren't any bugs in the Win32 API, nor are there bugs in CPU instruction sets? Yeah, right!

    49. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      DOS and Unix :-)

      Maybe we should port it to linux.

      Don't you wish they'd get rid of the 2-minute delay between posts for people at the karma cap? When you just want to dash off a quick note --- :-(

    50. Re:HOLY HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it took me less than a day to start loving IDEA. The whole dev team here changed to IDEA last month. But on the other side if you need to work on UI (like Swing) JBuilder is king! Not that a lot of people are building new apps with Swing...

    51. Re:HOLY HELL! by uradu · · Score: 2

      > You're talking Object Pascal as opposed to pascal.

      Borland Pascal introduced object features in the later versions of the language. Not the same as Delphi, but it laid the groundwork.

      > It is possible to implement multiple-inheritance classes in pascal

      Example?

      > Turbo pascal isn't pascal any more than Turbo C is C

      Huh? Be specific.

      > This is why the single-inheritance schema was chosen for the VCL.

      No, the Delphi compiler and the VCL were developed concurrently, adding features to the compiler (and language) as the need for them arose in the VCL. The design of the VCL was not a consequence of an existing compiler. It is the way it is because the designers WANTED it that way. They came from the same school of thought as the Java designers (in fact, Borland worked closely with Sun on Java), and while cynics like to think that they eschewed multiple inheritance because it's hard to implement (which it is), there's a lot more to that decision than that. After all, they already had a market leading C++ compiler, so they had the expertise. If there is any afterthought in there at all, it's C++ Builder. After much crying and whining from the community (myself included) over the choice of Pascal instead of C++, Borland gave in. Never mind that many of them learned to love OP on its own merits.

      > I should have mentioned that not all server-centric apps need be browser-based

      Of course not, I should know. I write mainly C/S apps, RPC style (and nowadays, web service-style). In that case you have two apps, one on the desktop, one remote. And both can still benefit handsomely from components--database components on the backend, GUI and communications components on the frontend. It still doesn't signal a move away from components. Face it, if there is one positive upshot of the whole OOP movement, it's component programming. Ok, I read that somewhere in DDJ, but it's true.

    52. Re:HOLY HELL! by haggar · · Score: 2

      We do Java: anyone can use whatever the heck they like, but the software must be within a certain budget bracket. People seem to have naturally standardized on VisualCafe. Many just use an editor with syntax highlighting. Then they check in their code into Clearcase and the build manager makes the build.

      --
      Sigged!
    53. Re:HOLY HELL! by BigJimSlade · · Score: 2

      I doubt that Microsoft would want to buy Borland because it would probably take less development resources to make Visio into a decent UML modeling tool than it would to make Together support their platform.

      I have to agree, especially if any of you have seen Visio for Enterprise Architects. Lots of UML and ORM (their big push for data modeling... check out http://www.orm.net for more info) is already in there. I think the most likely plot would be to scrap the Java tools.

    54. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      What I meant was that Borland's products don't define the language. In Pascal's case, it was Wirth. In C, it was Kernighan and Ritchie, and in C++, it was Stroustrup,. Borland just provides one implementation.

      I agree, I was one of the other whiners re pascal as opposed to c. :-) But the pascal language, while a good choice for beginners, sux in comparison to C.

      Looking at the class libraries, method calls, etc., it's obvious that Borland worked with Sun. But this was acknowledged by both sides while Java was still en pre-release.

      Borland lost a lot of their in-house expertise during the time they were implementing Delphi. This, plus corporate infighting, plus lawsuits, gag orders, etc., put a crimp on all Borlands products for a few years. This gave rise to the looser name 'Inprise', for example. Man, what a dog name that was. Talk about screwing up a brand. Right up there with New Coke!

    55. Re:HOLY HELL! by uradu · · Score: 2

      > What I meant was that Borland's products don't define the language.
      > Borland just provides one implementation.

      Not true in the case of Delphi. Delphi is not an implementation of some standard Object Pascal. In fact, there is no standard OP--Delphi IS standard OP. That's also why they gave up on the moniker Object Pascal. The language itself is now officially called Delphi. And yes, the VCL drove the implementation of language features.

      > But the pascal language, while a good choice for beginners, sux in comparison to C.

      Let's not start on that. Pascal is especially great for production code because it precludes some tricky hacks that "expert" C/C++ programmers used to like (such as assignment in logical expressions), and tends to make code overall more readable. It also avoids the header/implementation file mess and often results in half the number of source code files, which I personally find organizationally neater. It's not as expressive as C++, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

      Borland definitely has had some bouts of identity crisis. And now again they seem to be acquiring companies that aren't strictly related to language tools, so I don't know what's going to happen with Borland long-term.

    56. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      I dunno, maybe I just feel sad for them since they seem to have gone downhill since the good ole days when they totally dominated the market with best-of-breed products :-(

      Oh well, have a nice day.

    57. Re:HOLY HELL! by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

      Borland almost went broke cos they didn't make enough money from their earlier products. Now they are doing well.

      The different versions of Delphi aren't really that different - think of them as "Delphi", "Delphi with pre-written DB components" and "Delphi with even fancier components". (For those unfamiliar with Delphi, I am talking about VCL components).

      If you don't need those extra features, choose the base version. If you do need the extra features you have two options - write your own components, or buy theirs. If you're in a commercial environment then buying them is far cheaper than developing your own.

      This is a case where diversity is good - it is completely different to a fork, or to things like win2k server vs. win2k pro.

    58. Re:HOLY HELL! by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

      Actually, let me expand on my previous post.

      For your $39.95 or whatever you got Borland's C and C++ compilers, and a basic IDE.

      Today, the C and C++ compiler is $0.00.
      The basic version of JBuilder (compilers + IDE + a few wizards and components) is $25.

      Seems that the value has increased!
      Anything extra you pay is for rapid-development aids. I'm sure you can write a Windows app far faster in Delphi than you could in BC++ 4.5 (and magnitudes faster than you could in Turbo C).

    59. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      Here's the problem - the earlier 3 versions included the DB components as a standard part of the package. The first 2 versions included a proper report writer. But Borland almost went broke, not because they didn't make enough $$$ from earlier products, but because increasing their prices and forking products caused the small-time developer (who was their bread and butter) to go to longer upgrade intervals, and seek out alternatives. At least, that's how I remember it. Oh, yeah, there was that whole "buy this company, sell that company" time as well. Sell the spreadsheet app (Quattro Pro). Buy a word processor app (WordPerfect / Borland Office Suite). Sell it to Corel. Buy dBase. Sell dBase off. Diversify. Don't diversify.

    60. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      Actually, I wrote my first Windows app in BC++ 3.1, without their ObjectWindows library (made my own little library, worked pretty well, after studying the windows.h include file) as an exercise to "see if I could". The damn thing was less than 8k, and FAST. Not bad for a Windows .exe with NO runtime library IM(NS)HO.

    61. Re:HOLY HELL! by jdonnici · · Score: 1

      Just as they did with Foxpro, which they bought and pretended to maintain for a few years while pushing their own products Access and Sql Server, they're going to shelve Borland and Togethersoft too.

      While I agree with most of your post, this part isn't quite accurate. Although Microsoft hasn't done enough to market Visual FoxPro, the development team certainly hasn't left it alone to wither off. Since buying it, they made it a fairly robust object-oriented development environment (more OO than VB, until quite recently), and have continued to provide new upgrades every 18 months or so. In the last several upgrades, they've added the ability to connect seamlessly to large back-ends via Remote Views, complete support for XML, it can speak COM fluently in a variety of ways, provide AND serve web services (SOAP/WSDL), and they continue to add new features and hooks to the IDE.

      Anyway, I just wanted to point this out because it fills a pretty large gray area between Access (a desktop, end-user oriented database app that doesn't scale to more than 10 users or 10K rows easily) and SQL Server (a large, scalable RDBMS, though it doesn't deploy easily for apps that you want to distribute to the desktop).

      I know I sound like a MSFT lackey and will get modded down... but I'm also doing C++ Builder, Java (via Eclipse), PHP, Oracle, and I happily run Linux and a variety of OSS packages on our servers. I just think VFP is a solid choice for some types of apps -- Now if they would just throw some marketing at it and clarify its role in the .NET world.

    62. Re:HOLY HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1


      One logical thing I could see here is an attempt by Oracle to buy Borland. They license JBuilder and repackage as JDeveloper. Would be better than an MS purchase.

      I always wondered when Borland was going to get scooped up. Good technology, very capable developers yet relatively cheap company in terms of market capitalization.

    63. Re:HOLY HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason J# exists is for the poor saps who are still using Visual J++, which is based on an ancient JDK 1.1.5. It is of no use to any current Java project.

    64. Re:HOLY HELL! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      None of the programs i've written have been victim of a bug in the CPU instruction set.

      As far as the win32 api, goes, its much easier to dectect and work around it.

      On the VM, you literally have to test it on each different implementation of the VM. testing on a few versions of windows is far simplier. Plus, it kinda defeats the purpose of the VM. I can say win2k and higher is required, but would it make sense to say this program requires a windows VM and won't run on a linux VM? What would be the point of that? Why not just code for windows then?

    65. Re:HOLY HELL! by Hezaurus · · Score: 1

      Have to agree with that! IDEA is so far the best IDE I have ever used, and the only thing that it lacks is the visual designer (which is planned to be in the next version) Great refactoring support, Remote debugging, live templates... I tend to hit ctrl+space very often nowadays =)

      BTW: if they manage to include the designer in the next version... it's byebye JBuilder.

      BTW2: Did I mention that it supports J2EE & servlet debugging? =)

      - No, I don't work for them! ;-) -

      --
      No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it. (T. Pratchett)
    66. Re:HOLY HELL! by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
      It's an extra layer of abstraction, and every layer of abstraction introduces bugs. It's that simple. You never have been affected by CPU instruction set bugs, for the simple reason that most compilers work around them. (Well, as far as I know) For example, most compilers have a workaround for the famous FDIV bug. Yes, it's slower, but that's not the point

      As for the Win32 API: I had and found my share of bugs in the Win32 API. Already just the differences between the 9x series and the NT series is enough to pull your hair out. You say: "just say win2k and higher", well that is often unacceptable to a client.
      Above that there are DLL issues. Yes, it partially is solved now, but I had the personal case where Access DLLs were overwritten by some application at a client and my application didn't work because of that. (No, I don't enjoy working with Access) No Windows platform is the same, at least not exactly. You could -for example- make the mistake that some DLL is part of the system, but in reality it is part of MS Office. You use it, and it will work on 75% of all machines because Office is there, on the other machines it will fail.

      I see that you complain about the sheer multitude of VM's. Yes, indeed, all of them have bugs and often behave differently. (Oh, and don't even start about the VM of IE and the VM of Netscape 4.xx) So you are, essentially complaining that people shouldn't be able to choose a VM? See, I think the programmers of every VM are concerned to fix all the bugs as soon as possible: so if *you* as a developper find one, you should file a bug report and get over with it. It's not as if your program is not going to work, it usually just is a small glitch everyone can live with.
      Finally, you introduce the idea that a hypothetical bug in the Linux VM would stop a person of running your Java program under Linux. Good, let's assume that happens, how different would that be from saying "Sorry, Windows 95" is not supported. Make your life easy by saying "Supported platforms are the Sun VM 1.3.1 on XP/W2K/NT", you're okay. Anyone with another platform will not be able to call you for support, but you can *bet* that some silly guy will try it on his Mac/Linux/Sun machine. If your code is OpenSource he might even try to patch it, test on both platforms and send the result to you.
      I personally did this recently with my Mac. The ebanking application is only supported on IE5.5 on Windows. Well, I just tried to get it running on my Mac. Guess what? It works! Same thing for Mozilla and even Netscape 4.7 on Windows. I know this is not Java (well JSP, but I don't have access to them), but it means that there always will be people that will try to use your software "as it wasn't intended".

    67. Re:HOLY HELL! by fforw · · Score: 1
      Nothing would be worse than M$ buying borland. It would be the end of JBuilder--a fantastic java IDE. Not to mention delphi and KYLIX! This would be B*A*D.

      given the licensing of JBuilder it fits perfectly into the microsoft product range. (restrictive, enforced, single-user licenses for about 4000 Euro per place)

      this was the reason the company I worked at chose NetBeans over JBuilder.

      <off-topic>

      yes, Eclipse might be faster, but Netbeans trumps with a modularity I have yet to see in any other software product and is the more mature plattform.

      </off-topic>

      --
      while (!asleep()) sheep++
    68. Re:HOLY HELL! by MarcQuadra · · Score: 2

      Just because you don't like a product, or a company that makes it should not absolve your conscience from willing to let a struggling software house fall into the hands of a company that illegally strongarms the industry. This is a moral and legal issue now, not one of simple loyalty. It is immoral for Microsoft to purchase their competitors now that they have been convicted of using their giant wallet to stomp out entire markets.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    69. Re:HOLY HELL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      I would tend to agree with you. I'm surprised (not really, not with Bu$h in power) that Microsoft hasn't been charged under the RICO statute.

      So, rather than contribute to their illegal activities financially, you have two moral choices:

      1. Help people get away from using Microsoft products
      2. Help people who have no choice except to use Microsoft products, to be able to use those products without contributing financially to Microsoft
      Note that the second argument might be a valid defense for people cracking the activation keys to MS products. After all, if you live in a jurisdiction (Canada) where it's illegal to knowingly purchase something that has a connection to a criminal organization (5 or more people constitutes a criminal organization under current Canadian law, and MS has more than that here, and has violated our 'Combines Act' - the canadian equivalent to American anti-trust law, as well as a bunch of other laws - check out "certifying" people as "engineers", against Canadian law and also a violation of the consent agreement signed 2 years ago), you don't want to be guilty of providing financial support to a criminal operation.
    70. Re:HOLY HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that M$ might have some rather extreme problems if they try to aquire Borland. The government is sure to step in on this one especially because of the case with Sun. This whole idea has ANTI-TRUST written all over it, and if the government doesn't see that, well, then they are just blind.

      [Bill Gates' Voice] "Monopoly is a game Mr. Senator. I'm trying to rule the f*cking world."

    71. Re:HOLY HELL! by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      eclipse[.org] is good if you don't need a gui designer, as it doesn't have one.

    72. Re:HOLY HELL! by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      Thanks...
      I'll check it out.
      (Never needed a gui designer before, can't think of a reason for me to need it now.)

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    73. Re:HOLY HELL! by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Well no indeed, my java coding has never needed one. But there's always a time to start :)

      I certainly use eclipse anyway, and it's had some very good reviews recently.

  4. Hate to say it but.. by EggplantMan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    At least if MS purchases them they can once again become profitable (and successful) companies.

    --

    ?-|||-----x<*))))><
    1. Re:Hate to say it but.. by Lxy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      successful? How? Borland C++ Builder, Delphi, and Kylix GONE. I don't call that successful. I call that anti-competitive.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    2. Re:Hate to say it but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I seriously doubt that MS is not going to continue Borland's line of compilers.

      Borland offers a free (as in $0) C++ compiler for download. Anyone who is interested in getting it should download it now, since if MS buys Borland, I doubt it will be available much longer.

      Of course, this is not a total tragedy, since thanks to GNU, the gcc team, and DJ Delorie, there will always be DJGPP, which is free in a broader sense.

    3. Re:Hate to say it but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Borland is a profitable company.. thanks

    4. Re:Hate to say it but.. by harks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wasn't there just a slashdot article saying that Microsoft lost money in every department except for Windows and Office? http://www.self-aggrandizement.com/archives/monopo ly_much.html this mentions it too so I dont think that MS buying them will make them profitable.

    5. Re:Hate to say it but.. by mcguirez · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well Borland is profitable:

      roughly 5m/quarter for the past 4...

      That's 8% net profit margin - now this isn't
      Microsoft level profits but it's probably
      ethically obtained!

      --
      When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras
    6. Re:Hate to say it but.. by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Informative

      successful? How?

      Um, because they'll get shares of MSFT which are backed by $40 billion in cash reserves?

      But you're right, that's the end.

      Borland's products will be examined for what they can contribute to MS Visual Whatever and then be slowly phased out after they've been assimilated.

      Taking the argument further, and in reverse, I think it's been a damn shame that good compiler technology has been kept on a leash in Redmond to further awkward corporate interests rather than simply providing quality, standards-based development tools. Yes, MS does provide development tools that are good to some extent already, but they could be so even more if they were untied from the corporation.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    7. Re:Hate to say it but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ethics are vastly overrated.

    8. Re:Hate to say it but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that be profitable like the X-Box?

    9. Re:Hate to say it but.. by nmg · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make any sense. How would MS make development tools if it wasn't part of the corporation?

    10. Re:Hate to say it but.. by 4of12 · · Score: 2

      How would MS make development tools if it wasn't part of the corporation?

      It wouldn't.

      Like just about every other software development company, it would go out and buy those tools from independent competing vendors, such as Borland.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    11. Re:Hate to say it but.. by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Be sure to pass that lesson on to your children.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    12. Re:Hate to say it but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously doubt that MS is not going to continue Borland's line of compilers.

      Sorry, the "not" is a typo.

      (I'm practicing to become a Slashdot editor, can you tell? :-)

    13. Re:Hate to say it but.. by Radical+Rad · · Score: 2
      Borland C++ Builder, Delphi, and Kylix GONE. I don't call that successful. I call that anti-competitive.

      Maybe but it would take 10 years and a incorruptible Department of Justice to prove it.

  5. Monopoly? by Dedtired · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no way this ends up good, if MS makes the sale. But here's a question. At what point does MS own too much of the computing world? With MS buying Borland and Rational, does this signify the end developments for other OS's? If not this, then how much more does MS need to buy before they do own practically everything.

    --
    I have no friends. Will you be my friend?
    1. Re:Monopoly? by coopaq · · Score: 1
      With MS buying Borland and Rational, does this signify the end developments for other OS's?

      The article states that MS would only be looking at
      a Borland acquisition to counter IBM's purchase
      of Rational Software.

      -J

    2. Re:Monopoly? by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      There is no way this ends up good, if MS makes the sale. But here's a question. At what point does MS own too much of the computing world? With MS buying Borland and Rational, does this signify the end developments for other OS's? If not this, then how much more does MS need to buy before they do own practically everything.

      Neither Borland nor Rational are OS vendors. Further, pretty much all of Borland's products only run on Windows anyway. So the impact on the wider industry is minimal.

    3. Re:Monopoly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Borland's products run very well on Linux, thank-you. But, If Microsoft buys out Borland, exactly how long will that be true? The best strategy for Microsoft to undermine Linux as a threat is to own all of the development tools that are used to develop for it.

