Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Interview with REALbasic 5.5's German distributor
By Michael 'STIBS' Stibane
on
March 24, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Real Software, Inc. recently announced the availability of REALbasic 5.5, a RAD development environment for Windows and Mac OS X that can compile GTK-based native Linux applications. I wanted to ask Real Software a few questions about the new software. Since I'm German, the company pointed me to its German partner, Application Systems GmbH from Heidelberg. I spoke with CEO Volker Ritzhaupt.
STIBS: What are the outstanding technical features of REALbasic?
Ritzhaupt: Probably the most important feature of REALbasic is that it makes it easy for anyone to create their own software for Linux, Macintosh, and Windows all from one code base.
STIBS: Development is currently done under Windows since no development environment exists for Linux yet. Are there plans for a native Linux development environment?
Ritzhaupt: We plan to offer a native Linux version of the REALbasic IDE toward the end of the year.
STIBS: REALbasic offers a wizard to convert Microsoft Visual Basic code to REALbasic. Since Visual Basic heavily relies on DLLs and OCX components, up to what level is porting the VB functionality to Linux with this wizard possible?
Ritzhaupt: Some VB apps use lots of DLLs but we have found that most do not. Even those that do often are simply using a feature that is already native to REALbasic. We've found that about 70% of most projects will be portable.
STIBS: Do the applications compiled for Linux need runtime libraries or does REALbasic produce a standalone executable?
Ritzhaupt: REALbasic builds standalone executables. Our licensing has always been royalty-free.
STIBS: The Professional Edition license, which is the license that gives developer the ability to port applications, costs Linux developers US$400 or, in Germany, €369. That's a price no developer working on an Open Source project in his free time pays from his own pocket. Why did you set the price tag for developing Linux applications that high? Are there plans to offer a lower-priced Standard edition that only compiles Linux applications?
Ritzhaupt: Our Standard edition is priced at $100US (prices vary slightly from country to country). Once we bring the REALbasic IDE to Linux, open source developers will be able to purchase the Standard edition for building Linux applications.
STIBS: Why did you choose GTK as the toolkit for Linux rather than Qt?
Ritzhaupt: Qt is expensive. They have a free version if you're writing software that you plan to give away. The developer license for commercial software is over $1,000US per developer and that's for just one platform. Borland owns part of Trolltech (the makers of Qt) and their CEO sits on the board of Trolltech. That explains how they can use it. Also, GTK is open source, so should we find a bug in GTK that we need to fix, we can fix it and contribute the fix to the community.
STIBS: One of the first people who built a BASIC compiler for Linux with a development environment under Windows was William Yu with his RapidQ, which still has a lot of fans. You hired William. What is his part in the development of the Linux functionality and REALbasic in general?
Ritzhaupt: William contributes to REALbasic in general but he was by far the most significant contribute to our Linux support.
I have not had a chance to test REALbasic myself yet, but my cousin Marc Stibane, who owns a Mac software company in Berlin, gave me his opinion. He said, "REALbasic is useful for projects that are intended to get the work done on all three platforms it supports, but when you try to port the specific advantages of one platform to another you are lost. REALbasic in its current state concentrates only on the basic common features."
I expect we will see commercial software for the Linux desktop written in REALbasic in the next months. The Visual Basic assistant allows easy porting of well-known Windows applications. What programs would be valuable additions to all the existing free software projects for Linux? Is there outstanding software you would pay for if it was available for Linux?
|
STIBS: Development is currently done under Windows since no development environment exists for Linux yet. Are there plans for a native Linux development environment?
Ritzhaupt: We plan to offer a native Linux version of the REALbasic IDE toward the end of the year.
STIBS: REALbasic offers a wizard to convert Microsoft Visual Basic code to REALbasic. Since Visual Basic heavily relies on DLLs and OCX components, up to what level is porting the VB functionality to Linux with this wizard possible?
