Solaris is more "business" than Windows? I didn't get an email or fax, when exactly did that happen?This option would help position PB as a true business development language and not just a "language for hobbiests".
PureBasic for Solaris
-
Fluid Byte
- Addict
- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:41 am
- Location: Berlin, Germany
Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit / Whose Hoff is it anyway?
The company I work for has extensive datacenters running solaris and a fairly large windows installed base, 11000+.
Unless fred and company are planning to get into the negotiated service contract with guaranteed phone and/or in-person support, PureBasic isn't going to crack the large business market, no matter the platform - and yes, we have those with M$, Sun, Oracle and other vendors.
If we can't get a negotiated service contract, we won't use it.
cheers
Unless fred and company are planning to get into the negotiated service contract with guaranteed phone and/or in-person support, PureBasic isn't going to crack the large business market, no matter the platform - and yes, we have those with M$, Sun, Oracle and other vendors.
If we can't get a negotiated service contract, we won't use it.
cheers
-
DTecMeister
- User
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Rome, NY
PB is a viable option for business if framed properly
This isn't entirely true. If you look at your server-side tool usage, you will find plenty of "not officially supported" applications and tools constantly in use. Sure the platform they are on may be supported (by SUN, etc.), but not all the applications.Unless fred and company are planning to get into the negotiated service contract with guaranteed phone and/or in-person support, PureBasic isn't going to crack the large business market, no matter the platform
An exampe would be KSH, see how long it takes to get a bug fixed in the KSH if you should run into one.
If PB was available on Solaris, Sun may be who to work a deal with to have it distributed to end users. We're talking about an application much more reliable than Windows and other such "supported" software.
Fluid Byte, surely you jest. If you were serious about that remark you should be beaten with a reality stick. Heh heh.
I wouldn't suggest using PB to develop a monolithic type application, but it is the best tool for building small, lightweight pieces that can be put together to be extremely powerfull. I think of using it to be like purchasing a binary tool for a simple job. The good part is I built it so it only cost my time and I know its limitations. If I need to enhance it, I can quickly do that instead of finding someone else that will do it for me at more cost.
Where are the masses?
Re: PB is a viable option for business if framed properly
Maybe at your company. Not ours.DTecMeister wrote:This isn't entirely true. If you look at your server-side tool usage, you will find plenty of "not officially supported" applications and tools constantly in use.
We provide services to wireless providers. We will not use a hardware or software product that we are unable to obtain a guaranteed service level comittment for.
It's an ugly situation when you're on the phone with a customer attempting to explain why you're using a product that isn't under a service level agreement (when they have one with you). We don't want to have any of those conversations:)
cheers
-
DTecMeister
- User
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Rome, NY
SLA
I guess you're correct. I'm sure Fred would love to be able to provide a support team, but several things would have to change.
User base would have to increase.
Stigma of "BASIC" would have to be overcome.
Multiple levels of support would have to established with associated costs.
Popularity would have to be high enough to gather employees to support the software (I know Fred and his small team wouldn't want to turn their roles into a help desk).
The support job itself would be like a maytag repairman. You wouldn't be required much.
Main issue is obtaining the critical mass necessary to obtain exponential growth required to achieve above goals.
Fred and his group (or others) should take PB and start solving IT's realworld issues with this great language, then the user numbers will climb.
To get around "BASIC" stigma, name needs to become "Aurora" or "Synapse" or something as cool. Get rid of that B word.
It's ok to me if PB doesn't catch on. I have an advantage over competition of being able to do more in less time. I don't want it to go away though.
It seems to me if word is out enough, there are enough hobbiest game developers out there to sustain the language, but maybe not.
User base would have to increase.
Stigma of "BASIC" would have to be overcome.
Multiple levels of support would have to established with associated costs.
Popularity would have to be high enough to gather employees to support the software (I know Fred and his small team wouldn't want to turn their roles into a help desk).
The support job itself would be like a maytag repairman. You wouldn't be required much.
Main issue is obtaining the critical mass necessary to obtain exponential growth required to achieve above goals.
Fred and his group (or others) should take PB and start solving IT's realworld issues with this great language, then the user numbers will climb.
To get around "BASIC" stigma, name needs to become "Aurora" or "Synapse" or something as cool. Get rid of that B word.
It's ok to me if PB doesn't catch on. I have an advantage over competition of being able to do more in less time. I don't want it to go away though.
It seems to me if word is out enough, there are enough hobbiest game developers out there to sustain the language, but maybe not.