      Borland by far is one of the largest Java development platforms (if not the largest). Java is really starting to pick up in Linux. What better way to cripple acceptance of Linux than to remove one of the more prevalent tools. I know, I know, somebody in the open-source community will step up with a replacement (there's already gcj) but that means the the open-source community is spending it's energy creating tools for developers instead of applications for users. And, it's these, quality applications for Linux users, that threaten Microsoft's Windows domain.

      Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Take away his fishing rod and he has no choice but to follow you.

      Joeb

  6. shit by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 0, Troll

    well, there goes the only two companies left that support non-MS technologies in the corporate world. (to a multi-national open source is a joke, don't go there).

    If you want to keep your high-paying tech job, get a jar of vaseline, because microsoft is preparing to fuck you long and hard deep into the night. Unless you're female, in which case you might not need the vaseline.

    1. Re:shit by Leers · · Score: 1

      Let the oil companies buy microsoft software. Thats poetic justice. ( untill the blue screne of death causes the next oil spill )

    2. Re:shit by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      (to a multi-national open source is a joke, don't go there).

      I think your assessment just doesn't reflect reality anymore - open source is way past that stage. These days when I ask vendors for Chip-design tools, I get "of course we support Linux". In many other fields it's the same.

      I am working for a multi-national, and we are using open-source.

  7. Tell me it ain't true! by J.Stattlemeyer · · Score: 2
    This would bring about things that I don't even want to imagine.

    Do not rape my Borland! I can't live without their tools. Just thinking about how microsoft would bastardize their wonderful software makes me ill!

    --
    You like my new account? Just for you!
    1. Re:Tell me it ain't true! by Interfacer · · Score: 1

      Ah

      that would mean we can no longer enjoy
      great things like the borland database engine.

      Not to mention the fact that their C++ builder IDE really sucks (but hti is only my opinion, not an argument

    2. Re:Tell me it ain't true! by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Nobody uses the BDE anymore. It's like ten years old.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    3. Re:Tell me it ain't true! by scott1853 · · Score: 2

      I'll have to raise my hand on that one. The company I work still develops new applications using DBase IV files with the BDE. It's mainly because we're a small shop of two programmers and we have a lot of experience in it, and our customers are also small companies that don't have an IT staff to handle things like MSSQL or Oracle for a real database. I personally wish we'd make the jump to something else, but I don't get to make those decisions.

    4. Re:Tell me it ain't true! by arkanes · · Score: 2

      Our in-house, enormously over-paid, amazingly lazy Delphi consultant still insists that we use the BDE. He needs a good asskicking.

  8. What about Kylix ? by Mark+Round · · Score: 1

    Considering that Borland's Kylix is a strong solution for cross-platform develoment on both Windows and Linux (not just for Delphi either - from what I hear, the latest versions include Borland's C/C++ compiler) this could be a real blow. I mean, what's the likelyhood of Microsoft carrying on development of Kylix ?

    Then again, there was that story recently about Microsoft getting into Linux software development...

    1. Re:What about Kylix ? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe MS wants to replace VB with something less shitty.

    2. Re:What about Kylix ? by shut_up_man · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately, I think MS wants to replace something less shitty than VB with... VB.

    3. Re:What about Kylix ? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      oh, sorry, what was I thinking?

      "In Soviet Russia, VB replaces YOU!"

    4. Re:What about Kylix ? by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      from what I hear, the latest versions include Borland's C/C++ compiler) </quote>

      All versions of Delphi have included a (renamed) copy of Borlands' C/C++ compiler.

      Delphi's pascal source code files are converted to something the C compiler can understand, and then compiled. It's been this way since Delphi 1.0.

      You can even invoke it (DCC) from the command line. Check your documentation, it's all there.

    5. Re:What about Kylix ? by twisty7867 · · Score: 1

      Get with it - VB is dead. Microsoft included VB with the .NET tools only because they wouldn't be salable to many people without it. Their focus is clearly on C#, which, for all intents and purposes is a carbon copy of Java (perhaps without the unbelievably shitty GUI toolkits (think Oracle installer)). Hopefully (however unlikely), they will use Borland's cross-platform experience. As a devout Microsoft developer, I love VS.NET... but I'm not such a bigot that I don't see the value of deploying my .NET apps on other platforms - Linux, Sun, BSD. I follow the Mono project with a lot of enthusiasm, and I'm enthused to see a potential for Microsoft to expand in that direction too, and I think they're beginning to see that the writing is on the wall: Linux and other OSes are here to stay, they form an important part of one's arsenal when deploying an application, and for Microsoft to expand their market share, they're going to need to get on cross-platform deployment capability.

    6. Re:What about Kylix ? by djmurdoch · · Score: 2

      All versions of Delphi have included a (renamed) copy of Borlands' C/C++ compiler.

      Delphi's pascal source code files are converted to something the C compiler can understand, and then compiled. It's been this way since Delphi 1.0.


      That's nonsense. The current compiler has a common back end with the C/C++ compiler, but that doesn't mean it translates into something the compiler can understand (which is presumably C or C++), it just means that the front-ends of both compilers produce a parse tree which the back end converts to object code.

      I'm not sure that this was true of Delphi 1.0, though. That was a 16 bit compiler, which used the same code generation as its Turbo Pascal predecessor. The TP compiler was written in assembler.

      I think what's new is that recent versions distribute both front-ends in the same package.

      You can even invoke it (DCC) from the command line. Check your documentation, it's all there.

      What does that show? Turbo Pascal had command line compilers for years.

    7. Re:What about Kylix ? by justsomebody · · Score: 2

      They can do two things.

      Expand or kill.
      First is not possible. Well, maybe for you in your dream. I can't imagine my self using a M$ product on any other than M$ platform (or half of the current people, well newcommers maybe). The thing is that I some day stopped believe M$ and I would not trust them that M$ products I use on other than M$ platforms are stable and secure as they should be (and that would be probably intentional if you look at M$ past).

      Second is more likely. Delphi was used for many commercial applications so killing kylix in their eyes means keeping developers for them self. The thing is that they maybe don't realise that kylix was not used much. Sorry, but for a simple app (no network serving) coding there is just too much lacking features.
      1. No reporting components
      2. No real db access as in delphi which covers that department much better, ok you can use zeos but that's not it
      3. QT only, no gtk (but that's the least of the problem)
      4. kylix just isn't it

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    8. Re:What about Kylix ? by jaseuk · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, DCC32 is a command line version of the pascal compiler.

      The Delphi 1 compiler wasn't significantly different from Turbo Pascal 7.0. The big change was Delphi 2.0 when they introduced their first 32-Bit pascal compiler.

      As both C Builder and Delphi use the same packaging format and can make sense of units compiled from each other, they have taken advantage of this and allowed you to compile pascal files from within C Builder. The reasoning for this was that there where alot of components already written for Delphi.

      Whenever I've bought a professional version of Delphi I've always received either a JBuilder, CBuilder or Foxpro disk thrown in with the package.

      Jason

    9. Re:What about Kylix ? by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      Dude, check your dead-tree manuals. Or the many books written by people who worked on writing Delphi. Delphi was (at least until and including version 3) a front end for Borland's C compiler.

      All Borlands' compilers were written in assembler. So what? They still compiled from C. Just because the compiler was doing in-memory assembly doesn't mean that it was compiling pascal code directly.

    10. Re:What about Kylix ? by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      Guess what? Do a search on google for "DCC32 C Compiler". It's a C compiler.

      Remember, the original language spec for pascal was that it (the source) was to be converted to pcode to be run through a pcode interpreter, a la java.

      One of Borlands' innovations was converting pascal source into C in memory, then compiling it.

      This goes along the lines of how C++ was originally done (AT&T CFRONT compiler) - source cpp files were converted to standard c, then compiled. Compilers that could use c++ source directly didn't come along until later.

    11. Re:What about Kylix ? by djmurdoch · · Score: 2

      Dude, check your dead-tree manuals.

      I'd be happy to. Just give me a page reference.

      All Borlands' compilers were written in assembler. So what? They still compiled from C.

      Strange then that their Turbo Pascal compiler came out several years before their Turbo C compiler.

    12. Re:What about Kylix ? by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      Strange then that their Turbo Pascal compiler came out several years before their Turbo C compiler.</quote>

      It's easier to implement a subset of the C language, than to implement the whole thing.

      That's why, for example, the original C Builder's delivery date slipped, and slipped, and slipped. You can implement a pascal-to-c converter, and the subset of c necessary to compile, than to implement a full ansi-compliant c compiler. The "problem set" of of pascal is much simpler.

      On a historical note, Philippe Kahn wrote the original pascal compiler in 6 weeks in a hotel room. :-)

      As for the page references, all my dead trees are at home (14 x 6 shelves, 2 decades+ of manuals, etc...).

    13. Re:What about Kylix ? by ccp · · Score: 1

      Love your sig,

      Cheers,

    14. Re:What about Kylix ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's the case then they sure wouldn't replace it with Delphi/Kylix.

    15. Re:What about Kylix ? by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. Bcc32.exe can compile both C++ and Pascal. You should call it "Borland's C++ and Pascal compiler".

    16. Re:What about Kylix ? by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      Point well taken :-)

      At least we don't have to call it "Inprise's C++ and Pascal compiler". Inprise. Sounds like a medical condition or social disease.

    17. Re:What about Kylix ? by jaseuk · · Score: 1


      DCC32.EXE Compiles Pascal Files

      You put Pascal Files in and get compiled executable code out, therefore it is a Pascal Compiler. You can't debate that fact.

      You might be getting confused by an old tool called tptc which converted turbo pascal code into turbo c code. However the release date of Turbo Pascal 1.0 was 1983, Turbo C 1.0 followed in 1987.

      Borland write good optimising compilers, they pretty much invented the IDE. They also tend to write their compilers and IDEs in the target language.

      eg: Pascal Compiler is written in pascal.
      C Compiler is written in C.
      C Builder IDE is written in C++
      J Builder IDE is written in Java.

      I believe that borlands first pascal compiler was compiled by hand and not with the aid of a c compiler. I can't find anything to back this up though.

      Jason

    18. Re:What about Kylix ? by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      You got it right when you said the C Builder IDE was written in C++, and the Jave Builder IDE was written in Java. The Delphi IDE was written in Pascal, but it's only the IDEs that are "self-hosted". The back end for building the exe is the same compiler. Not that there's anything wrong with this. It's the way I would have done it, too. Changing a few resource strings doesn't change the actual working of the compiler. :-)

      I agree, Borland tech was always my favourite. Unfortunately, they lost me when I moved to linux, and their Kylix product just doesn't do it for me. It's not a native app (requires WINE to run, at least the first two versions I tried out) and produced .exe files. Ugh! Borland's first pascal compiler used a core licensed from someone (forget his name - you can find it on the net) to which they added an IDE. It's the IDE that (at the time) was the cutting-edge stuff we all drooled over! Ah, memories.... :-)

      Have a nice day!

    19. Re:What about Kylix ? by djmurdoch · · Score: 2

      Yes, Kahn was one of Wirth's students, and he may have written the original Pascal compiler, but it was Anders Hejlsberg who wrote Turbo Pascal. It was a Pascal compiler, not p2c plus a C subset compiler.

    20. Re:What about Kylix ? by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      Not to argue. The original turbo pascal was licensed from Hejlsberg, with an IDE from Kahn. :-) However, the Delphi series is a whole different kettle of fish (or in this case, pretty s/fowl/foul/); It works, but single-class hierarchies really suck and require too many compromises. At least that's my opinion, and I noticed that single-class forced me to make ugly compromises when I was designing my own components. In the end, it wasn't worth the bother.

  9. Schweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Excellent! Where can I pre order Visual Pascal?

    1. Re:Schweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Excellent! Where can I pre order Visual Pascal?


      No, no, no. It's Pascal.NET

    2. Re:Schweet! by jsfetzik · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean Visual Pascal.Net. ;)

    3. Re:Schweet! by Cidtek · · Score: 1

      You mean Pascal.net :-)

    4. Re:Schweet! by davmct · · Score: 2

      as funny as this sounds, I wouldn't put it past microsoft. although it would be a bastardized version of pascal that works with the .NET framework.

    5. Re:Schweet! by Mannerism · · Score: 2

      No, no: Visual _Turbo_ Pascal.NET

    6. Re:Schweet! by rlowe69 · · Score: 2

      Excellent! Where can I pre order Visual Pascal?

      Don't you mean Delphi?

      --
      ----- rL
    7. Re:Schweet! by SILIZIUMM · · Score: 2

      Isn't it Visual~1.Net ?

    8. Re:Schweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not since 9x was continued, no.

    9. Re:Schweet! by DopeRider · · Score: 1
      Excellent! Where can I pre order Visual Pascal?

      AKA C#.

    10. Re:Schweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006IRRE/ qid=1039739987/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-8993157-97313 61

  10. sure? by nick-less · · Score: 2

    Microsoft will make bids to buy both Rational and Borland

    If MS buys Borland they would become a Java Addict and Linux Software Producer (Kylix, JBuilder). I doubt this would happen so soon ;-)

    1. Re:sure? by larien · · Score: 2

      Another view: if MS buys Borland, how long do you think those products would last?

    2. Re:sure? by broody · · Score: 1

      Just like hotmail...

      --
      ~~ What's stopping you?
    3. Re:sure? by Shillo · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean Kylix.NET and #Builder. :)

      --

      --
      I refuse to use .sig
    4. Re:sure? by CrayzyJ · · Score: 1

      "and Linux Software Producer"

      Hence, giving credibility to this rumor seen on /.?

      --
      Holy s-, it's Jesus!
  11. Remove the competition... by larien · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This would basically be MS buying two competitors. Rational Clearcase competes with Visual Sourcesafe and Borland's development products obviously compete with Visual Studio (as well as doing a fair bit with Java, which MS probably don't like).

    If this is true, they've obviously decided to really flip the bird to the courts...

    1. Re:Remove the competition... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think they'd keep Visual Sourcesafe if they had access to Clearcase. I've met some anti-open-source-and-Free-software people (and regular people, too) that use cvs because Visual Sourcesafe is so bad.

      That said, I'm not real impressed by Clearcase either. But I've never heard of it being so bad that users preferred cvs.

      -Paul Komarek

    2. Re:Remove the competition... by gss · · Score: 1

      Comparing Sourcesafe to Clearcase isn't really fair. I've heard rumours that Microsoft doesn't even use Sourcesafe internally. Sourcesafe is that mickey mouse of a product.

    3. Re:Remove the competition... by killmenow · · Score: 1
      Hell, maybe MS's plan is to buy them and keep them funded and alive to prove to the courts they are interested in competition. Its just as likely.
      Whew...good thing I didn't have any food or drink in my mouth when I read that or it would be all over my monitor and keyboard right now.

      Just as likely? You must be joking. Perhaps trolling, I don't know. But the presumption that MS is interested in purchasing a competitor to use certain pieces of technology they own and KILL OFF THE REST is not far fetched at all. It happens.

      And it doesn't matter that Borland isn't a "titan" anymore. Borland offers some really good products and have had compiler technology superior to Microsoft's own for ... well, since I can remember.

      The one thing I would definitely see getting the axe in the purchase is Kylix. And that would be too bad. It provides a nice transition for Delphi coders.
    4. Re:Remove the competition... by k98sven · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hell, maybe MS's plan is to buy them and keep them funded and alive to prove to the courts they are interested in competition. Its just as likely.

      No, it's not. Showing interest in competition means staying away
      and letting the products compete in the marketplace. The courts know this.

      Given the choice of interpreting this as:
      a) MS killing off some weaker competitors
      b) MS liking competition so much that they'll buy competitors and
      lose money to keep them afloat.

      I have a very hard time seeing anyone, viewing both options as "just as likely",
      especially not a court in an anti-trust case.

    5. Re:Remove the competition... by Christopher_G_Lewis · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's like saying Notepad competes with Word.

      ClearCase is a full, team oriented SCM. Very robust.

      Source Safe is fine for small development project (teams of 1-5, projects that have very few releases etc) but it doesn't scale well, has sh*tty back up capabilities (Can't backup if someone's logged in, can't force someone to logout...) and most of the cool functionality of a SCM (Labeling, branching, merging) are very poorly implimented.

      Not to say that I don't use it for my personal development projects (scripts, small C++ COM objects, VB projects), but you must understand it's limitations.

    6. Re:Remove the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're very different products. VSS works, and ClearCase doesn't.

    7. Re:Remove the competition... by yog · · Score: 2

      Correct; VSS is a legacy product, according to MS's own website. It's just in maintenance mode now. Comparing VSS to ClearCase is ridiculous. VSS is a toy. Occasionally you have to rebuild the database because it gets "corrupted". Very confidence inspiring!

      I've heard that internally, MS uses Rational Rose for its CASE and source control systems; perhaps someone else can confirm this?

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    8. Re:Remove the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS fucked Borland so severely in the 90's I'm surprised there is anything left to buy. They started with approximately equal products, and while Borland went downhill (see those Borland icons in a windows product and you knew it was going to crash) MS developed Visual Studio to the point where today any honest developer has to admit it has no equal on any platform. I choose option b) - MS byuing Borland would be an incredible act of charity whose only possible benefit would be a demonstrable "competition" for MS developer products.
      I would have thought it an advantage to have Borland stumbling along independently...

      As for Rational, IBM just bought them. Hardly likely that they would immediately sell to MS - this part of the story is bullshit.

    9. Re:Remove the competition... by Lt+Razak · · Score: 1

      IT's funny, because Sourcesafe was bought by MS a long time ago. They never turned it into a decent product.

    10. Re:Remove the competition... by dswan69 · · Score: 1

      Don't know what they use, but it isn't sourcesafe. It is according to ex-employees an internally developed product.

      VSS is fine for small things.

    11. Re:Remove the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ClearCase? Go for SubVersion. CVS, PCVS, VSS are all dogs. SVN is open source and it's got all the others beat, hands-down - and it's still in alpha.

      http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4768

    12. Re:Remove the competition... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      I've been watching subversion. Are you using it for critical data? If not, would you feel confident recommending it for critical data? Don't worry, I won't hunt you down if I decided to use subversion and have problems -- after all, you're anonymous. =-)

      -Paul Komarek

    13. Re:Remove the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Visual Sourcesafe is a steaming pile of crap. It isn't useful for any number of developers. I tried using it over the summer with just TWO developers and it was slow, and buggy! Entire source tree updates would take five minutes, whereas Perfoce took about 10 seconds. I don't know what they do in Source-safe but it definately isn't doing it right.

    14. Re:Remove the competition... by JonK · · Score: 1

      Dunno about CASE tools, but for SCC most of the product groups use a rebadged/re-written version of Perforce.

      --
      Cheers

      Jon
    15. Re:Remove the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much more critical can you get than mission-critical? We've had no regrets.

      I used VSS when it was with its ("it's" for the punctuation-challenged) original company; i.e., before Microsoft purchased it from some company in the Carolinas and it was okay and it remained as such with Ms.