Ritzhaupt: Some VB apps use lots of DLLs but we have found that most do not. Even those that do often are simply using a feature that is already native to REALbasic. We've found that about 70% of most projects will be portable.
STIBS: Do the applications compiled for Linux need runtime libraries or does REALbasic produce a standalone executable?
Ritzhaupt: REALbasic builds standalone executables. Our licensing has always been royalty-free.
STIBS: The Professional Edition license, which is the license that gives developer the ability to port applications, costs Linux developers US$400 or, in Germany, €369. That's a price no developer working on an Open Source project in his free time pays from his own pocket. Why did you set the price tag for developing Linux applications that high? Are there plans to offer a lower-priced Standard edition that only compiles Linux applications?
Ritzhaupt: Our Standard edition is priced at $100US (prices vary slightly from country to country). Once we bring the REALbasic IDE to Linux, open source developers will be able to purchase the Standard edition for building Linux applications.
STIBS: Why did you choose GTK as the toolkit for Linux rather than Qt?
Ritzhaupt: Qt is expensive. They have a free version if you're writing software that you plan to give away. The developer license for commercial software is over $1,000US per developer and that's for just one platform. Borland owns part of Trolltech (the makers of Qt) and their CEO sits on the board of Trolltech. That explains how they can use it. Also, GTK is open source, so should we find a bug in GTK that we need to fix, we can fix it and contribute the fix to the community.
STIBS: One of the first people who built a BASIC compiler for Linux with a development environment under Windows was William Yu with his RapidQ, which still has a lot of fans. You hired William. What is his part in the development of the Linux functionality and REALbasic in general?
Ritzhaupt: William contributes to REALbasic in general but he was by far the most significant contribute to our Linux support.
I have not had a chance to test REALbasic myself yet, but my cousin Marc Stibane, who owns a Mac software company in Berlin, gave me his opinion. He said, "REALbasic is useful for projects that are intended to get the work done on all three platforms it supports, but when you try to port the specific advantages of one platform to another you are lost. REALbasic in its current state concentrates only on the basic common features."
I expect we will see commercial software for the Linux desktop written in REALbasic in the next months. The Visual Basic assistant allows easy porting of well-known Windows applications. What programs would be valuable additions to all the existing free software projects for Linux? Is there outstanding software you would pay for if it was available for Linux?
Comments
on Interview with REALbasic 5.5's German distributorNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
I'd buy decent digital imaging software if it was available on Linux. I mean management here, not just viewing.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
What if I want to use Lotus Approach, Lotus WordPro, and Lotus 123, but want to port these for my home use? Can I pay some developer to do it for me.
I am a fanatical user of Lotus SmartSuite for the applications I named above. I am finding it incomprehensible, selfish, maddening, and supremely heretical that IBM would NOT make Lotus (or that Lotus would NOT voluntarily) port Lotus SmartSuite to work sufficiently on Linux that the OpenSource community could jump onboard and help it along so IBM/Lotus could then get back to other projects requiring the labor that initially would be diverted to the OpenSuite (something I call an Open Source version of SmartSuite) project.
I find it curious that Sun could approach IBM and proffer Java conversions and knick-knacks for IBM. IBM should either openly counter this and say, "Well, hell, WE have SmartSuite; all we need to do is rip out the proprietary stuff we don't own but are licensing; we will tap and contribute to the OSDN/OSDL/GNU/GPL/LGPL community for their assistance. We'll just freely decompile our app, eviscerate it of the proprietary CRAP the jerks who own it won't let us port to Linux (assuming the the purported "internal evaluation" IBM did circa 1999 to study the viability/efficacy of porting SmartSuite to Linux, something I think COULD be done, but is politically, internally, myopically, obscenely squashed by some band of ms acolytes contaminating IBM's ranks... but that's another venemous thread...) and then we'll have no need for Sun...