Where are the masses?
@DTecMeister
Its a shame, you'd think a language would be only as good as its syntax, but in the real world, a language is as good as a biased users (or developers) pre-conceptions.
A Java or C programmer will always look down on a VB programmer because its not a *proper* language. PB is tarred with the same brush.
BASIC stands for Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code - in other words a noddy language for kids (which the early versions were) - things have changed and PB owes as much to grown up languages like C, Java and Pascal as it does to BASIC - but BASIC may never lose the stigma.
What a shame.
So true, I mention PureBASIC and peoples lips curl in a sneer. I wrote apps for my company that 100's use, but if I advertise its written in BASIC then all credibility is lost. I credit PureBASIC and show a link but its hidden in the "About" MenuItem.To get around "BASIC" stigma, name needs to become "Aurora" or "Synapse" or something as cool. Get rid of that B word.
Its a shame, you'd think a language would be only as good as its syntax, but in the real world, a language is as good as a biased users (or developers) pre-conceptions.
A Java or C programmer will always look down on a VB programmer because its not a *proper* language. PB is tarred with the same brush.
BASIC stands for Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code - in other words a noddy language for kids (which the early versions were) - things have changed and PB owes as much to grown up languages like C, Java and Pascal as it does to BASIC - but BASIC may never lose the stigma.
What a shame.
Ta - N
BASIC loose its stigma?
One way I can think of is to pick up the linux version and try to hack things at the assembler level
i.e every x86 op code to have an equivalent l/s sparc code.
so pick up the load store sparc assembler (I have access to it), use the CALL methods to call the C function.
To proceed on it, I assume the C calls used by linux are the same as the C calls used on Solaris on SPARC.
As a processoer, SPARC is faster, way way faster.
Some game to try and port it at the compile time?
steps
1. pick up the linux version compiler of purebasic and rip it apart so that it compiles sparc code instead of x86
2. map the C calls back to Solaris C calls (C was the last time everyone agreed to drink together)
we could try with one of the older versions and see how it goes, id love to help if someone is serious and if Fred is willing to share the linux source /the compiler to asm output bit.
i.e every x86 op code to have an equivalent l/s sparc code.
so pick up the load store sparc assembler (I have access to it), use the CALL methods to call the C function.
To proceed on it, I assume the C calls used by linux are the same as the C calls used on Solaris on SPARC.
As a processoer, SPARC is faster, way way faster.
Some game to try and port it at the compile time?
steps
1. pick up the linux version compiler of purebasic and rip it apart so that it compiles sparc code instead of x86
2. map the C calls back to Solaris C calls (C was the last time everyone agreed to drink together)
we could try with one of the older versions and see how it goes, id love to help if someone is serious and if Fred is willing to share the linux source /the compiler to asm output bit.
or...
is there an issue trying to compile the purebasic source code itself on SPARC?
I am sure a flag during compile time to gcc/whatever the linux version is built on to tell PB that it should be compiled for sparc shud suffice...
I am sure a flag during compile time to gcc/whatever the linux version is built on to tell PB that it should be compiled for sparc shud suffice...
Solaris™ Containers for Linux Applications
Solaris 10:
Solaris™ Containers for Linux Applications
Highlights
Does anybody know how to get 'Containers for Linux Applications' running?
It seems to be a way to get PB applications running on Solaris.
Solaris™ Containers for Linux Applications
Highlights
- • Maximizes consolidation of IT environments by allowing Linux and Solaris applications to coexist on the same Solaris 10 system.
- • Increases flexibility by lowering the barrier to migrate from Linux to the Solaris OS.
- • Removes dependencies on unpredictable schedules and source code availability for both in-house and third-party applications.
- • Boosts cross-platform development by extending the observability features of Solaris 10 to the Linux platform.
Does anybody know how to get 'Containers for Linux Applications' running?
It seems to be a way to get PB applications running on Solaris.
Re:
Perhaps because it is called VB instead of VisualBasic most of the time.alokdube wrote:i found it funny , considering most of microsft's dev was in VB.... so why is VB not so bad? it does have BASIC in it
Perhaps PureBasic should simply be renamed to Pure.
Serious.
( PB6.00 LTS Win11 x64 Asrock AB350 Pro4 Ryzen 5 3600 32GB GTX1060 6GB)
( The path to enlightenment and the PureBasic Survival Guide right here... )
( The path to enlightenment and the PureBasic Survival Guide right here... )