      But I had to draw the line at PCVS. I had a long-term contract which required PCVS and I almost had to walk midway because it was so awful.

      At this point, if anyone provides me with a choice, I'll choose svn...unless and until something better comes along. CVS is okay, but it's not going anywhere.

    16. Re:Remove the competition... by tc · · Score: 2

      Last I heard, MS internally use an (internally) modified version of Perforce called "Source Depot".

    17. Re:Remove the competition... by pcraven · · Score: 1

      I don't think ClearCase competes with Visual Source Safe. VSS hasn't changed in the last 10 years. It has no support for anything basic like branching. (I know there is a branch option, but it doesn't really do branching.)

      VSS has to get UNIX support through a different vendor. Even Microsoft doesn't use VSS. They use some internally created thing. I don't think Microsoft care much about VSS.

    18. Re:Remove the competition... by rthille · · Score: 2

      "Clearcase is so bad that I prefer CVS" -me.

      My last job switched from CVS to clearcase. Big mistake. Required a full-time admin, and the source was still unavailable ~5% of the time, and if the repository is down, so is your sandbox :-(

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    19. Re:Remove the competition... by Kismet · · Score: 2

      Interesting. I am supporting several CVS modules for various development teams right now. Regarding the teams that normally would use Microsoft VSS, there is not a single developer who doesn't _constantly_ gripe about how awful CVS is.

      Having used VSS for a couple of years on a previous project, I would definitely agree with them. Sure, it appears that VSS is not good for remote development (the off-site source code products for VSS have also proven too slow - hence our switch to CVS). Still, VSS is MUCH easier to use than CVS if you are working from a MicroSoft development platform and don't have to worry about sharing code remotely. VSS has a more intuitive interface than CVS, even WinCVS is terrible.

      VSS also does not suffer from some of the retarded problems that CVS has, such as managing repository directories and administrating CVS users. These tasks take extra time on CVS, and are non-issues under VSS. I shouldn't have to spend time supporting CVS; we never had to with VSS.

      I'm keeping my eye on Subversion - I think it might be the system that will replace CVS as the open source tool of choice for source control.

    20. Re:Remove the competition... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      All of my datapoints (all 3, that is) for VSS were multi-platform or multi-site. I guess if you have less than half the flexibility cvs, the interface will be easier. ;-) FWIW, I've never actually seen or used VSS.

      -Paul Komarek

    21. Re:Remove the competition... by jmccay · · Score: 2

      Microsoft already owns stock/shares in Borland, and they liscence technology from Borland. If they do buy Borland, if would be to get of the the money they pay Borland to use Borland technology. They never said what technology Microsoft was liscencing, but I think it might be the compiling down to one language because Borland was doing that years before with Delphi & C++ Builder. I really hope Borland doesn't buy either one. I don't mind Rational being bought by IBM, but I would mind if they were bought by Microsoft.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    22. Re:Remove the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, CVS prefers you!

    23. Re:Remove the competition... by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

      You're right that WinCVS is an utter piece of crap. (So is WinSCP while we're here. Someone should tell those people how to write windows software.)

      However commandlike CVS is alright, and is refreshing to use over the big expensive GUI source control because it is simple and fast.

      But it lacks a lot of important features (for example, referencing a branch by date, or listing modules in the repository, or listing branches, or ways to know what merges you've done at what stages of what branches).

      So you have to choose between the goodness of CVS, and the extra features (at the expense of hardness-to-use) of the expensive ones. I'm sure there are many people and companies in both camps here.

    24. Re:Remove the competition... by rSelrahc · · Score: 1

      RTFM... With ClearCase snapshot views, you can put your "sandbox" on your workstation and they are available even if the network is down. That's what I do to bring work home on the laptop... Then I just have to update when I get back to the office.

    25. Re:Remove the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can confirm this. And I have to say that Perforce/SourceDepot are excellent tools. I don't have a ton of experience with other programs (CVS, VSS), but I have been very pleased with P4 (Perforce). It is a rock.

    26. Re:Remove the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry - not very clear. I meant to say that I only have experience with CVS and VSS, and little experience with anything else. CVS has a few features P4 lacks, but P4 makes up for it in other ways (check out the Perforce web site)...

    27. Re:Remove the competition... by MrRay · · Score: 0

      if you're looking for a usable windows cvs-client, give tortoise-cvs a try!
      it's an extension for the explorer and works imho quite nice.

      --

      so long ...
      Ray ;-)

  12. There goes open source developement tools by Hellkitten · · Score: 3, Insightful

    MS buys Borland: Bye bye kylix

    MS buys Rational: Sue any open source that provides anything similar to rational products, or uses anything rational may have patented

    --
    - We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
    1. Re:There goes open source developement tools by xagon7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't forget bye bye JBuilder...which is where Borland's $ comes from nowdays anyway.

  13. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They may become profitable again, but then again, would YOU buy a bloated version of JBuilder?

  14. This makes sense by LibertineR · · Score: 0
    I know there were some very pissed off people at Microsoft that Rational accepted a bid from IBM without even talking to Microsoft. I actually hope Microsoft wins if there is going to be a bidding war.

    I HATE Visio for UML, and anything that encourages more UML usage in VS.NET is a good thing. Besides that, the horrific pricing for the Rational Suite should come down.

    I want Rose free in my MSDN subcription!

  15. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft pass GO and get 200$

    -Bob

    1. Re:In other news... by Alsee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft today acquired the Free Software Foundation, acquiring the GPL and the last vestiges of competition.

      I was about to say that it wouldn't do Microsoft any good because they still wouldn't really be able to use any GPL code, then I realized something...

      quite a bit of GPL code has an "or any future version of the GPL" clause. If Microsoft DID aquire FSF it could simply release a new version of the GPL and effectively remove all protection on all of that software.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "or any future version of the GPL"

      That line in COPYING hasn't been missed by anybody who is a key player at the FSF. On the day Stallman dies, they're planning on taking over the free software world. Not to do necessarily bad things with it. Their main goal is to finally afford those higher grade rolling papers they just can't spare the cash for. Zig Zag stock will definitely fall on the market that day.

    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the author of the source code could choose to upgrade or he could choose not to, not the licencee.

      Correct me if I'm wrong.

    4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPL says: "Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns."

      So, Microsoft can't do that.

      They couldn't do it anyway, since FSF isn't for sale -- you can't even buy a voting membership (although you can and should get a non-voting membership at m.fsf.org)

    5. Re:In other news... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I thought the author of the source code could choose to upgrade or he could choose not to, not the licencee.

      No, the clause says the author grants the licencee the right to use the code under the corrent GPL or any future versrion, at the licencee's option.

      Correct me if I'm wrong.

      Ok, but considering that you're an Anonymous Coward you'll probably never see it. I'm doing it for the benefit of anyone else who reads your post.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  16. Borland and Microsoft?! by vasqzr · · Score: 1



    Didn't Microsoft hire everyone away from Borland in like 1994?

    1. Re:Borland and Microsoft?! by will_die · · Score: 2

      They got a bunch of the big names back then when it looked like Borland was out of the development business. Some of the top C# creators came from Borland.

    2. Re:Borland and Microsoft?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Some of the top C# creators came from Borland

      uh, duh.

      The top C# and Delphi creator came from Borland

    3. Re:Borland and Microsoft?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word from my friends at both Microsoft & Borland at the time was along these lines:

      The claim from the 'softies was "everyone had to visit Mecca" (Redmond) to get hired. When Borland was going belly-up, Microsoft sent some HR people and they were holed up as close to the Borland building as possible and given "hire-on-the-spot" power. Borland employees were allegedly paying visits either during lunch or after work.

  17. Why are you all worried? by Nevermore-Spoon · · Score: 1

    Why are you all worried that companies that support other OS's are being bought by M$....It's alright, it will be ok....we just read on monday that M$ was going to be developing for linux now.

    --
    I have great faith in fools; My friends call it self-confidence. Edgar Allan Poe 1809-1845
    1. Re:Why are you all worried? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not development for endusers on linux. Microsoft is thinking (*THINKING*) about making apps for Linux Servers, because people are beginning to realize that linux servers are so much better, heh. I haven't heard any plans of development for endusers of linux. MS still wants every enduser to use windows.

  18. Umm... wait. Raitonal & IBM in agreemt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    They've already signed an agreement for IBM to buy Rational.

    http://www.rational.com/news/press/pr_view.jsp?I D= 8361

    1. Re:Umm... wait. Raitonal & IBM in agreemt by pbrammer · · Score: 1

      IBM and Rational have already reached an agreement.

      This article is either late in getting out or pure rumor.

    2. Re:Umm... wait. Raitonal & IBM in agreemt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because Rational and IBM already have an agreement means nothing. Microsoft is free to make an offer just as IBM has. If Microsoft's is better, well then Rational shareholders might just decide to rescind their agreement with IBM and go with MS instead.

  19. lemmings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Cant you see that all this news about Rational (and now Borland) is just some disgruntled exec at Rational "leaking" information to the press, hoping to jack the stock price up, so he can sell his options and jump that sinking ship?

    The story is first picked up by Reuters, and then by SlashDot, and then by News.COM, and then MSNBC, at which point every Joe Schmoe is yelling "BUY! BUY!" to their broker.

    Can't you see: slashdot is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    1. Re:lemmings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First interesting post in this thread. Why don't people read the stories, this is nothing but a rumour at this point. And not very believable one at that.

      It does not make ANY sense for MS to buy Borland, just as if they bought Sun. Many key employees would leave that second, if purchase ever went through (or actually even if they just tried). Buyout would be scrutinized heavily due to its monopolistic implications (Borland and MS pretty much own windows software development tool business).

      And as to Rational... couldn't care less. They produce nothing that's useful or interesting for me as a developer. Some managers love the PHB/weasel sales schpiel, for developers those tools are just for tools.

  20. No Borland .NET IDE by MagPulse · · Score: 2

    I was on the Borland Developer Network page yesterday and found this article on Borland's upcoming .NET IDE.

    "Borland plans to offer an alternative to Microsoft's Visual Studio .NET development environment. Such a product could suit application developers that want to leverage .NET and the best applications from many vendors."

    The only other .NET IDE I know of today is SharpDevelop, which feels sluggish on my P3 1.2GHz. Anyone know of others?

    1. Re:No Borland .NET IDE by Skidmarq · · Score: 1

      Borland recently decided to purchase TogetherSoft, whose ConrolCenter product can do VB.NET and C# projects.

      --

      "I don't think I ain't" -Thompson's Corollary to Descartes

    2. Re:No Borland .NET IDE by fine09 · · Score: 1

      I recently went to a borland conference where they talked about their .NET and web services startegies.

      What Borlands plans for .NET:

    3. Re:No Borland .NET IDE by fine09 · · Score: 1

      (due to lag with terminal services ... here is the rest of my comment)

      What Borland Plans for .NET

      * New IDE Called Delphi Studio .NET
      - Allows delphi developers to convert delphi apps to web services.
      - Add Web service links into delphi projects
      - Create new web services in delphi

      They are including a c# compiler with their release, although it isn't up to par and is kind of a side step in the goal.

      The really cool thing is that the are integrating the Kylix Features with .NET. So you can code your .NET app with delphi and run it on your linux server with apache or do the IIS way.

      They would have been a major competitor to VS.NET, since it added the option of linux, something that will for sure disappear if MS takes over.

    4. Re:No Borland .NET IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have it now, kinda. It's in early stages yet, but you *can* program for .net in delphi 7, although I do belive it's not exactly visual. They are suppsoed to have full .net support in delphi 8

    5. Re:No Borland .NET IDE by Reziac · · Score: 2

      That's called the Micro$oft Reflex: someone says "alternative product" and M$ immediately tries to kill them off!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  21. Monopoly... by Arimus · · Score: 1
    I can see how Rational would fit into MS's plans. But Borland? Not much of a fit beyond zapping the competion.


    Though how easily this would go down with the regulatory bodies in Europe and the States I'm not sure... Rational again is probably fair enough, but Borland... not much chance (fingers crossed).

    --
    --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    1. Re:Monopoly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Borland just bought TogetherSoft, IBM is buying Rational. Maybe M$ is worried about C# being cut out of two of the two top commercial UML tools.

  22. D'oh! by CorporatePunk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Next Headline : Microsoft buys C# and Visual Studio. In their attempt to own the world, Microsoft accidentally bought something they already own! Who watches for these kind of things?

  23. not both companies by Jasn · · Score: 5, Informative
    If the submitter had read the story they would have seen that it talks about separate rumors about separate purchases. In particular the Borland rumor has an IBM Rational purchase as its reason for being.

    If there were any rumor about MS thinking about bidding for both Rational and Borland as part of the same universe (and bear in mind that even the separate rumors are just rumors), it would surely have been in the first paragraph of Reuters' story, instead of what is (Rational), which is the more important rumor of the two.

  24. I thought you were dead or something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hello.

  25. MS buys Rational/Borland, what of Linux products? by tsetem · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is pure speculation on my part. But considering MS's stance on Linux, and supporting non-MS operating systems, would they kill cross-platform support?

    I don't know how many customers Rational has that are using the Windows version of their SW (eg: ClearCase & ClearQuest), versus the Linux & Unix versions. Is there enough income coming in to encourage MS to support other platforms?

    And as far as Borland is concerned, I would expect the Kylix to get knifed quickly since it's prob not a significant source of revenue.

    I could see how IBM buying Rational would be good for Linux & the community. But MS buying Rational seems like a way for MS to kill off a bunch of viable products on non-MS platforms.

    Thoughts?

  26. Monopoly in action. by rasjani · · Score: 3, Informative

    Obviously, im not the only one to point this out but.. If MS where to buy Borland, that would make life of the Kylix in Linux quite unstable. While kylix is allready in its second phase and we havent seen massive amounts of free and/or proprietary software build with it, its still microsoft acting against certain market..

    Also, Borland products are competing with Visual Studio series, and allthou i havent used anything from Rational (nor from VisualStudio), i guess MS has data modelling tools just like Rational... Yey! Good for competition..

    --
    yush
    1. Re:Monopoly in action. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft licenses data modeling tools from Rational to use in their Visual Studio.

    2. Re:Monopoly in action. by GroovBird · · Score: 2

      I suspect if Microsoft were to buy Borland, they would invest in Delphi for .Net (to bring in all the Delphi developers) and sell Kylix to the MKS people or something. They wouldn't just let it die because they know it's a lot of developers they can either gain or lose.

      All in all, I think it would be a good thing. Honestly.

    3. Re:Monopoly in action. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rational has been an MS lap dog for a while now. MS buying them won't make much difference.

    4. Re:Monopoly in action. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and we havent seen massive amounts of free and/or proprietary software build with
      And that would be ??? What software are you referring to? It seems that very few people actually use Kylix for anything other than playing around with. Can you please point to URLS of software that is actually be written with Kylix ?

    5. Re:Monopoly in action. by buzzcutbuddha · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microsoft themselves, use Rational tools for their modelling needs, and has worked with Rational to ease the integration of Rational XDE within Visual Studio.NET.

    6. Re:Monopoly in action. by Jonathan · · Score: 2

      I suspect if Microsoft were to buy Borland, they would invest in Delphi for .Net (to bring in all the Delphi developers) and sell Kylix to the MKS people or something. They wouldn't just let it die because they know it's a lot of developers they can either gain or lose.

      If Delphi went .NET (which wouldn't be that hard -- just add a Pascal compiler with access to the .NET API and call it "Delphi" -- sure it wouldn't be backwards compatible, but neither is VB .NET), what would be the point of Kylix? The whole point was that Kylix was compatible with Delphi, making cross platform development possible.

    7. Re:Monopoly in action. by GroovBird · · Score: 2

      Cross platform development is a joke. It's a hoax. It's hype.

      Kylix was meant to be a Delphi for Linux, sure, and they sold it as a "cross-platform" development tool, but I tell you right now, if you develop your Windows applications using CLX (which you need to do if you ever want to achieve this so called cross-platformness), then you're using the Qt libraries, and your GUI just isn't the same.

      There aren't that many cross-platform control libraries available either. The situation is improving though.

      BTW, there already is a Delphi.NET compiler. It's currently in "preview" and it's included in Delphi 7. There isn't that much new language features necessary to make it .NET compatible. It's mostly library stuff.

      Dave

    8. Re:Monopoly in action. by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Oh, so I'm not the only one who went "ARRGGH!!" at the thought of M$ buying Borland!!

      Not only Kylix, but you can bet Borland's current habit of freewaring (if that's a word :) its older compilers would soon vanish. :(

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:Monopoly in action. by jafac · · Score: 2

      I don't see why that would be a problem.

      After all. Microsoft's purchase of Bungie didn't slow down the release schedule for Halo on Mac OS X.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    10. Re:Monopoly in action. by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Parrot is supposed to support the .NET api on Windows. So what they might do is Delphi & Kylix can compile to the parrot VM which supports and keeps up with .NET. This has another advantage for Microsoft in that it creates a multi platform VM not controlled by Sun which Sun can't claim is controlled by Microsoft.

      All told I don't see any reason for Microsoft not to support Parrot.

    11. Re:Monopoly in action. by MisterFancypants · · Score: 1
      Obviously, im not the only one to point this out but.. If MS where to buy Borland, that would make life of the Kylix in Linux quite unstable

      WHY oh WHY would Microsoft buy Borland? They wouldn't. Microsoft has made no move to buy Borland. This is all based on some wildly STUPID prediction made by a financial analyst based on the fact that Borland is a 'developer tools company' like Rational.

      What would Borland possibly bring to the table for Microsoft? C++ Builder? No, they already have Visual C++ .Net 2003. Java tools? Hah hah hah. Yeah what Microsoft really wants is a bunch of Java tools when they are trying to push C# as the new standard and they already have perfectly fine C# tools. UML tools? Visio is better at UML (though it isn't a dedicated UML tool) than anything Borland produces. Delphi? No, Microsoft already has its hands full with .Net languages to support, Delphi is a fine language but doesn't have anywhere enough overall usage compared to VB, etc, for Microsoft to worry about it.

      The only thing Borland really has over Microsoft in any area is their recent push into cross-platform tools and Microsoft doesn't care about non-Windows markets.

      I'll EAT MY HAT if Microsoft buys Borland, it just makes no sense whatsoever. I can see them trying to make a bid for Rational if that would be possible at this point (seems way too late for that now), but a Microsoft aquisition of Borland just makes no sense whatsoever.

    12. Re:Monopoly in action. by Glog · · Score: 1

      Dork - I use Kylix in a live site. And no I am not going to give you the URL.

    13. Re:Monopoly in action. by rasjani · · Score: 2

      What i really meant is that Kylix didnt go to be "VB" or "Delphi" fame in Linux platform..

      Reason why i didnt adopt it (even thou i had some experimenting with it) is the lack of postgres (way back in version 1) and gtk clix bindings.. I guess it supports postgres now but afaik no gtk/gnome.