On the other hand, if Sun and IBM would get off the can or whatever other tubular probiscus is holding them in traction and just start deploying for testing any critical pieces and widgets that will be folded back into OpenSuite and start putting that ms company on notice, then other businesses to lazy to explore SmartSuite, or too "locked-in" to ms office could then credibly, realistically, and sensibly begin to pass down this edict:
"NO MORE non-portable ms features are to be tuned into our internal or commercial/redistributable projects or products. The less mired in ms we are, the more flexible, safe, and less bug-ridden will be our code (or, any other plausible or emotional spurt you want to embed here)..."
But, NO, I guess I will have to, like many others, suffer the myopia and purported "non-beneficial-proposition" arguments of others who simply NEVER honestly, genuinely even TRIED to use Approach, WordPro, and 1-2-3. That they havent' or that IBM/Lotus haven't been made to feel pain for their constant ignoring of the demands to port is a testament that IBM is NOT yet really interested in supporting the Linux desktop move. I guess that will go to Suse, HP and a few others.
C'mon, IBM, it's time to get Peoplesoft or whatever HR tool you're using and reevaluate your developers and managers' profiles, ascribe a threat assessment to them as to how much internal stymying and other damage they could cause, and snap them into shape or release them for hamstringing and non-alignment with your purported public statements about supporting Linux.
Sheesh,
David Syes
I am a fanatical user of Lotus SmartSuite for the applications I named above. I am finding it incomprehensible, selfish, maddening, and supremely heretical that IBM would NOT make Lotus (or that Lotus would NOT voluntarily) port Lotus SmartSuite to work sufficiently on Linux that the OpenSource community could jump onboard and help it along so IBM/Lotus could then get back to other projects requiring the labor that initially would be diverted to the OpenSuite (something I call an Open Source version of SmartSuite) project.
I find it curious that Sun could approach IBM and proffer Java conversions and knick-knacks for IBM. IBM should either openly counter this and say, "Well, hell, WE have SmartSuite; all we need to do is rip out the proprietary stuff we don't own but are licensing; we will tap and contribute to the OSDN/OSDL/GNU/GPL/LGPL community for their assistance. We'll just freely decompile our app, eviscerate it of the proprietary CRAP the jerks who own it won't let us port to Linux (assuming the the purported "internal evaluation" IBM did circa 1999 to study the viability/efficacy of porting SmartSuite to Linux, something I think COULD be done, but is politically, internally, myopically, obscenely squashed by some band of ms acolytes contaminating IBM's ranks... but that's another venemous thread...) and then we'll have no need for Sun...
On the other hand, if Sun and IBM would get off the can or whatever other tubular probiscus is holding them in traction and just start deploying for testing any critical pieces and widgets that will be folded back into OpenSuite and start putting that ms company on notice, then other businesses to lazy to explore SmartSuite, or too "locked-in" to ms office could then credibly, realistically, and sensibly begin to pass down this edict:
"NO MORE non-portable ms features are to be tuned into our internal or commercial/redistributable projects or products. The less mired in ms we are, the more flexible, safe, and less bug-ridden will be our code (or, any other plausible or emotional spurt you want to embed here)..."
But, NO, I guess I will have to, like many others, suffer the myopia and purported "non-beneficial-proposition" arguments of others who simply NEVER honestly, genuinely even TRIED to use Approach, WordPro, and 1-2-3. That they havent' or that IBM/Lotus haven't been made to feel pain for their constant ignoring of the demands to port is a testament that IBM is NOT yet really interested in supporting the Linux desktop move. I guess that will go to Suse, HP and a few others.
C'mon, IBM, it's time to get Peoplesoft or whatever HR tool you're using and reevaluate your developers and managers' profiles, ascribe a threat assessment to them as to how much internal stymying and other damage they could cause, and snap them into shape or release them for hamstringing and non-alignment with your purported public statements about supporting Linux.
Sheesh,
David Syes
amen to that.
I hope you didn't xpect me to be reading all that crap did you? please make ontopic comments
I hope you didn't xpect me to be reading all that crap did you? please make ontopic comments
Good
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 24, 2004 10:12 PM#