      Interesting point in that is that now, gnome/gtk is going to be default desktop in Solaris 9 and (my wild quess) linux side is quite big too even if qt might have more users..

      So, hell with kylix anyhow, but sad thing if it vanishesh in such purchase.. If it ever will happen ...

      --
      yush
    14. Re:Monopoly in action. by greenrd · · Score: 2
      Any open source VM can be embraced and extended by Microsoft, unless it has strong trademark protection, backed up by a serious threat of lawsuits.

      But for me that isn't really the issue. The real issues are:

      1. Will MS patent essential extensions to .NET and hinder open source implementations from implementing them?
      2. Will MS leave essential parts of .NET insufficiently documented in future, thus hindering open source implementations? (see how much difficulty WINE has had, if you don't believe this could happen!)
      Given the examples of WINE and Samba (corresponding to Win32 and SMB respectively, both not openly documented fully), I wouldn't trust MS further than I can throw them. As another perceptive slashdotter noted, if MS lets .NET succeed on Linux, people will no longer need Windows on the average slim client (because it'll be accessing .NET services through a browser) or on the server (because it'll be running *NIX). So are MS trying to shoot themselves in the foot?

      There's got to be some factor missing here - and I believe that factor is that MS is bound to play a bait-and-switch. Cross platform my arse.

    15. Re:Monopoly in action. by jbolden · · Score: 2

      I agree with your basic point. Right now Microsoft wants .NET to be cross platform because they are more worried about Java. Once they stop being worried about Java; or start getting worried about an equal good or better .NET: VM, development environment, language... they may very well shift the ground.

      In any case Parrot has a BSD style license so it would be perfect for currently open source yet easy for Microsoft to bait and switch.

  27. Plans? by Halo- · · Score: 2

    IBM plans to buy Rational? IBM is just needs shareholder approval (from Rational) and the government to approve it.

  28. I don't buy it by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 2

    Somebody must be playing rumors to have the stock go up or something.
    The truth is, Microsoft may be interested in acquiring Borland, but Borland is most probably not interested in being sold to Microsoft. Anyway, if it was even a remote possibility, Oracle at the very least would step in.

    1. Re:I don't buy it by Wateshay · · Score: 2

      As the article points out, as a publicly traded company, Borland is required to entertain offers from all comers. Whether or not they want to sell to MS may be irrelevent.

      --

      "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

    2. Re:I don't buy it by davmct · · Score: 2

      From the quotes from Borlands' CEO, it sounds like he's more than interested in being bought out by MS. What better of a deal he could he get? he gets to jump a sinking ship, get a hefty bonus for making the sale, and live on easy street.

      1. Build a company
      2. Sell it to Microsoft
      3. ???
      4. PROFIT!

    3. Re:I don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a dumbass. Borland is not going to say NO PLEASE MICROSOFT, DON'T MAKE OUR EXECUTIVES RICHER THAN THEY ARE.

      and the shareholders in the public markets are not going to say the same thing either. Money rules the world. Fuck competition.

  29. I recieved this as a Rational customer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    To our valued customers:

    We are delighted to tell you that IBM and Rational Software have announced a definitive agreement for IBM to purchase Rational. This is a very exciting time for both companies and builds on the extensive business relationship IBM and Rational have had for over 20 years. Most importantly, it will provide significant benefits to you.

    If you've been using Rational's solution to build business applications to automate your business, you will appreciate the combination of Rational's solution with IBM's e-business strategy. IBM helps customers integrate their business processes and software infrastructures to build an on-demand e-business. This requires the integration of software development, transaction management, data management, collaboration, and systems management and security. With Rational's demonstrated strength in software development, IBM will offer leading solutions in each of these categories and provide a complete solution for creating an on-demand e-business. This includes broad support for your application development efforts for a variety of environments, including J2EE, .NET, and others.

    If you've been using Rational's solution to build software for software products and systems, you'll enjoy the benefits of an improved solution through the combination of IBM and Rational technology. Rational's outstanding solution in this space will be amplified through synergies with IBM's pervasive computing strategy. This is an important market for IBM, and Rational is key to IBM's software strategy. Whether you're building a software product, a technical system, real-time software, or embedded software, IBM will be able to provide you with industry-leading products, services and support.

    Rational will become the fifth division in IBM Software Group (joining WebSphere, DB2, Lotus, and Tivoli) and retain its brand identity. The division will be led by Mike Devlin, Rational's current CEO.

    As with other business acquisitions of this nature, this one will require government regulatory approval and the approval of Rational's shareholders.

    IBM and Rational are impressive as separate entities. Together, with our complementary software strategies, people talents, and commitment to customer success, we can provide you with even more value.

    Thank you for your continued support. We look forward to expanding our relationship with you in the future.

    Best regards,

    Steve Mills
    Senior Vice President & Group Executive
    IBM Software Group

    Michael Devlin
    CEO
    Rational Software

    1. Re:I recieved this as a Rational customer by LibertineR · · Score: 2, Informative
      We all got that letter, but it doesnt mean Jack. Rational is a public company, and they have to accept bids from EVERYONE, no matter what sweet deal the CEO made with IBM.

      Microsoft can afford to spend whatever they need to move the shareholders to their side. IBM is going to lose this one.

    2. Re:I recieved this as a Rational customer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just hurry up and lay off the Rational staff.

    3. Re:I recieved this as a Rational customer by richie2000 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Relevant Press Release.

      IBM and Rational Software Sign Agreement for IBM to Acquire Rational
      December 6, 2002

      Armonk, N.Y., and Cupertino, Calif. -- IBM (NYSE:IBM) and Rational Software Corp. (NASDAQ:RATL) today announced the two companies have entered into a definitive agreement for IBM to acquire the equity of Rational at a price of approximately $2.1 billion in cash or $10.50 per share.

      So how come no one spotted this like six days ago?
      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    4. Re:I recieved this as a Rational customer by greed · · Score: 2

      So did I, so I sent it to abuse@rational.com and abuse@ibm.com.

    5. Re:I recieved this as a Rational customer by Kris+Warkentin · · Score: 2

      Yeah...Slashdot posted it on Dec. 8 (after I submitted it on Dec. 6). They don't like to be on the cutting edge around here....let the news get a little stale first. I mean, it's only the biggest software deal of the entire year.

      --

      In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
    6. Re:I recieved this as a Rational customer by richie2000 · · Score: 2
      *sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay.
      I work all night and I post all day.
      I troll /. and flame Jon Katz.

      I wish I had more modpoints, just like Commander T!

      I want to see you fit "CmdrTaco" into a song lyric. I dare you!

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Why is Rational in trouble? by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is Rational considering a sale to another corporation, anyway? Do they just need a boost, or are they a sinking ship?

    1. Re:Why is Rational in trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rational is in trouble because they aren't very good at writing software. When you are a software company, that is not good for the bottom line (with one very notable exception).

  32. That's why we need Lazarus!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lazarus

    - The Free Software Delphi!

    1. Re:That's why we need Lazarus!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course we should not forget: HBasic, the Linux Visual Basic Alternative.

      Hbasic

      Lazarus is nice but no Kylix alternative, yet. Hbasic is nice, and there is no real alternative.

    2. Re:That's why we need Lazarus!!!! by justsomebody · · Score: 3, Informative

      Compare lazarus to delphi or kylix.

      bad: Some points are still missing.
      good: They are evolving fast enough
      bad: not fast enough, at least if you wanna move now
      good: It's native in all OS
      good: It works much better than wined-kylix (debuging in kylix is a real pain in the ass, it remembers me on windows days, crash, (optional restart), crash, must restart or logoff (or kill all processes in top - delphi and windows are not included, restart is a must there))
      bad: less features than kylix
      good: lighter, faster

      all in all together. I have licensed delphi 7 and kylix 3, but I don't use them, only for some small db projects. All my other work is more console than gui, so lazarus ROCKS, at least for me.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  33. Re:Hate to say it but.. that's pure drivel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually Rational took over Pure and Atria. And their flagship products ClearCase and RationalRose are two outstanding products in software engineering - not to mention MultiSite and various other Quality Process tools.

    Rational, Pure and Atria have been successful companies all along, actually. And they have a good reputation with their mvfs that really works like a champ on about 10 different platforms, pooor Windows included.

  34. New Borland Product Line by hayriye · · Score: 3, Funny

    J#Builder
    Turbo Pascal.NET

    1. Re:New Borland Product Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is NO such thing as turbo pascal anymore, hasn't been for quite a few years. Delphi is ubject pascal a tad differnt.

      Besides delphi 7 could be called Delphi .net..

    2. Re:New Borland Product Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Delphi 7 is already on the market (more like Delphi 6.5 according to most people). Guess Delhi 8 will have to be the .net version.

      Delphi.net is in beta, but it does not include the IDE that makes Delphi product interesting to most users.

  35. antitrust anyone? by 10Ghz · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't either of these deals be blocked by the authorities? Like when MS tried to boy Quicken.

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    1. Re:antitrust anyone? by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 2

      I doubt it. The authorities might understand the issue when Quicken is involed, but I doubt they have any understanding of what MS buying Borland would mean to the industry.

    2. Re:antitrust anyone? by mtfbwy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not with the current administration in office.

    3. Re:antitrust anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The feather-slap Microsoft received from the Bush junta pretty much says it all. If Microsoft wants Borland - they'll get it. Simple as that. And besides, Microsoft will eventually purchase enough legislators to have Linux banned in the name of protecting The Fatherland from "terror".

    4. Re:antitrust anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amen

    5. Re:antitrust anyone? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I might misremember, but I thought when M$ tried to buy Quicken, Intuit told M$ to go suck eggs. I don't recall any gov't intervention involved. (The attempt I recall was from several years before the M$ antitrust trial.) IIRC, M$ then bought some other product and rebadged it as M$ Money.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:antitrust anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, when the government told Intuit they couldn't be bought by Microsoft, it fucked over the Intuit shareholders and angered many employees.

      Intuit at the time was posturing to be purchased by Microsoft. They weren't 'rescued' from a takeover.

    7. Re:antitrust anyone? by IamSorrow · · Score: 1

      Actually, It was an amicable deal between both of them, here is the link to the DOJ,s Anti-Trust issue on the Deal

      Justice Department Files Antitrust Suit Challenge


      And the following analysis of the deal
      The Attempted Microsoft - Intuit Merger

    8. Re:antitrust anyone? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Ah, this must have been a second attempt. The one I'm thinking of was from about 3-4 years earlier (before M$Money existed at all).

      I guess if you won't sell M$ a product line, they just buy your whole company :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  36. Hmmm... by waterford0069 · · Score: 1


    Irrational Rose?

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. Microsoft The Rampant Purchaser by SmartGamer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sheesh! This is getting way out of hand, and the government really needs to step in and do something.

    Micro$oft has been on a buying spree recently. Rareware was one of its more recent aquisitions, much to my horror. They had good games; now, I'll avoid them on general principle.

    M$ is trying to expand by assimilation. Don't have the tools/knowledge/brains/experience to corner a market? Just buy someone who does! If they don't sell, drive them out of business!

    This chain will only end with complete Microsoft control of the world- literally- or M$ gets broken up. The government has to step in and cause the second.

    Microsoft's "Buy Or Kill" strategy is, unfortunately, an effective one. Destroy all competition, by taking what they have, if possible; expand to new markets by buying the leader of the industry.

    End result? A Microsoft monopoly on almost every technological market.

    *whimper*

    --
    Warning: Poster of this comment is a nerd. Just like everybody else here.
    1. Re:Microsoft The Rampant Purchaser by obdulio · · Score: 1

      And they are buying Borland just after the suit ended...

      --
      PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
    2. Re:Microsoft The Rampant Purchaser by SmartGamer · · Score: 1

      Coincidence? I think not. Right after the heat is off, here they are again...

      The only thing for it is to try again.

      --
      Warning: Poster of this comment is a nerd. Just like everybody else here.
    3. Re:Microsoft The Rampant Purchaser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget...put a few bucks in the politicians's pockets to get away free...

    4. Re:Microsoft The Rampant Purchaser by drpatt · · Score: 1

      Steal or buy? MS has always been this way:
      FoxPro
      FrontPage
      Stacker

      The list goes on and on...

  39. Not according to Slashdot by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is very confusing to me (not necessarily your post, but the conflicting most prevalent message). On the one hand Microsoft is doomed as the purportedly superior Linux/Apache/MySQL/Postgresql stomps its way into the hearts and mind of shops everywhere, but on the other hand Microsoft is an evil monopoly that must be stopped. These points are absolutely contradictory: If Microsoft is under an imminent threat by open source/freeware then they are not a monopoly.

    Pick your prophecy people: If you claim in one post that Microsoft is doomed, then you must forever disagree with any claims that they are a monopoly.

    1. Re:Not according to Slashdot by saintan · · Score: 0

      Not so...
      They are simply a doomed monopoly...
      Which to me is even better, let them get bigger,
      because the old cliche is true, the bigger they
      are the harder they fall!

      Some old hardcore lyrics for you:
      "I'm bringing it down, this hammer I've got, this ignorance has got to be stopped!"
      Judge, Bringin' It Down

      --
      ****--- A fortune cookie once told me the meaning of life...so I ate it. ---****
    2. Re:Not according to Slashdot by blancolioni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pick your prophecy people: If you claim in one post that Microsoft is doomed, then you must forever disagree with any claims that they are a monopoly.

      Slashdot is not monolithic!

      Sigh.

      Retarded, irritating and whiney -- sure. You've proved that by combining a false dichotomy with a big flaming strawman. Cheers.

    3. Re:Not according to Slashdot by TrekCycling · · Score: 1
      Maybe confusing to you, but it shouldn't be confusing. The reason Slashdotters see such huge momentum behind Open Source and the reason they see it as viable competition is precisely because it offers an alternative to the MS Monopoly. I mean, let's be frankly honest. Some of us use Linux because we want to support software that everyone gets to take advantage of. That's why I purchase Linux. Not because it's free. Not because it's not Microsoft. But because my money goes to support GPL software. Now some people, particularly the corporations backing Linux these days, jump in for other reasons. The main reasons being tied largely to the fact that MS is a Monopoly. There are many non-altruistic reasons to want to go with more open software rather than a monopoly. The number 1 reason being that once you're locked in and there is no viable competition, who knows what you get charged.

      So as a Slashdotter who holds what you think is a contradictory postion, I see it like this. If Microsoft wasn't allowed to hold such an ovewhelming monopoly position and abuse it to such an amazing extent. And if the govt. wasn't asleep at the wheel in general with regards to corporate consolidation, you'd have real competition. And in that kind of a world, in a world with real competition between more than just two or three companies per market segment, Linux becomes less attractive to many of the companies currently investing in it. Because they know they can leverage Company A against Microsoft. Or they can leverage Company B against Microsoft. Or they can go to sleep at night knowing Microsoft won't lock them into proprietary standards, because Companies A through E agreed to another open standard.

      But we don't live in that world, unfortunately. We live in a world where Microsoft is a monopoly and threatens our very freedom to compute as we see fit, in the name of profit. They have the govt. in their back pocket. In light of this we are both doomed and at the same time seeing an accelerated move to Open Source because people are starting to catch on. Here's hoping the rest of the world catches on before TCPA/Palladium destroys computing as we know it and hands Microsoft the entire market on a silver platter.

    4. Re:Not according to Slashdot by ergo98 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Slashdot is not monolithic!

      Perhaps you missed the whole "prevalent argument" conditional put on that? The point, which you so stunningly missed, is that the majority of Slashdotters will in one story claim that Microsoft is a terrible monopoly that needs government intervention to be reigned in, but then in another story the majority (and yes it's largely the same group of people replying...I can recognize the UIDs in most cases) are claiming that XYZ products have the market cornered and Microsoft is running in fear (be in Linux, Postgresql, J2EE, etc). I have seen individuals claim these opposing perspectives countless times.

      Retarded, irritating and whiney -- sure. You've proved that by combining a false dichotomy with a big flaming strawman. Cheers.

      Firstly let me get the de rigueur insult in here: You suck eggs and your mother wears army boots! Save the insults for the next girl guides meeting moron because they just case you for the savage that you are.

      Of course there is the small point that it's a real dichotomy (although I'm sure it gave you great pleasure to spout off "false dichotomy" and "strawman". Those goodies can be found hundreds of times by sheeplike Slashdotters such as yourself). You see a monopoly indicates that a company has exclusive control, with little competition, over a market or activity, yet here on Slashdot we learn that everyone is installing Linux, ESR is proclaiming that Microsoft will be gone in current_year+1, and technically Microsoft is purportedly outmatched by a competitor that is free, and available worldwide. You see those two opinions do not mix.

    5. Re:Not according to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know that it is the prevailing opinion at any given point? Do you check everyone's UID checking for hyprocrits? Perhaps some stories draw one group or the other to post their anti-microsoft ideas, either open source is better and will kill microsoft, or microsoft is evil etc.

    6. Re:Not according to Slashdot by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2

      Microsoft is a monopoly, and an abusive one. That fact has been proven in a court of law, and upheld upon appeal.

      So was IBM at one point. IBM was unbeatable, unstoppable. But they were stopped, and gasp, even took the opportunity to mend their ways somewhat.

      Now Microsoft is the unbeatable, unstoppable, juggernaut. With Longhorn/Palladium/Millennium and the Hollings bill, they have the potential of going even farther than IBM, becoming a US government mandated monopoly, ruling the computer industry for a thousand years, or even forever.

      Of course a monopoly is built on top of customers. While a company maintains a monopoly they can use it (against the law) to shoehorn themselves into other markets and be a real bully. But becoming that bully bears a hefty price tag. Microsoft is very much a hated bully.

      Microsoft has managed, with Licensing 6 and other ploys, to alienate two thirds of their customers. If those customers go elsewhere, it is the end of Microsoft's monopoly, and their mad dreams of world domination. That is the danger Linux, Apple, various office suites and browsers pose: an alternative, that has arisen because angry customers want and need a way out of this nightmare. That is how Linux and Apple can stop the unstoppable, and pull the evil monopoly down. Today's monopoly does not guarantee tomorrow's monopoly, or even that tomorrow will come for Microsoft.

      That is the irony, badly mangled in the Americanization of "Godzilla 2000": to achieve world domination and begin a thousand year kingdom, only to have Godzilla destroy you the very same day.

      Microsoft is a monopoly, an illegal and much abused one, at the height of its arrogance, cruelty, and power. It could lock the world in its iron fist for a thousand years. Or it could be destroyed tomorrow. Nothing is certain but this: its fate is in our hands.

      Shinoda: "The age of Millennium."
      Io: "What does that mean?"
      Shinoda: "A thousand year kingdom. It wants to create a home for itself. There is one flaw in its plan: Godzilla."
      "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)

    7. Re:Not according to Slashdot by Dodger_ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Okay retard, let's spell it out for you with some hypothetical math. There are over 400,000 registered users(I just glanced around for the highest user number in these threads, probably more than that) and articles posted get maybe an average of 400-500 comments before they are closed. Even if you looked at 50 articles about Microsoft with 500 comments and each of those comments were posted by a different user that's still only 25,000 users. Which, if we go with the low 400,000 users estimate, leads to roughly 6% of Slashdot's population. To conclude that "the majority of Slashdotters" are hypocritical in their arguments against Microsoft IS retarded and assumes Slashdot has a monolithic view.

      You're just making yourself look stupid by assuming anything about "the majority" of Slashdotters. Argue about your real issues, people claiming the demise of Microsoft via free software and people claiming Microsoft is a monopoly(which according to a court ruling, they are) and stop trying to base your arguments on baseless assumptions about the people arguing for/against you.

      --
      Dodger_
    8. Re:Not according to Slashdot by ergo98 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Okay retard

      Oooh, touché!

      Of course all your petulant little rant has exposed is that you know absolutely nothing about Slashdot. You see, hundreds of thousands of people sign up for accounts (or, in cases such as yours, they sign up for several accounts so they have the "troll post-reply" account. You apparently were a little too dumb to realize you'd switched to your trolling account), but they don't post. Indeed if you had any truthful knowledge of Slashdot, you'd know that it's a very small cross-section of Slashdotters that post, and they often post prolifically. This idea that it's a random subsection of hundreds of thousands of people posting is just ridiculously laughable.

      Secondly, it's damn funny what the defense has been. In the first post you, err, he firstly stated that Slashdot wasn't monolithic and therefore can hold contradictory opinions, but then hilariously refuted what I was saying anyways... So I take it from both defenses that it is illogical and foolish to both claim Microsoft's imminent demise from superior and freely available alternatives, and then to proclaim that they're an evil monopoly? Come on: Say it. Let's not beat around silly claims of false dichotomies or strawman arguments.

      P.S. Slashdot moderation further parrots this hilarity. I can see that the grandparent post has been moderated up for saying that Slashdot is not monolithic, coupling it with some slurs such as "retarded". In any reasonable cross section that's called "flamebait", but her it caters to the sheeplike mentality. Mod that man up! (P.S. I just find it funny myself. I haven't had mod points on here in over a year, presumably because I moderated a non-pro-Linux post up because it was factual and even tempered).

    9. Re:Not according to Slashdot by blancolioni · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hi honey! Did I strike a nerve?

      Perhaps you missed the whole "prevalent argument" conditional put on that?

      Nope, but you used so many words to make your point that my clipboard got tired and I couldn't paste it.

      the majority of Slashdotters will in one story ...

      Actually, you got me there. The majority could be saying any old thing, but my threshold is +3, so what's going on in the bowels of Slashdot passes me right by. Which means I'm huddled in Slashdot's appendix by the way.

      Firstly let me get the de rigueur insult in here: You suck eggs and your mother wears army boots! Save the insults for the next girl guides meeting moron because they just case you for the savage that you are.

      Mine was better.

      xxx

    10. Re:Not according to Slashdot by Hard_Code · · Score: 5, Funny

      "your mother wears army boots!"

      On that note, can anybody explain why this is actually an insult? I never understood. Surely there are many mothers in the military. And army boots are rather sturdy. If my mother wore army boots I think that would imply she could kick your mother's ass. Actually, I think arming more mothers would be a good idea all-around.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    11. Re:Not according to Slashdot by Alsee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A) Different people can have different oppinions.

      B) Either one could be wrong. How the hell does that mean people can't still assert the other one?

      C) They could BOTH be right. It's completely possible for Microsoft to be an EvilMonopoly and on the verge of collapse in one or more markets. Assuming they ARE and EvilMonopoly, anything short of total bankruptcy could still require government intervention to set things right.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    12. Re:Not according to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Soldiers fighting overseas would pay local prostitutes by giving them their boots.

    13. Re:Not according to Slashdot by Rasputin · · Score: 1
      This is easy:

      On the one hand Microsoft is doomed as the purportedly superior Linux/Apache/MySQL/Postgresql stomps its way into the hearts and mind of shops everywhere...

      Those programs *are* superior to their microsoft opposites. But, as Microsoft has so often proved, the best technology often doesn't win. What you hear on Slashdot is the hope that good software can overcome Microsoft's sleazy tactics - not the certainly that it will.

      ...but on the other hand Microsoft is an evil monopoly that must be stopped...

      The court system declared Microsoft to be an abusive monopoly. The majority of Slashdot reader would probably agree. This does not in any way suggest that Free/Opensource software can not leverage them out of that position. They're an abusive monopoly now, tomorrow they're dust. Where's the dichotomy in that? It worked with the Huns, the Romans, and that guy with the funny mustache (what was his name again? :) - it will eventually work with Bill.

      --
      "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
    14. Re:Not according to Slashdot by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      Ahhh...that makes more sense...thanks AC

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    15. Re:Not according to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be awkward going into your next battle with bare feet?

    16. Re:Not according to Slashdot by rlgines · · Score: 1

      I always thought that the insult was:

      "Your mother wears army boots for ear-rings".

      But what do I know. My mother was never in the army.

    17. Re:Not according to Slashdot by fiftyfly · · Score: 1
      "your mother wears army boots!"
      On that note, can anybody explain why this is actually an insult? I never understood. Surely there are many mothers in the military. And army boots are rather sturdy. If my mother wore army boots I think that would imply she could kick your mother's ass. Actually, I think arming more mothers would be a good idea all-around.

      Hmmm, well as one who currently make their living coaching children I can attest to the idea that mothers are scary enough as it is. The last thing I need, when little johnny doesn't make the relay team, is little johnny's mother armed and (presumed rather more) dangerous.

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
  40. Great! by lovebyte · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now nobody will say that MS does not innovate.

    All of Borland's and Rationale's innovations are belong to MS!

    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

  41. My bet... by killmenow · · Score: 1

    0.47 seconds

  42. Re:HOLY HELL! : Eclipse! by hermescom · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I wouldn't be too worried about loosing JBuilder. After all, Eclipse is better, faster, and open-sourcier. Not to mention it doesn't use godawful Swing(r)(tm)(c)(pi).

    I am a Java programmer myself (laugh it up), but Swing just plain annoys me.

  43. know your data first lamer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Programming language products were not part of the anti-trust legal action against MS.

    Windows, the OS, was.

  44. In other news... by TrekCycling · · Score: 4, Funny
    Microsoft today acquired the Free Software Foundation, acquiring the GPL and the last vestiges of competition.

    This news brought to you via your XBox home media center, by MSNBC.

    No, we're not a monopoly yet. Nothing to worry about. Go back to playing your game made by Rare.

  45. Profitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, like Corel, right?

    Acquisition by Microsoft will mean the END of their competing suites--BC++, Jbuilder, Delphi and Kylix. It won't make Borland profitable, but it will contribute to the profit of Microsoft.

  46. IBM and Rational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't IBM already sign something with Rational.. because: this link thinks they did

  47. Ummm... by leibnizme · · Score: 1

    Rational's home page states the following:

    "IBM and Rational Software Sign Agreement for IBM to Acquire Rational"

    In the FAQ:

    "IBM and Rational Software Corp. today announced the two companies have entered into a definitive agreement for IBM to acquire the equity of Rational at a price of approximately $2.1 billion in cash or $10.50 per share."

    A definitive agreement? Doesn't sound as though M$ can buy Rational, does it?

  48. Re:It really fits by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

    a few months ago granting them literally a pound of flesh from anyone who installed Turbo Pascal Builder.

    that's a pretty cheap price for anyone using Turbo Pascal Builder. i would expect you to sign away your soul as the C# development tools (Visual Studio .NET) require. ;)

  49. Bunk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny. Rational seems to think that they are being bought buy IBM and IBM seems to concur.

  50. Dirtier than thou attitude??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM buying Rational makes since their Websphere is truly a multi-platform entity. By takingover Rational, MS would effectively remove the last vestiges of true multi-platform development - in their own unique dirty manner.

  51. It's a free market by dybdahl · · Score: 2

    Having been a Borland tool user since Borland was invented, I'm sure that Delphi could become the JBuilder of .net. This makes a lot of companies interested in buying Borland - for each their reasons: IBM, Sun, Microsoft. One thing is sure: Fuller's own future looks bright, no matter who he sells to.

  52. They already bought Anders... by mcguirez · · Score: 2, Informative


    Well, M$ already has Anders Hejlsberg - the
    chief architect/inventor of both Delphi and
    C#. I guess it was only a matter of time...

    --
    When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras
  53. MS will not buy BOTH of them by javatips · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, this story is more accurate.

    First this is jusr rumors and speculations.

    Second, Borland will likely become an acquisition target for MS ONLY in the event that IBM complete the acquisition of Rational.

    If MS do acquire Borland, that will be funny (and painful at the same time). They would acquire a bunch of very popular Java products! And the UML tool (which is the thing they are the most interested in) is written in Java! What will they do with it... convert it to C#?

    1. Re:MS will not buy BOTH of them by jimmyCarter · · Score: 2

      And the UML tool (which is the thing they are the most interested in) is written in Java! What will they do with it... convert it to C#?

      It's a safe bet...

      --

      -- jimmycarter
    2. Re:MS will not buy BOTH of them by the_rev_matt · · Score: 2

      Yes, they will. It will be very painful, as they will rewrite the UML tools in C# and repurpose all the other tools to be .Net tools instead of Java tools (J# Builder, etc) killing off one of the best sources of Java development tools. I think the Borland purchase would help MSFT much more in the fight against Java than a purchase of Rational would help in the fight against IBM.

      --
      this is getting old and so are you

      blog

    3. Re:MS will not buy BOTH of them by pmz · · Score: 2

      What will they do with it... convert it to C#?

      They will probably try to force rewriting it for .NET. Imagine the cultural collision. I wouldn't be surprised if hundreds of Borland employees suddenly update their resumes and post them to Monster, et. al.

    4. Re:MS will not buy BOTH of them by fferreres · · Score: 2

      What will they do with it... convert it to C#

      Probably, and make the Java version weaker as they see fit. MS can build very decent software elsewhere, so when they buy is more for closing the branches they don't like and not because they really need the assets.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    5. Re:MS will not buy BOTH of them by sacrilicious · · Score: 3, Informative
      They would acquire a bunch of very popular Java products! [Will they] convert it to C#?

      No matter... IntelliJ is eating Borland's lunch anyway. IntelliJ's java IDE is substantially better than JBuilder (I've used both for over a year), and it's only 1/3 the price.

      .

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  54. Re:MS buys Rational/Borland, what of Linux product by MagPulse · · Score: 2

    An interesting thought is that the question of Microsoft making cross-platform compilers now is a serious one.

  55. Smart move on MS' part by jheidebr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Microsoft in buying Borland aquires not only a UML modelling tool (Borland recently aquired TogetherSoft). But, they also purchase one of the better Java vendors out there. This move is both offensive and defensive. M$ gains a UML modelling environment while simultaneously killing off a significant segment of the Java tools industry.

    If Microsoft pursues Rational as well they end up with the 2 best UML tools in the industry and kill off IBM's strategic partner. The net effect is that Microsoft wins big.

    However, I can't believe that M$' shareholders would agree that both purchases are necessary. I expect that if Microsoft is unable to sway Rational over then we will see them make a serious bid for Borland. After all its the UML modelling software that MS wants, and if the IBM purchase of Rational goes through then MS has no modeller for their developers.

    Seeing as IBM is a large player in open source software (Apache/Eclipse/Linux) and Java I personally hope to see the Rational purchase succeed, however, M$ has a crap load of cash sitting on hand - if M$ wants to start a bidding war they certainly have the ability to.

    And so the consolidation in the industry continues.

    1. Re:Smart move on MS' part by sheldon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "After all its the UML modelling software that MS wants, and if the IBM purchase of Rational goes through then MS has no modeller for their developers."

      MS is setting up Visio as their UML modelling tool. We've found it to be more stable than Rose, even if it has fewer features. I wouldn't worry about that.

      I was questioning why MS would want Borland at all, and then I see that Borland recently bought Starbase.

      Starbase makes a reasonably decent SCM called StarTeam, and a Requirements Management piece called CaliberRM. Those are two areas that Microsoft needs some help in.

      But I still don't see it, I think Microsoft's best interests are served with a partnership with Borland... so they remain as a competitor. Borland has committed to .NET tools, etc.

    2. Re:Smart move on MS' part by pmz · · Score: 2

      This move is both offensive and defensive.

      No, it is just offensive (meaning smelly and repulsive).

      TogetherSoft and Rational have the two most popular round-trip UML tools out there. Imagine MS getting their dirty hands into it. That would possibly alientate lots of people who choose those tools, because MS already spoiled Visio.

    3. Re:Smart move on MS' part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > However, I can't believe that M$' shareholders would agree that both purchases are necessary.

      Seeing as M$ can't produce a product which competes on it's own merit, I can't believe they have any other choice.

    4. Re:Smart move on MS' part by Locutus · · Score: 2

      You can only think of Microsoft actions in how they kill competition. You do that and you'll have the reason for their actions.

      BTW, why did Microsoft purchase Coopers & Peters? Why are they spending around $500 million each time they find a government is moving to open source? The answer has nothing to do with being competitive.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    5. Re:Smart move on MS' part by luisdom · · Score: 1

      Together Control Center is a modelling tool made in java and very java-centric (it creates .java classes when you make a class in a diagram, by default). If the purchase is true, it is going to be a funny thing to see how M$ swallows a company whose 2 main tools are centered in a platform that M$ hates.
      All in all I see this as bad news, it reduces competition in a field that already has very few players.
      > Microsoft in buying Borland aquires not only a UML modelling tool (Borland recently aquired TogetherSoft). But, they also purchase one of the better Java vendors out there. This move is both offensive and defensive. M$ gains a UML modelling environment while simultaneously killing off a significant segment of the Java tools industry.

    6. Re:Smart move on MS' part by kelzer · · Score: 2

      "After all its the UML modelling software that MS wants, and if the IBM purchase of Rational goes through then MS has no modeller for their developers."

      MS is setting up Visio as their UML modelling tool. We've found it to be more stable than Rose, even if it has fewer features. I wouldn't worry about that.

      Borland now owns TogetherSoft, which in my opinion has the best modeling tool (though the price is up there with Rose), and a pretty good all-around development environment, which does support .NET development (don't know how well). Maybe somebody came to the realization that Visio had some architectural issues which prevented it from fulfilling that role without a major re-engineering effort. Or maybe they just want to kill the product, since it's still primarily known as a Java development tool.

      But I still don't see it, I think Microsoft's best interests are served with a partnership with Borland... so they remain as a competitor

      Microsoft doesn't need competitors anymore! The DOJ case is over. They only needed competitors while the case was open, hence major donations, er, um, I mean, investments in Borland, Apple, and Corel, to keep them from going under, all made while the case was open.

      --

      ---------------------------------------------
      SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    7. Re:Smart move on MS' part by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Why did Microsoft buy Visio?

      Why did Microsoft buy Frontpage?

      Why did Microsoft buy SQL Server?

      Why did Microsoft buy SourceSafe?

      Why did Microsoft buy Great Plains?

      Microsoft doesn't have a history of buying companies to kill competition, they buy them to take over their product lines and drive them against other competitors.

    8. Re:Smart move on MS' part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Smart move on MS' part by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

      Next thing you'll be trying to tell me that they bought DOS

  56. Remove even more competition... by staplin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Plus, Borland just bought StarBase, which produces the StarTeam SCM system, as seen in this press release. (Wow, just look at the way the Borland logo is plastered all over the StarBase website!)

    So with Rational and Borland, they knock out 2 competitors in the SCM market!

    1. Re:Remove even more competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your starbase are belong to us.

    2. Re:Remove even more competition... by staplin · · Score: 2

      Or rather, if they manage to buy either company, they still knock out at least one competing SCM pacakge.

    3. Re:Remove even more competition... by obdulio · · Score: 1

      Borland also bought TogheterSoft, makers of Together, a case tool much better than Rational Rose.....

      --
      PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
  57. How shall we troll this? Let us enumerate... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now we see the basis for Bobby Schmidt's "Hell Freezes Over" column in the latest CUJ. The next Visual C++ is standards-compliant by vacuuming up a quality comptetitor...
    No, that's a troll.
    But Borland has a lot of Java product, and owning that would help to maneuver it out of the C# path...
    No, that's a troll, too...
    Borland's CLX library has the potential to do what QT could not, popularize GUI-applications that run under 'Doze and X, so you could blunt that attempt to compete if you owned the product... (seriously, I can't name a single application on the local CompUSA shelf using QT, please educate me)
    No, that's YAT (Yet Another Troll)
    The fact that the DOJ is a singleton-class, MS server application running inside the Beltway box means that MS can do whatever the fsck it likes and laugh about it...
    Ah, now that is a sufficiently gratuitous troll...

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  58. why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't M$ already buy out the Borland's better developers, like, 4 years ago?

    Then again, after 4 years of M$ crap, and I'm sure they're burnt-to-a-crisp, time to get a fresh supply....

  59. MS, JBuilder, and Sun Case? by syntap · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wouldn't MS have to scrap/shelve JBuilder under its agreements/court-ordered restrictions in the Sun case?

    I'm sure if Borland was entertaining an MS offer, other companies would consider buying it knowing that it was up for sale. Oracle, Sun, and IBM are obvious choices, but there are others. I don't think Larry Ellison would mind a true merge of their Java tools, and what better way to stick it to MS than to outdo their .Net development offerings?

  60. Wrong Title by ignatzMouse · · Score: 1

    After reading the article the title should probably read Microsoft to Buy Rational or Borland since the plan sounds like if they can't nix IBM getting Rational, they'll try to buy Borland so that they have some sort of counterbalance.

    --
    No artist tolerates reality. -- Nietzsche
  61. I have to get used to it.. by varjag · · Score: 1

    Microsoft Delphi, Microsoft Delphi, Microsoft Delphi...

    --
    Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
    1. Re:I have to get used to it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft Delphi, Microsoft Delphi, Microsoft Delphi...

      You mean "Microsoft Visual Basic.NET"

  62. even more last gasper dinosaur poop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even more last ditch efforts buy FraUDuleNT payper liesense peddlers to suck just a few dollars more, out of J.'s already nearly empty pockets, with their ill eagle stock markup FraUD scams.

    LIEk dinosaurs, duking IT out for the last few moresells of mutton, unfortunate enough to be in proximity of the tarpits....

    happy holidaze. nothing gnu about that crud.

  63. Borland and MS rumor seen before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Borland/MS rumor seems to appear every few years. I would imagine that the attempted merger would be scrutinized by the feds as this would give MS a sizeable monopoly in the computer language field.

  64. Borland recently bought a competitor to Rational by SmirkingRevenge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Roughly 2 months ago Borland bought StarBase, makers of StarTeam (a SCM system) which is a direct competitor to Rational's ClearCase as well as Microsoft's horrible SourceSafe.

    I've often wondered when MS was going to step it up and take over the SCM world, maybe this is the first volley?

  65. M$ did it again by picone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, now that Unix/Linux users have an easy an effective RAD with C++/Pascal support and with tons of features (Im talking about Kylix of course) M$ is trying to buy it.

    Is this not ilegal?
    I still remember the news "Netscape X Explorer" and the end of the history too.
    And now the fight is Delphi X VB, well it seams the M$ found a different way to solve its problmes.

  66. Microsoft beware! by it0 · · Score: 1

    You better watch out Bill or else you will get sued using your monopoly position! Hah you'll never win when there is justice!

  67. Bad business decision by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2

    Microsoft is going about this "taking over the world" thing all wrong. Why don't they just offer Linus 10 billion dollars for the rights to Linux?

    1. Re:Bad business decision by PugMajere · · Score: 1


      Because he's not the sole owner.

  68. Emperor Bill by mmynsted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now I am simply waiting to here a break-in announcement from Bill Gates that
    he has declared himself the world's emperor.

    Steve Ballmer at Internal M$ meeting:

    "The US Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have
    just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the government
    permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept
    away."

    Employee: "But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain
    control without the bureaucracy?"

    Ballmer: "The regional sales managers now have direct control over their
    territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of our software."

  69. This Sux! by AlgUSF · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Compaq buying DEC was bad enough. Microsoft buying Borland is horrible. I remember in the early 90's it was like "Wow, Microsoft makes a compiler too? No thanks, I will stick to Borland", and now it's like "Wow, Borland is still in buisiness". What is left for all of the tech giants of the past like Cray, DEC (err Compaq, no HP), Borland. IBM's only saving grace is that they were quite diversified, and MSFT will never be able to topple them.

    --


    I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
  70. oh the memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TurboPascal, TurgoProlog... Those were the days. Everything was so... simple.

  71. Great minds by rpk · · Score: 1

    I was just speculating about this with a friend who works at Rational last night. I could even see IBM acquiring Borland, which might (ironically enough) have fewer anti-trust problems than Microsoft acquiring Borland.

    Things can change very quickly. When I started at Lotus in 1990, there was a "Welcome Novell" banner in the lobby, since the two companies were all set to merge. So much for THAT.

  72. free software modelling by loudici · · Score: 1

    my experience with rational rose is that it is mostly useful as a tool to keep incompetent project managers busy clicking on spiffy looking icons. it would be good if someone came up with a modeling tool that would approach the efficiency of my whiteboard and the pub's napkins. anybody know whether there are projects getting anywhere?

    Laurent

    --
    Dev elpizw tipota, dev phoboumai tipota eimai lephteros http://euclidian.org
  73. Inner Circle mail by the_rev_matt · · Score: 1, Redundant

    To Our Valued Inner Circle Customers:

    I am delighted to tell you that IBM and Rational Software have announced a
    definitive agreement for IBM to purchase Rational. This is a very exciting
    time for both companies and builds on the extensive business relationship
    we have had for over 20 years.

    You and other Inner Circle customers are telling us that you need to
    further integrate your application development environment. This
    acquisition will allow IBM to give you the tools to develop, integrate and
    manage your business processes. Rational's software development platform
    -- including software engineering best practices and products for analysis,
    modeling, development, testing and configuration management -- complements
    IBM's WebSphere application development tools to help customers develop
    higher quality software in less time.

    Rational's solid leadership capabilities in application lifecycle
    management tools, along with IBM's industry-leading e-business
    infrastructure products, makes for a winning combination. IBM and Rational
    share a common objective in providing customers with best practices, tools,
    and services designed to improve individual developer productivity and
    overall application development efficiency. Customers can begin using
    Rational's solutions at any stage of e-business adoption, which can
    increase the productivity and success of your development projects.

    IBM provides the most comprehensive set of e-business technologies and
    product offerings in the industry. IBM middleware interoperates across the
    broadest set of platforms used in enterprises today. We will continue to
    develop the Rational solutions for multiple platforms, including .Net,
    J2EE, Linux and real-time/embedded systems. The next logical progression
    of e-business adoption is to systematically integrate systems and
    applications across enterprises, which is where Rational offers great value
    when combined with IBM software.

    IBM intends to retain the Rational brand and establish the Rational
    division within IBM Software Group led by Mike Devlin, Rational's current
    CEO. As with other business acquisitions of this nature, this one will
    require government regulatory approval and the agreement of Rational's
    shareholders.

    IBM and Rational are impressive as separate entities. Together, with our
    complementary e-business technologies and commitment to customer success,
    we can provide even greater value to you.

    Thank you for your continued support and we look forward to expanding our
    relationship with you in the future.

    Best regards,

    --
    this is getting old and so are you

    blog

  74. Re:How shall we troll this? Let us enumerate... by AntiNorm · · Score: 5, Funny

    The next Visual C++ is standards-compliant by vacuuming up a quality comptetitor...

    For Microsoft, this is standards-compliant.

    --

    I pledge allegiance to the flag...
    of the Corporate States of America...
  75. probably doesn't matter by g4dget · · Score: 2

    Microsoft can't buy Forte or Eclipse. If they eliminate Borland's products, that will simply reduce the fragmentation of non-Microsoft development tools--not necessarily a bad thing.

    1. Re:probably doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Microsoft can't buy Forte or Eclipse. If they eliminate Borland's products, that will simply reduce the fragmentation of non-Microsoft development tools--not necessarily a bad thing.


      IMHO fragmentation is only a problem if it really hinders interoperatibility, i.e. if you have to change you r workflow heavily when switching from one tool to another. I don't see that this is the case with the available Java IDEs. Eclipse, for example, albeit powerful, is not very "intrusive": You just tell it where your sources lie, and where the binaries go, and then you can start working right away. I've recently used Eclipse and Netbeans on the same project, designing some of the GUI elements with Netbeans and doing the rest in Eclipse (and some bits and pieces in Emacs). Worked quite well. So I think choice is really an advantage when it comes to Java IDEs.

    2. Re:probably doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but Delphi, Kylix and JBuilder are different: their GUI layout, libraries, and, in some cases, languages do not allow you to switch easily.

  76. So how long before... by mengel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ... Rational software only runs on Windows?

    This is the pattern that Microsoft and Intel both have repeatedly run through:

    • find a company whose software helps you develop software, or web pages, or what have you
    • buy that company
    • make future relaeases that only work on Windows
    as the software rot makes the old versions fail, users of that software are herded towards Windows.
    --
    - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
    1. Re:So how long before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>This is the pattern that Microsoft and Intel both have repeatedly run through:

      ALL largish companies do this (or something similar), not just MS and Intel. Insurance companies gobble up little comptetitors, fast food chains set up shop next to similar local business, Starbucks does the same.

      I guess Wal-Mart is different. They just slash prices till K-Mart and others go out of business.

    2. Re:So how long before... by mengel · · Score: 2
      ALL largish companies do this (or something similar), not just MS and Intel. Insurance companies gobble up little comptetitors, fast food chains set up shop next to similar local business, Starbucks does the same.
      But in the case of monopolies like Microsoft, much of that becomes illegal. Even buying up direct suppliers of your competitors to shut off their supplies might be illegal. But the Microsoft/Intel trick is to buy up companies that make things that customers of your competitors buy to use with your product.

      This would be like Starbucks buying up Sweet-n-Low and reformulating the sweetner it so it makes any coffee but theirs taste horrible, then doing the same to Nutrisweet, then to sugar and dairy companies...

      Pretty soon only people who like their coffee black will buy it from anyone else.

      --
      - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
  77. fud vs. couNTer fud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    big blue says YAHOO for India. looks like o-s gets some hyperhype there.

    so long fuddles, take ALL of your felonious greed/fear/?pr? based stock markup payper liesense FraUD peddlers with you, as you dissolve into another shameful chapter in the history of BiG "business".

  78. If this happens, goodbye Borland... by windex · · Score: 1

    This will make me stop using Borland C++ Builder and all of its similar products in its entirety. The whole purpose (for me) of using Borland's IDE is to get away from using Microsoft's, that and I beleive it's a better product with an unfortunately smaller than monopoly-sized market share. Borland, if you sell, that's your business. Microsoft, if you buy, you won't get any customers who won't run from you as soon as possible.

  79. P.S. by yog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It also gives MS a chance to hurt Linux, which Borland has been supporting in recent years with JDeveloper and Kylix.

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  80. Linux Left In The Cold, Then? by aerojad · · Score: 1

    So if IBM closes its deal, more than likely causing Microsoft to take Boreland, where does that leave people who use Kylix and the other nice cross platform things that Boreland has to offer? Or should the question be, how soon would Microsoft end all of that upon closing its deal. It would be funny though if a MSFT product still supported making programs in Linux.

    --

    SecondPageMedia - Wha
  81. Who need Borland or Rational? by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There are free IDEs (Eclipse, Forte), and there are free UML tools (ArgoUML, probably others). If they aren't good enough yet, they will improve further. And the only good product Rational has ever had, Purify, has a better open source equivalent already.

    Microsoft's old strategy of killing competitors by buying them doesn't work with open source. Sorry, Bill.

    1. Re:Who need Borland or Rational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After having tryed to use Forte, and playing around with Eclipse I would have to say that JBuilder is (at least for EJB work) worth the price. Eclipse does have nice editor features but with JBuilder (plus productivity pro [a bunch of features Borland should have included themselves, but worth the extra dollars]) there is nothing I can't do.

    2. Re:Who need Borland or Rational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they aren't good enough yet, they will improve further.

      That's the problem isn't it? They will eventually get better - in years to come. But there is no guarantee it will. Unless the software is wildly popular - there is a better chance that someone will create a New Version from scratch (without the same features) than there is the project will keep living on forever, getting better. It's the way of Open Source.

      Microsoft's old strategy of killing competitors by buying them doesn't work with open source. Sorry, Bill.

      This isn't an Open Source debate or attack, from what grounds did your attack come from?

      MS is fighting with IBM in the world of closed source, let them be please...

    3. Re:Who need Borland or Rational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Borland makes Delphi; Delphi refers to both the IDE and the language formerly known as Object Pascal.

      Delphi-the-language is probably the most elegant of all general-purpose object-oriented programming languages available today. Sadly, Delphi is a relatively unknown product, and many who do use it don't use it to its full potential.

      Delphi-the-IDE could use some polishing, but it's already feature-rich and very pleasurable to use.

    4. Re:Who need Borland or Rational? by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2

      And the only good product Rational has ever had, Purify, has a better open source equivalent already.

      What is this better open source equivalent which you refer to?

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    5. Re:Who need Borland or Rational? by boomgopher · · Score: 1

      Dude, come on, Forte and Eclipse are a pain to use. JBuilder is a pretty damn good IDE (although IDEA is way better). JBuilder also has a killer Swing GUI builder.

      --
      Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    6. Re:Who need Borland or Rational? by Nevyn · · Score: 1

      Probably referring to valgrind which is nice, and is both better in some respects and worse in others (than purify).

      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    7. Re:Who need Borland or Rational? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Interesting
      There are free IDEs (Eclipse, Forte), and there are free UML tools (ArgoUML, probably others)

      Indeed, but what makes Delphi so unique and special isn't so much the IDE (though the IDE is excellent), it's the compiler.

      Delphi is fast. I mean, really fast. No other compiler comes close. To put things in perspective, when Borland first added multiple error reporting to the compiler (ie one compile would report more than one error) I didn't understand why they did it. I hadn't seen javac at that point. I didn't understand, because it was actually faster for me to press Ctrl-f9 to trigger a recompile in order to move to the next error, than it was to move my hands from the keyboard to the mouse and back again.

      Their compiler is that fast. It can do a project with over 100,000 lines of code I have sitting here in less than 8 seconds. The resultant binaries are tight. When I tried my first C++ program, I was astonished at how long it took to compile as it read in all the headers etc. I was sure I must have done something wrong.

      Part of the reason it's so fast is just long history, Borland have had a lot of time to optimize it, but the other was the language design. Object Pascal is designed for fast compiles. For instance, it doesn't use headers, but each compiled unit (.dcu -> .o) included header information with it, meaning it's insanely fast to link them together. It also has excellent remake logic, if you only touched one file, only one file was recompiled. There is no [preprocessor, so the compiler can be single pass.

    8. Re:Who need Borland or Rational? by g4dget · · Score: 2

      The Jikes compiler for Java is also very, very fast. And an open source compiler (I believe GNU Pascal) supports Object Pascal.

    9. Re:Who need Borland or Rational? by g4dget · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Try FreePascal or GNU Pascal. Both support the Delphi language extensions.

      Elegant object oriented languages really are a dime a dozen. If you want something like that, Eiffel or Oberon are other choices.

  82. Anti-trust complaint? How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Does anyone know how to make an anti-trust complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice?

  83. Microsoft buying Borland by SeattleSluggo · · Score: 1

    Hell, the got the top Borland dev, Anders Hejlsberg, by paying him $1 million to come on board and they're sitting on ~$40 billion, so why not?

    doug

  84. anti-trust by jeeeeem · · Score: 1

    This will almost certainly be opposed by the Justice Dept. At the very least I think they would require MS to either continue or spin off the Java and Linux products. Of course, since Kylix make little money, spinning it off would be the same as killing it.

  85. Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lower your shields and surrender your software.

  86. M$ using financial markets as a club by Ingolfke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the article in respect to M$ rumored bid - "That pushed the stock up, indicating that investors are betting there could be some sort of bidding war for the company, the traders said."

    M$ doesn't care to own either of the companies. I belive they're driving up the cost of the Rational acquisition for IBM by floating rumors that they're goign to jump into the mix. The Boreland rumor adds some credibility to the rumor of a M$ bid for Rational because it looks like M$ has a backup plan. In reality they'll drive the price of Rational up, let IBM pay big bucks for it, and then announce or leak that Boreland just wasn't worth acquiring thereby devaluing the Boreland stock.

    And yes... I do believe that the Unmarked Black Helicopters run Palladium.

  87. Let Them Buy (Like You Could Stop Them) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure this will be modded down as a troll or flamebait but to be honest, when you have the java toolset from Sun and an editor such as vi/emacs that works on multiple platforms as well, who cares?

    The most respected and competent developers I know aren't tied down to an IDE for development nor a UML modeller. Most can code everything by hand with carefully thought out documentation and user request and it isn't because it's elite or the spartan thing to do, we just know what we are doing... (You don't need broiler plate/template/wizard code until you know how to write your own, otherwise YOU WILL SUFFER)

    The way I see it this is really a blessing in disguise as you remove point and click tools for development you remove the ability for the market to be flooded by people who really don't know what they are doing anyway OR you get in increase in competent programs because they now HAVE to know what they are doing. (OK, that last part was in a perfect world scenario)

  88. so soon? by DuctTape · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought Microsoft bit off more than it could chew when it bought the Catholic church.

    --
    Is this thing on? Hello?
  89. ITs the END of programming. by johnnnyboy · · Score: 1

    That's it for windows programming. Microsoft will have aboslutely everything. They're going to buy and shut it down.

    --
    "If a show of teeth is not enough, bite ... but bite hard!"
  90. Because evil Microsoft wasn't involved. (n/t) by JasonUCF · · Score: 1

    I am a lameness filter remover. I am a lameness filter remover. I am a lameness filter remover. This is not the karma you are looking for.

  91. my sentiments exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad you said this. there is still room in the world for companies that do not break the law and still be successful. kudos to borland, raspberries to micro$oft.

  92. Rational's Business Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Sell to IBM
    2. Sell to M$
    3. Profit * 2

    (Sorry I had to do this - I just couldn't think of a "In Soviet Russia, ...." post.)

  93. Re:How shall we troll this? Let us enumerate... by Lt+Razak · · Score: 1

    That's pretty funny that your post got modded as a Troll.

  94. WAS:HOLY HELL! by Dysmondo · · Score: 1

    Market consolidation will not help anyone in this case and no, this will not get anyone off their butt and think about buying other tools. Well, ok maybe some would, but not in the business place. If M$FT buys Borland and pulls the plug on "products that are not in the core business" then those who can't just stick with an old version will be forced to move to M$FT approved development tools.

  95. Can Microsoft outbid IBM? by brokeninside · · Score: 1
    While IBM (per BusinessWeek) had 6.3B (compared to Microsoft's 31B) at the end of 2001, they also had 42B of current assets (compared to Microsoft's 39B and tangible book value of 12.9B (compared to Microsoft's 8.7B).

    In other words, Microsoft can likely only outbid IBM if IBM chooses to allow such to happen. (Which is a very likely outcome if there is a bidding war. Neither IBM nor Microsoft is run by idiots. Nor is either company likely to bid more for Rational than management at each respective company thinks Rational is worth.)

    1. Re:Can Microsoft outbid IBM? by LibertineR · · Score: 1
      Your numbers are flawed. Microsoft has close to 50B in CASH. CASH, dude. CASH.

      If this rumor turns out to be true, Microsoft can and will cut the bigger check with ease.

    2. re: can Microsoft outbid IBM? by brokeninside · · Score: 1
      My numbers are not flawed. They are from BusinessWeek and represent both companies at the end of the 2001 fiscal year. Number from both companies are not available for the 2002 fiscal year. IBM not only has enough cash to counter any reasonable Microsoft bid for Rational, but could liquidate current assets to outspend Microsoft and still have billions left over. From The Motley Fool:

      The first major component of the balance sheet is Current Assets, which are assets that a company has at its disposal that can be easily converted into cash within one operating cycle.


      As cash and equivalents is one of the forms of current assets and as IBM has billions more in current assets than Microsoft, if IBM wants to outspend Microsoft on Rational, it most certainly can.

      BTW, did you notice that IBM's bid for Rational was a cash offer and not in shares? When was the last time Microsoft bought a company for billions in cash?

    3. Re: can Microsoft outbid IBM? by LibertineR · · Score: 1
      Pure Nonsense.

      If you think that convertable assets (into cash) is better than CASH itself, then you are smoking something.

      Converting assets entails costs, either capitol gains taxes, fees, etc.

      Cash is King. Get a grip.

  96. well if i'm reading this stain right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. MS buys Borland
    2. ??
    3. Profit!!!!!!

  97. Anders Hejlsberg and Borland by nickos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since Anders Hejlsberg, the Danish creator of Turbo Pascal was pinched by Borland by Microsoft to be the chief architect of C# and the Common Language Infrastructure used by .NET, perhaps Microsoft will decide to go the whole hog and get the rest of the company too? Borland had (has?) some of the best developers in the field and may be worth buying just for them.

    1. Re:Anders Hejlsberg and Borland by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Microsoft usually just hires people away from borland, I've known quite a few people who worked for them in the past (I used to live in Santa Cruz, everyone who lived there at the time knew at least one person who worked for each of the following: SCO, Seagate, Plantronics, and Borland.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  98. Borland's History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Let us not forget how Borland shot themselves in the foot not once, but twice, in the early 90s. As of late 1992, Borland had 80%-85% of the Windows C++ development platform and it was a windows product. Microsoft had a DOS-based IDE known as C7.0. and no more than 5%-10% of the C++ market. Symantec had the remainder. All together, Microsoft & Symantec totalled whatever Borland didn't have. Early in '93, Microsoft came out with Visual C++ 1.0, which came on twenty(!) diskettes.

    You're probably asking yourself, "How did Borland shoot themselves? Isn't this a situation ripe for Microsoft to knock Borland with a kidney punch?" Um, no. Borland used a class framework known as OWL I. Microsoft had MFC 1.0. MFC basically sucked because there wasn't anything there worth using but there was one quality missing from OWL which existed in MFC: upward compatibility. When OWL II came out, all of the marketplace which developed OWL I-based code was either going to upgrade [manually] to OWL-II (Borland had a conversion tool but it sucked and essentially didn't work), stay put, or take some time to reevaluate the market. Most firms took the latter option. Within a year or two, Borland was diving in the C++ market because they had nothing to compete with. That takes care of bullet #1.

    Bullet #2: dBase. In the early 90s, Borland purchased Ashton-Tate for a single purpose: dBase. dBase (and compatible clones) ruled the desktop world. With Windows 3.0 (and 3.1 in May 1992) looking to put a stranglehold on the desktop, Borland decided to get dBase, create dBase for Windows, and watch the $$$ roll in. They purchased Ashton-Tate, shut down the other products (making a lot of customers their best friends), and started spinning their wheels. In the meantime, Microsoft is working on the second phase of Access for Windows. (there was a pathetic first pass a few years earlier) Microsoft puts Access for Windows on sale in November 1992 for $99. Even if it becomes shelfware, for $99, no one could afford to pass it up. Everyone's developing all of these nifty little Access applications while Borland's limping around with a bullet hole in one foot, take aim at the other foot, and trying to write code, all at the same time. By the time dBase for Windows comes out, there's no room in the market for it. BANG! Bullet #2. Now Borland has to decide what to do next: find another product market, grow another foot to shoot at, count the stars in the sky, or watch the clouds go by.

    So this ends our session of "Why Does Borland Limp?"

    1. Re:Borland's History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      What?
      Niether of these Bullets came from Borland.
      MFC worked better than OWL because M$ was leveraging thier OS APIs with it and not sharing the information with Borland. There was little Borland could do to compete. If your assertion had ANY merit (that backwords compatibility was more important than being able to give away your product) then Borland Delphi would have destroyed DESTROYED Visual Basic a long time ago.

      Bullet #2:
      Microsoft sold Access (which still sucks) for $99 or gave it away with office. Borland couldn't compete with Micosofts ability to throw money at the problem with dBase or Paradox.

      While Borland has certainly shot themselves in the foot many a time, niether of your "bullets" is valid and both are fine examples of MS flexing it's monopoly muscle.

    2. Re:Borland's History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your points might have a bit more validity if you learned how to spell & punctuate. As it is, you look like a script kiddie who sneaked out of shop class to post some inane drivel.

  99. Anti-trust anyone? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    umm...is it just me or does borland produce the lead competitors to MS dev tools.....sooo....I do not even see that getting pasted the FTC.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:Anti-trust anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the current Administration and its FTC policies, why would it NOT get through?

  100. Re:Hate to say it but.. that's pure drivel... by Lt+Razak · · Score: 1
    It's too bad Rational treats all their customers as criminals. They have the worse Key Licensing scheme ever!

    Hard drive ID, double key lookups....

  101. Rational isn't available. by sammy+baby · · Score: 2

    IBM's "planned" available of Rational isn't just "planned." It's actually done. I'd suggest that maybe you guys missed it, but, well, you know.

    1. Re:Rational isn't available. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, wrong. If you read the press releases you'll notice phrases like "agreement" and "pending approval". MS is free to make an offer just like IBM did. Rational's shareholders are free to reject IBM's offer (since they haven't accepted it yet) and go with MS instead.

  102. If MS Buys... by E-Rock-23 · · Score: 1

    ...Rational, maybe they could actualy produce a rational thought. Then, they'd realize that they're making a crappy product and fix things.

    Of course, that particular dream isn't really rational, is it...

    --
    Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
  103. If I had a karma point for every rumor about... by mkweise · · Score: 1

    If I had a karma point for every time there was a rumor about someone making a takeover bid for Borland, I'd have achieved total enlightenment by now.

    Remember 10 years ago, when we were sure Novell would follow its purchase of DR DOS with a takeover of Borland and proceed to smash Microsoft into, well, micro-bits?

    Then there was the time Old Lou's Big Blue was about to announce the purchase of Novell and Borland in the same press release. (At the time, Novell still owned Unix and everyone knew that Windows didn't stand a chance against OS/2.)

    Of all the many rumors, the only one that turned out to be true was the Corel deal - and even that ultimately didn't materialize.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
  104. Price agreed to before all of this happened by ITShaman · · Score: 1

    IBM made this announcement internally (I'm an IBM employee) almost a week ago. IBM, like most companies, only makes these kinds of announcements when things are very well on their way, and the purchase price and other large profile details have already been worked out; usually it's just pending some the working out of certain legal details. M$ rumors or anything else will not change that.

    --
    I can no longer read Dilbert. It's too depressing, because it is too real. -- Hyperhaplo
  105. kylix clx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS will state that they are buying Borland in order to acquire the UML modelling functionality.

    They are (my speculation only) privately salivating at the chance to squelch the Kylix CLX class libraries.

    These components allow for cross desktop development on Win32, .NET and Linux.

    CLX existence makes it is inevitable that Office like apps will arrive that will run on any of the three platforms.

    Interchangeable apps (no cross platform learning curve) make the op sys irrelevant.

    This makes WalMart Lindows the Op Sys of choice.

    MS public statement > "we need Borland in order to compete with IBM"
    MS private statement -> "you will not see cross platform desktop apps in the near future (we are really competing with Walmart)"

  106. Java has killed .Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This shows that no one has faith on .Not the market is adopting and using Java Platform.

    MS is doing the same as usual by buying Borland they think they can dent Java well they are so wrong.

    MS == evil emipre

  107. Re:C++ Builder - please buy and kill it by dswan69 · · Score: 1

    Ugh, it is the worst development environment I have ever used. VCL is so full of hacks and other rubbish I'd rather go back to MFC if forced to choose one or the other. The whole C++ Builder package was a complete nightmare, but thankfully I'll never have to go anywhere near it ever again.

    Standards? Come on, VS may not be that compliant, but then few compilers are. Builder isn't. OTOH the VS IDE completely blows away the Builder hack which mostly reminds me of VB's horrible IDE (6 & earlier - never used 7, never want to see VB ever again).

  108. Re:MS buys Rational/Borland, what of Linux product by Bill+Privatus · · Score: 1

    Rational's latest sexy tools, unfortunately, are win32-based. At an XDE dog and pony show with IBM, the Rational tech at the podium answered my question regarding *nix support with silence...when pressed, he said there were no plans for ports "as far as he was aware".

    The older tools are a generation distanced from where the world is headed; XDE has been described to me as part of Rational's "showcase product line".

    --
    Redundancy is good; triple redundancy is twice as good! - Me.
  109. Now you have by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I still would use CVS in a heartbeat over ClearCase, if not under a corperate mandate to use ClearCase. It is a lot better than Sourcesafe though, at least from my distamt memories of SourceSafe!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  110. In Soviet Russia.. by varjag · · Score: 1

    ..Borland buys Microsoft!

    --
    Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
  111. Borland undervalued and underrated... by CommandNotFound · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although I wish Borland would stay a scrappy independent forever, I always thought that Sun or Oracle would be a good parent for Borland.

    Actually, if you could get past the CEO egos, a combined Sun/Oracle/Borland could be an instant IBM and Microsoft "killer". They would have the hardware from desktop on up that could be supplemented with x86 hardware, the enterprise backend software (J2EE, Oracle, etc), some of the best development tools around (Delpi/Kylix for Linux/Solaris, JBuilder, CBuilder, etc), and an Office suite to boot.

    Their corporate cultures seem to be compatible, from what I know of them (not much, directly, but based on years of reading). I don't see anything compatible between Microsoft and Borland, however.

    1. Re:Borland undervalued and underrated... by rdean400 · · Score: 1

      Not likely....a Sun/Oracle/Borland combination would be a viable IBM competitor, but not a Microsoft killer. The sheer complexity and mass of the resulting organization would sidetrack it for years, while IBM and Microsoft continue on their merry ways.

      Besides, culturally I don't think it would be a good fit, unless Sun and Oracle could get off their ego trips and adopt Borland's management style (which is something I admire about Fuller), but we all know how likely McNeely and Ellison are to stop being arses.

    2. Re:Borland undervalued and underrated... by CommandNotFound · · Score: 1

      Not likely....a Sun/Oracle/Borland combination would be a viable IBM competitor, but not a Microsoft killer. The sheer complexity and mass of the resulting organization would sidetrack it for years, while IBM and Microsoft continue on their merry ways.

      You are correct -- I meant to specify "in the enterprise market". The new conglomerate wouldn't know beans about the home/SOHO/consumer realms that Microsoft holds.

  112. Crass isn't as effective as you think it is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He got modded up +4, and now your post is seen as manipulative cleaverness...

    Don't underestimate the readers.

    You could have justified yourself if you hadn't have written "Mine was better" in an arrogant crass tone.

    People don't want to identify with crass arrogance, especailly if the other guy is sincere dork.

    Trouncing on a sincere dork only makes you look like a prick and a manipulative tool...

  113. Embedded real-time development would suffer by nvts · · Score: 1

    A few years ago Rational purchased a company called ObjecTime because they had a very solid product ironically called ObjecTime. This tool allowed you to model your system, build state machines, build and run test harnesses, build message sequence charts, and run and test on an embedded target system all with relative ease I've never before experienced in a tool (and I've used plenty of them). The modeling methodology behind the tool was called ROOM (forgot what the acronym meant). ROOM became UML+realtime extensions as the industry quickly realized how good of a job Bran Selic had done in coming up with ROOM.

    The long and short of it is....MS wants all realtime developers to use WinCE and only WinCE. The rational product targets at least a dozen different RTOSs and runs on both Windows and various Unix platforms. I doubt MS would continue to support all of this if they do in fact buy the company.

    What a shame if it happens.....

    1. Re:Embedded real-time development would suffer by rSelrahc · · Score: 1

      The product was called ObjecTime Developer and, with the Rational Rose core, became the basis for Rational Rose RealTime. ROOM is "Real-Time Object Oriented Methodology", which also happened to be the title of the book Bran published with Garth Gullekson and Paul Ward. You can find the book here. Bran is currently employed by Rational (i.e., the fourth amigo) and still active in the UML specification world. BTW, a lot of the concept of ROOM that made their way in the Real-Time profile for the UML are making their way into UML 2.0.

  114. Subversion / Bitkeeper by Single+Serving+Jack · · Score: 1

    I'm curious. How does ClearCase stack up against Bitkeeper or Subversion? If anyone can speak on it, I'd like to know. :)

  115. Clearcase vs. VSS by orim · · Score: 1

    Comparison is not fair indeed. Each has a target audience, IMO.
    I used to work at a web-design company as a CCase admin... We used to have VSS, and tried to roll out CCase, but the developers HATED IT so much they used every possible leverage they had to start a new product in VSS.

    VSS, I think, is a better choice for a small web design company where you don't have a staff of highly-trained sourcecode control admins to deal with the tools. Anybody can install and start using the tool in minutes... And if you don't need all that branching/merging stuff, VSS is a clear winner here.

    Clearcase had its good sides. But as an admin, I found it just overwhelming at times, and at the first sign of network trouble, CCase was the first to go down. For all the features that it had, it was just too much trouble (interop stuff was pretty bad, never mind crossing domains). I would only use CCase when:
    1) I had a large number of developers
    2) those developers were highly disciplined and smart
    3) expected parallel streams of the same product at the same time
    4) was working with real programming languages (not CF/PHP/web code), where merging, and things like that would be crucial, where there are compilers involved and daily builds, too.
    5) had $$$$$$$$$$$ to spend. Rational stuff is expensive!!!

    Any other CCase admins out there?

    --
    "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
  116. Microsoft Linux Strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM has been raking in cash, while letting Sun get beat to death by Microsoft. IBM has not engaged directly and lives by the motto "We are about choice! We give the customer what they want." ...

    So the new Microsoft strategy is going to give people a choice as well. They will become O/S agnostics, just like IBM. This way they can position .NET and all the palladium goodies onto Linux. It is no secret that Micrsoft's Visual Studio is in decline and companies are moving toward other development tools e.g. (Java, Perl, PHP, Kylix). Microsoft can't proliferate all it's trusting computer services, if it doesn't own the backend. The server side is the only place left for Microsoft to gain market share, unless of course they buy Verizon. However, even if Microsoft does head for the embeded device market, Linux is there too (and royalty free)! I wonder if Ballmer has nightmares about smiling Penguins?

    Microsoft is not going to do what IBM did and watch as everyone passes them by. They are suiting up to get into the Linux game, which is scary... but as Daffy Duck always says, "If you can't beat'em, join em." .... This is going to get really wierd. I

    Could someone from Microsoft (you avid Slashdot readers), confirm this, speculate, or leak some more internal memos?

  117. SourceSafe is NEVER an option by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 4, Informative
    Rational Clearcase competes with Visual Sourcesafe....

    Only to the extent that a bank competes with random strangers as a reasonable place to keep my money. SourceSafe may be viewed by many as a reasonable alternative for Clearcase, but that's a horrible mistake. SourceSafe is deeply flawed and inappropriate for any but the most trivial situations. I've written a paper on Visual SourceSafe's many flaws. Spread the word! Friends don't let friends use SourceSafe!

  118. Why by jafac · · Score: 2

    I can't understand why MS would want to buy Borland, they've already hired away all their talent.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  119. You don't hear much, then by dwk123 · · Score: 1
    Clearcase isn't exactly awful, if you consider it's capabilities and potential target market. the problem is that is is resource and personnel intensive to get to work at all let alone well, and it is an absolute bear to get working effectively across even somewhat decoupled sites.

    In other words, there are simply not many places outside large, stable (???) in-house corporate development environments where it makes any sense.

    In virtually all projects I've been in, CVS is a far far better choice than clearcase

  120. The loss of Delphi and Kylix would suck!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I absolutely love Delphi. The OO Pascal language is so elegant and the IDE rocks! I think Kylix will become great too in another version or two. I know the article is just speculation in regards to Borland, but could M$ even legally persue Borland? Wouldn't that acquisition put them in charge of too many competing products, especially JBuilder, which would allow them to negatively influence two of the best development tools for Linux and even the Java environment? Aside from their speculative acquisition of companies to kill software development tools competition, what about their proposal to kill the Linux OS itself by eliminating the open hardware system with Palladium? I think M$ has realized that to protect their OS, they have to move towards proprietary hardware as they've done with the XBox. Because they have so much power over the hardware manufactures, they can force the hardware shift, make Linux chase them and compete on their own terms. All very bad stuff.

  121. Re:How shall we troll this? Let us enumerate... by cow_licker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Um... CLX is based on QT. Partially at least.

    http://www.drbob42.com/kylix/kylix.htm

    --
    $_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$ t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=($m=(11,10,116,100,
  122. The problem is..... by dwk123 · · Score: 1
    Okay, someone help me out here. Exactly what does Borland have that is of any value to MS?? Delphi/Kylix are OK, but compete pretty directly with VB; .Net-ifying them is reasonable enough, but I would imagine Borland would do this anyway. The C++ tools are similar - VC++ isn't going to get any better due to an infusion of borland technology.

    Java is an area that Borland is strong (JBuilder and app server, recently purchased OptimizeIt), but obviously MS would probably just shut that side down; conversion to C# wouldn't seem to make much sense, as it would then just be a VS.Net competitor. I suppose they could spin it off, but since the Java branch is maybe the most successful, it again begs the question 'why bother with the purchase in the first place?'

    Borland does have a couple other fringe products - DB, SCM etc, but they wouldn't appear to have much compelling value by themselves.

    In short, the only concievable reason I can see for MS doing this would be to shut them down and absorb the market share, which is neither particularly cost-effective nor likely to be without PR and other repercussions.

    In summary - this one seems like complete vapor to me. It's pure reaction to the IBM-Rational agreement, and the assumption that somehow MS will have to respond in kind.

  123. Just Imagine by m11533 · · Score: 1

    Just imagine being those engineers... no matter what you do you still end up working for Microsoft (assuming the do the deal).

  124. Re:In other news...US Postal Service buys FedEx by mkweise · · Score: 1

    (Washington, DC.) In a move aimed at preventing important documents from being delivered reliably in a timely fashion, the US Postal Service today announced its planned acquisition of FedEx Corp. "We can't have people denying us the opportunity to lose all of their mail," a secret internal memo from the Postmaster General explained.

    In a separate statement, the Postal Service continued its campaign to educate the public on the dangers of utilizing open-box pizza delivery services. "Pizza shipped in an unsealed box," so the Postal Service, "is an inherently insecure and potentially dangerous solution."

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
  125. Visio..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    M$ bought Visio a while back, while providing nowhere near the functionality of Rational (for ex. you can reverse engineer Java code with Rational). M$ also bought (I believe) a clearcase competitor called SourceSafe, that is very similar (even Unix based it seems).

    I think it is clear here the strategy of both M$ and IBM: if you control the tools developers use to build products, you can channel them to your own platform. This is probably why Sun, even though owning Java, is nowhere compared to IBM as far as web servers. One of the main reasons behind the success of WebSphere, I think, is the power of VAJ (and also why IBM puts so much emphasis on WSAD (Eclipse) and now Rational).

    So snapping up Borland, which once competed head to head with M$ (except for the OS!), is probably great for M$ not good for Linux.

  126. Microsoft must be destroyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clealy sir is powermad.

    Rock that shit, homie

  127. They Did by irix · · Score: 2
    --

    Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  128. Re:HOLY HELL! : Eclipse! by axxackall · · Score: 2
    I am a Java programmer myself (laugh it up), but Swing just plain annoys me.

    I have to program on Java from time to time as well, but usually I use high-order languages, like Python and Lisp. Well, whole Java annoys me. Swing and EJB are both the best illustration of how to sell bad technologies through non-technical managers.

    I think with death of Borland (that's the goal of Microsoft deal, isn't it?) the chances of Java to survive will be less, while chances for better languages of new generation (read: functional and logical programming languages) to come to the market will be bigger. I wonder (but won't be surprised) if Microsoft will start sell some of them.

    --

    Less is more !
  129. M$ Mucking with Java code? by tbonium · · Score: 1

    I would never buy anything Java-related that came from microsoft. Here's why!

    All your files belong to us. It's in the EULA.

  130. Re:How shall we troll this? Let us enumerate... by elphkotm · · Score: 1
    --

    <Amanda`> I just went out to the parking lot in my bathrobe to exchange warez CDs.
  131. More Power by ank2 · · Score: 0

    If this deal goes down then more power to Microsoft. This is only software. Both Rational and Borland are running businesses, with the object of making money.

  132. Rational Software Up 3% On Rumors Of Second Bidder by SailorBob · · Score: 2

    Rational Software Up 3% On Rumors Of Second Bidder

    By DONNA FUSCALDO

    Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

    NEW YORK -- Shares of Rational Software Corp. (RATL) saw heavy volume Wednesday after rumors spread on the Internet that a second company could make a bid for the software maker.

    The stock recently was up 30 cents, or 3%, to $10.59 on volume of 21.5 million shares. Average daily volume is 5.6 million.

    International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) said Friday it would buy the software tools maker for $2.1 billion, or $10.50 a share.

    Following news of the pending acquisition, some Wall Street pundits said IBM was getting Rational on the cheap, which sparked speculation that another bidder would step in. On Wednesday rumors abounded that Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) could be that second bidder.

    Officials at Microsoft, Rational Software and IBM declined to comment.

    While investors traded up shares of Rational on the rumor, some analysts discounted the veracity of the speculation.

    Gary Abott, an analyst at RTX Securities, said the chances of a second bidder emerging are highly unlikely.

    There is a constituency out there that believes IBM has stolen this on the cheap, said the analyst. I do not count myself among that group.

    According to the analyst, who does not own shares of Rational, Microsoft is an unlikely suitor.

    Microsoft is an intelligent and formidable company and paying a premium to this price doesn't appear to a make a lot of sense to me or anybody, he said. RTX Securities does not have an investment banking relationship with Rational.

    The rumor was also reported on CNBC.

    Kevin Buttigieg, an analyst at Kaufman Brothers, agreed a counter offer from Microsoft is unlikely.

    He noted that IBM included a clause in the agreement, which basically said that if a competitor purchases Rational, the software tool maker's source code would still be disclosed to IBM.

    Buttigieg does not own shares of Rational and Kaufman Brothers doesn't have any investment-banking ties with Rational.

    Still that didn't stop investors from betting that another suitor may step up to the plate.

    After reaching a high of $10.72, Rational's shares swapped hands recently at $10.59, up 30 cents. That's a slight premium to IBM's all-cash offer of $10.50 a share, signaling that some investors expect a higher bid.

    Rational's trade volume, at nearly 26 million shares, was nearly five times its average daily trade volume of 5.5 million shares.

    The stock is certainly acting like people expect a higher offer, said one arbitrage analyst.

    The analyst said the acquisition would make sense for both Microsoft and IBM. It's a small deal, he said. IBM can write the check and so could Microsoft.

    IBM is hoping to close the deal in the first quarter. If there is a bidding war it will have to happen soon.

    -By Donna Fuscaldo, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5253; donna.fuscaldo@dowjones.com

    (Janet Whitman in New York contributed to this report.)

    Updated December 11, 2002 3:20 p.m. EST

    --

    Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!

  133. Wrong. (or so I feel) by BoomerSooner · · Score: 2

    They may not be able to buy Forte or Eclipse but they can remove a significant development tool for the linux platform that allows the exact same project to run on solaris, linux, windows and mac os (to a lesser extent). This gives credibliity to the platform as a stable one that is supported by large vendors.

    Personally I develop through my company for Windows and Linux the same (JFC) but for OS X I use the development tools (interface builder) from Apple and tie into my same java classes (we recompile a cocoa app). We build an Aqua interface and tie into the same backend. On Linux and Windows all development is in textpad (via wine in linux). Any other apps that are specifically remote in nature are implemented in JSP for web access. So I can sort of agree with you but not entirely. If I didn't use Windows so much I'd be using vim exclusively (but that's another fight altogether!).

    1. Re:Wrong. (or so I feel) by g4dget · · Score: 2
      If I didn't use Windows so much I'd be using vim exclusively (but that's another fight altogether!).

      Are you aware that there are excellent Windows-native GUI versions of vim? Check on the VIM site.

      They may not be able to buy Forte or Eclipse but they can remove a significant development tool for the linux platform that allows the exact same project to run on solaris, linux, windows and mac os (to a lesser extent).

      Delphi was great at the time as an alternative to C development on Windows. But today, C++ pretty much has won as the low-level object-oriented programming language; with wxWindows or Qt, you also get excellent cross-platform development support. And for high-level cross-platform development, you get Java. What do we need Delphi for?

    2. Re:Wrong. (or so I feel) by BoomerSooner · · Score: 2

      We don't need Delphi we need JBuilder.

      I like vim but only if i'm exclusively using linux. I like Textpad just as much (although I always wind up hitting esc : wq in textpad and it does nothing!).

  134. are you sure? by CodeMunch · · Score: 1
    sh*tty back up capabilities (Can't backup if someone's logged in, can't force someone to logout...)

    That is strange. Not sure how yours was setup, but if you checked files out for developing, it was irrelevant to the ability to backup the VSS database - same with being logged in. We were logged in 24/7 to our VSS DB and the backup of our VSS DB was always successful.

    However, if you were backing up source files from a machine while VCC 6 was running, it would keep locks on the VCC generated class browser index file (and one other i thnk) so they could not be touched but which was also not required for backup.

    1. Re:are you sure? by Christopher_G_Lewis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is strange. Not sure how yours was setup, but if you checked files out for developing, it was irrelevant to the ability to backup the VSS database - same with being logged in.

      Correct, but I forgot that we always ran ANALYZE.EXE before backups, causing the backups to "fail", which is what I should have said...

  135. Re:D'oh! Never Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Billy and Steve are way to into controlling the company for that to happen!
    I suspect they have a secret underground pool of gold coins just like uncle scrooge. And they know exactly how many coins are in it.

  136. Now were going to be stuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now were going to be stuck using Microsoft crap compilers and IDE's.

  137. Re:How shall we troll this? Let us enumerate... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2


    Hmmm... So, perhaps a little more research next time? Props for straightening me out...
    </blush>

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  138. Speaking of IDEs... by atlacatl · · Score: 1

    Has anyone noticed that Eclipse's home page is no longer what it used to be?

    Is IBM droping the project after it buys Rational?

    --
    Esta es una firma en Espanol.
  139. And the next step is domination... by MonoSynth · · Score: 1

    ...in the market for graphics-suites. Buy JASC, maintain, enhance and market Paint Shop Pro and sell it for discount-prices to get Adobe on their knees to finally buy them or kill them (and buy them anyway afterwards). And, as a nice side-effect, finally have a chance to fully control Apple.

    Who will stop them? No authority complains about the billions and billions they invest into the Xbox, just to push Nintendo and Sega out of the console-business. What that lawsuits of the past years good for? While we are complaining about things they did in the past, they take over the whole consumer-software-business and no one complains. Is that what's "good for competition?"

  140. Not Borland!! by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

    "Borland, like Microsoft, also sells programming tools that allow software developers to build programs for Microsoft's .NET Internet software. But unlike Microsoft, Borland's tools allow developers to run their applications in non-Microsoft environments..."

    And this I fear is the motivation. Borland sells an excellent tool called Kylix that runs on Linux. The product has two IDEs. The first is equivalent to Borland's Delphi and the second is the equivalent to Borland's C++Builder.

    In fact by using these tools, companies can develop Microsoft products and easily port them to Linux. Microsoft doesn't want that on the desktop.

    Remember what happened when Microsoft bought Corel shares? Corel almost immediately announced that there would be no further development on Corel Linux. Of course Corel management said that the decision had nothing to do with Microsoft's purchase. Yeah, right...

    So all I've got to say is if you want to use these excellent tools you may want to buy them soon!

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  141. Divide and Conquer - the oldest trick in the book by mattypants · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Microsoft are attempting to push the price of Rational up to either bust the deal or create fear and confusion in the Java market. The Borland thing is just to add credibility by appearing to have a contingency plan. Basically, they are terrified of an IBM armed with Rational dev tools and Java - a certain .NET killer.

  142. FUD by Reiners · · Score: 2, Funny

    I especially liked this part of the story:

    '"We never comment on rumors and speculation," a Microsoft spokeswoman said.'

    No, they only start them.

  143. Great Site on Microsoft Monopoly by IamSorrow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While browsing for info in regards to the legality of a proposed buyout of Borland, I ran across this site from Microsoft Monopoly, at Stanford, Its has a fairly well laid out description of all of Microsoft's past woe's and tangles with the law.

  144. Flagship by DCMonkey · · Score: 1
    --
    DCMonkey
  145. five minute CM tool primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a Clearcase admin and have used lots of differnt CM tools, here's my five minute CM tool primer:

    Visual Source Safe: This tool regularly corrupts its database, enough said. Also, it only runs on Windows boxes.

    CVS: Free (cash/software), useful for projects without alot of code variants, small development teams and simple CM processes. It doesn't scale well when the CM process gets complex or the code base needs to support lots of code variants. Basically CVS is the "creeping featurism" of a bunch of RCS wrapper scripts.

    SCCS and RCS: See CVS.

    DSEE: Good for at least one "Unknown Error, exitting DSEE" message per week, usually occuring after spending 45 minutes trying to set the model thread. This CM system is good on paper, but badly implemented. However when the UI is not crashing, it's solid.

    StarTeam: Some opperations are not possible from the command line, only the GUI, making it useless from an automation point of view. Also, it's slow.

    Perforce: Pretty powerful, the client runs everywhere, but it's pendantic about process. It's difficult to adapt to an existing CM process. However, it's a solid tool with lots of cool features.

    Continuus: Runs on the Windows/Big Unixes of the world. You can use the predefined CM process, or with effort, adapt Continuus to your current CM process. It gets the job done, but it can be painful to use.

    Clearcase: Extremely powerful, but requires administration. Eats lots of HW/network resources. Expensive. Easily adapatable to a user defined CM process or you can use the out of the box Clearcase UCM. This is the Rolls Royce of CM tools. Lots of hackers don't like it, because rolling out Clearcase is usally indicative of ending whatever ad hoc CM process is currently in place and replacing it with a real CM process.

    My subjective ranking of CM tools:

    1. Clearcase
    2. Perforce
    3. Continuus
    4. CVS
    5. DSEE
    6. StarTeam
    7. RCS
    8. SCCS
    9. Any homemade CM process and tools
    10. No CM process or tools
    11. VSS

    1. Re:five minute CM tool primer by orim · · Score: 1

      9. Any homemade CM process and tools
      10. No CM process or tools
      11. VSS

      Ha ha! That's pretty funny.

      Maybe I'm just so lucky, but I've never had VSS database get corrupted. Actually, that's not 100% true... the one time somebody went into the /data folder and deleted a few files from the database.
      But show me a database that wouldn't crap out when users start whacking its internal files.

      Which version have you used?
      Note: I'm not a huge VSS fan or anything. I just think it has its place.

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
  146. Argo doesn't do collaboration diagrams by jlusk4 · · Score: 2

    Argo doesn't do collab/sequence diagrams, nor does the whiteboard ed. of TJ. Boo, hiss. I haven't found *any* free tool that does collab/sequence diagrams (Dia doesn't count, I need this for work, not home.)

    I'm tired of static class diagrams that don't tell me how the system *works*.

    So is Allen Holub. See http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-01-2002/jw-0 111-ootools.html.

  147. Re:Different Ports by jjackson · · Score: 1

    As a previous Windows Delphi developer who as recently replaced ALL of my company's systems with Linux + Kylix for custom business code, this story has put a major pit in my stomach.

    While I realize that a lot of open-source purists don't much care for Kylix, as a pervious professional Windows Delphi developer it has been absolutely awesome to have Kylix to port my code to Linux.

    Lazarus is coming along, but it has been doing so very slowly for years now. The first time I looked into their IDE was roughly 3 years ago, well before the first mention of Delphi for Linux.

    If you need RAD web app or client/server database development capabilities for Linux, Kylix is really hard to beat (and yes, I have tried). In addition, I would venture to guess that better than 90% of my Windows code didn't even require touching to start working in Linux.

    I personally don't mind having shelled out the price of Kylix Professional or the price of the boxed set for Red Hat. To implement the dozen or so servers it has cost me FAR less than the price of a single Windows 2000 Server + SQL... which my business simply can not afford.

    The loss of Kylix would make running my business on LAMP infinitely less appealing. In addition, several of the existing products that I am developing for Linux that are some of the primary focus points for my business would take a major hit. I don't have the time or resources to develop tools to do my development or to try to port all of my code to a new language.

  148. OT by Kyeo · · Score: 1

    Just out of curiosity, who is this J. Hicks?

  149. Re:MS buys Rational/Borland, what of Linux product by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

    How about this: Borland converts all of their software to GPL just before signing the deal. Then the cross-platform stuff will not be able to be killed off (and we'll be able to fix those annoying bugs...)

  150. This would be bad for cross platform developers by blackwizard · · Score: 2

    First, consider that Rational's source control products. As bloated as they can be, they run on Win32 and many flavors of *NIX.

    Next, Borland does a lot of Java work. Under Microsoft's rule, this would surely slow to a trickle or be converted to the .NET platform.

    Obviously, industry support for non-Microsoft platforms would be greatly reduced if these buyouts go through. Not only that, but many of the good people at Rational and Borland would be soon out of work, as Microsoft would suddenly find them irrelevant to their strategy.

    Yes, I think this would be very bad for cross platform development, and the software industry in general.

  151. Bad day for small MS/windows developers by respite · · Score: 1

    All I can say is that this awful news to anyone who writes small custom software and makes do with the Borland's "free command line tools" c++ compiler. In my opinion, the true beauty of nix systems is their central, readily available (read free), high quality compilers that allow people who can't/won't shell out massive bucks for MS visual c to get started in the programming world. Borland's command line tools is the closest equivalent to this on windows platforms. It is already close to impossible to find Borland versions of libraries for many things. Oh well I guess I'll have to make a move to mingw/cygwin as my development environment.

    1. Re:Bad day for small MS/windows developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get an older build (not sure what version it is) of cl.exe by downloading the XP DDK. I'm not certain of whether the license allows you to develop anything other than device drivers or not.

      As far as the full-blown Visual C++ + IDE -- since when does $100US (Visual C++ Standard) qualify as big bucks?

    2. Re:Bad day for small MS/windows developers by rimhoffd · · Score: 1

      well those 16 year old programmers living in mom and pa's house maybe. How do you put that on your christmas list "ma I need Dev kits, can you put those next to the sox under the tree?"

      Refer to the story of 16-year old cleaning up Netscape display code in his basement!

      IMHO

    3. Re:Bad day for small MS/windows developers by respite · · Score: 1

      For now the cl tools are still available but if ms acquires borland I'm willing to wager (in regard to ms's track record) that they will be halted, and no $100 isn't that a big deal for me and you and but I was reffering to people getting started and interested in programming. The younger kids that start out messing with software development early are the ones that contribute to tomorrows quality software and a lack of good free compilers means that many of them won't ever get into it.

  152. MS buying Rational? Too late, sucka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to burst the anti-MS bubble, but it's too late for MS to buy Rational.

    I work at IBM, and a company-wide memo was circulated last week (Dec 4th or 5th) that indicated that IBM's bid to purchase Rational had gone through.

    Tough luck for MS!

  153. In yet another news... by jsse · · Score: 1

    United States of Microsoft today acquired Soviet Russia. According to their spokeman says, President Bill was upset about the fact that in Soviet Russia, Government buys corporations.

  154. A Mindshare and anti-Mono Purchase by Heinr!ch · · Score: 1

    Microsoft doesn't rewrite apps from scratch when they buy them. They gradually migrate/refactor the code (ala FrontPage and Content Management Server). It's naive to think that Borland's only value is in its Java tools. It's also naive to think that MS would purchase Borland only to get their hands on the TogetherSoft intellectual property. Borland's value is developer mindshare. They have always been the Apple of software development (regardless of what Microsoft thinks of itself), truly catering to what developers need and want. If Microsoft buys Borland, then they will gradually (over 2-3 years) align the existing non-Java Borland tools (and their customers) over to .NET. Also, consider that Borland has recently expressed interest in using Mono and contributing to the Mono project. There's a strong possibility that Microsoft could prevent this by purchasing Borland - hence preventing an alternative CLR from having professional support. As for JBuilder and Kylix, perhaps these tools would get sold off or mothballed? Who knows?

  155. Makes me happy I'm using free software... by Tord · · Score: 2

    Reading all the fearfilled comments here about what might happen with Borland C, Kylix etc including their communities and all that time and effort people have spent on learning those development environments, just makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside that I've settled for free software. :)

    Nobody can take over free software like that, at least not with the communitys acceptance, feels great to be immune against threats like that. :)

    Of course, still hopes that things turns out well for Borland, the Kylix community etc...

  156. Delphi.NET by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

    Actually, Borland have that in beta already. It's called Delphi.net. See the Borland website if you don't believe me.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  157. M$ allready bought Borland once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kind of...
    Anders Hejlsberg (Chief Arhitect on products like of C#, J++ and WFC) left Borland to join M$ in 1996. An other people left for M$ too at the same dark ages.

  158. Lazarus (vs Delphi\Kylix) by I+am+Jack's+username · · Score: 1
    good: [Lazarus is] evolving fast enough
    bad: not fast enough, at least if you wanna move now
    ...
    good: lighter, faster
    Firstly, what? Secondly, wow: Lazarus evolved into being faster pretty quickly: 5 sentences. Quickening!
    1. Re:Lazarus (vs Delphi\Kylix) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      evolving fast (but not fast enough)...

      Executes lighter,faster.

      What's the problem?

  159. Firebird / interbase? by rembo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I wonder what impact that would have on the relation between firebird and interbase. They might become incompatible, cause MS is no fan of open source.

  160. Re:HOLY HELL! : Eclipse! by Jack+Greenbaum · · Score: 1
    I am a Java programmer myself (laugh it up), but Swing just plain annoys me.

    I like the Swing APIs when viewed from the application developer side, but the underlying implementation is hopeless baroquen. Swing was the first GUI API to get my attention since Genera on Symbolics LISPms.

  161. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    .. I used to get in more fights with SCO than I did my girlfriend, but
    now, thanks to Linux, she has more than happily accepted her place back at
    number one antagonist in my life..
    -- Jason Stiefel, krypto@s30.nmex.com

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...