My company are thinking about using Mono for an upcoming product, so we were thinking about the $12,995 Mono Kickstart support from Novell.
Anybody here used it, is it worth it?
if i were you i'd probably start the project and then only if i needed support for mono buy the product. that way if you dont need it you wont be wasting the $13k.
Related
Firstly, I saw some topics about these two but weren't my answer.
I'm looking for a good FPC(Free Pascal Compiler) IDE on GNU/Linux.
There are some IDE's like Lazarus and CodeTyphon. I need suggestion to choose one of those.
I've tried Lazarus once but all windows was separated. It looks messy and not interesting.
I would like to know what are the distinguishes between these two ?
I would like to know advantages / disadvantages each of those. Thank you
CodeTyphon is a distro of Lazarus, like Ubuntu and Debian are distros of Linux.
CodeTyphon comes with a large package of components and plugins, that otherwise you would have to google and download and install.
CodeTyphon have their own idea what are stable versions and what are not stable yet for both of FPC (compiler) and Lazarus(IDE). Whether their assessment is better or worse than upstream's Lazarus Team's, I don't know.
What about one-single-window plugin, it is work-in-progress and it doesn't seems to me it is ready for production use, no matter would you get it as part of CT or download and add it to vanilla Lazarus. However maybe it better works on Linux than on Windows, I don't know.
There were however issues with code legality in CT grande bundle. It is widely believed that Orca (if I remember the name) violates copyrights of glScene/vgScene, which also happened in early Delphi FMX releases but was fixed by EMBA later. There also were disputes in FPC forums/wiki about CodeTyphon pirating some open-source components. See answer by Peter Dunne below.
Your question is akin to asking the difference between Linux and Ubuntu. Lazarus is an IDE/component library, based on FreePascal (FPC). And CodeTyphon is a distribution of Lazarus and FPC. So CodeTyphon is just one way to install a functioning installation of Lazarus.
Lazarus uses the same floating window design as older versions of Delphi. Installing from CodeTyphon won't change that.
Myself and several friends highlighted several licensing issues with codetyphon
most of which could have been corrected by sourcing the included files from known good source and ensuring the correct license headers were included
PirateLogic refused to correct the issues which means they are using code in direct violation of the original license terms
The fact its open source code does not change the fact they are pirating the code by not including the correct license even after the issue was highlighted
I also found several instances of copyright code included which appears to be proprietary and not FOSS at all
They also changed the path & file names on some libraries so that source is no longer compatible with standard lazarus/component installs
This in my view is totally illogical
These 2 factors heavily undermine what was potentially the best FPC/Lazarus distro
Hardly professional
Lazarus can be a daunting installation process due to it's nature as a cross compiling environment. You don't just download an installer and click ok. A typical "installation" is actually a bootstrap FPC compiler doing a three-pass compilation of an "install". There are plenty of good installation scripts/methods from the official Lazarus/FPC team and in the community for a . But, understandably, the installation process is a skill in itself.
CodeTyphon is a a different/separate branch of an installer system, which is more of a utility suite/tools/third party code compilation library. If you want the simplest installation experience go with CodeTyphon. It has the nice graphical front end for managing the compiler. You can conveniently do the fancy stuff like build "cross-compilers" for almost every "target" operating system out there. It also is jam packed with hundreds of the best components/libraries pre-installed. It is a very actively maintained project and very professional. A whole lot of work is done for you.
Even if you want to be learn the low level compiler capabilities, CodeTyphon is a good place to start. It is written in FCP/Lazarus and is open source. Simply study it as "working demo app" and the other info on the compiler details. If you crash it, at least you don't have to learn to climb the hill. You get to get to start from the top and lose control on the way down. Start from scratch (and a three hour reinstallation) Hahaha
Lazarus also has a package "AnchorDock" which allows you to dock all the windows into one. Either install the anchor dock design package after installing Lazarus, or install Lazarus using the script at getlazarus.org which will do it for you.
I am looking for suggestions to an alternative setup application from Install Shield.
We are currently using Install Shield and I have never been impressed with it. It's way too bulky and the scripting system sucks.
Has anyone had any better luck with any of the other products like WiX, Inno Setup, NSIS or InstallAware, etc? I am not worried about the cost, but what I am looking for is a very lightweight, easy to use application to bundle up our .exe and about 20 support DLLs, registering a few, setting up some registry values and install help.
Can anyone recommend something they are using? It would be nice to hear from people who have switched from Install Shield as well, what makes the new app you're using better.
WiX is the only MSI packager that truly meets the requirement of "very light weight".
It may have a steep learning curve (which can reduced by using some frontend designers) but being backed-up by Microsoft makes it the primary choice for the .NET environment installations.
You can start with this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_installation_software
There are also a similar question which may help you:
What are some good alternatives to InstallShield?
KMoraz already gave what would be my recommendation (WiX), so I'll just say this: Stay away from NSIS and other non-MSI-based installation systems. Yes, NSIS is customizable and scriptable as heck. But MSIs are well-established as the Windows package standard, and you don't want to stray from that standard unless you have an extremely unique reason to do so. Admins have come to rely on the homogeneity of MSIs and the robustness of their cleanups, and users have come to associate the Windows Installer UX with professionalism and quality. Think twice before you give up those advantages.
AdvancedInstaller looks like a reasonable option but have yet to try it out
https://www.advancedinstaller.com/ Still currently on InstallShield Express 2018 but since they've ditched the express products, InstallShield is far too expensive for what it delivers in my case.
I have an order entry system which was developed using vb.net it uses an ms access database.
I think I might be able to use mono?
I'll need an IDE if possible.
Can someone tell me what I'll to download and what problems I might face, also any suggestions.
You can use MoMA to determine how well your application will run on Mono. It will analyze the app and tell you of any potential compatibility issues. As far as IDE goes, MonoDevelop would work, but depending on the compatibility with Mono, you might be able to just continue to develop it on Windows. Since Mono is just an implementation of the CLR you may not have to make any code changes at all.
Mono supports ODBC for database connections, but you would have to install an ODBC driver (Such as MDB Tools).
I think I might be able to use mono?
Porting applications can be tricky, generally it can go two ways:
- Get it running with minor tweaks.
- Stop trying and start developing from scratch.
MoMA helps, but you never know for sure until you try :)
Checkout MonoDevelop for Mac OSX:
http://monodevelop.com/
Does iPhone SDK 3.0 or 3.1 support Power PC machines having Leopard 10.5 or above? If not then what's the solution for the same results, I have a Mac with Power PC and Panther. I will upgrade to Leopard and install iPhone SDK.
Okay. The answers so far are NOT correct. For some reason, the iPhone SDK has been shipping as a Universal Binary for ages. So, yes, you CAN use a Power PC mac for iPhone development. I've done it and it's verrry dirty.
It's involved and a serious pain. It doesn't work all of the time and there are numerous bugs. It works well enough if you're ABSOLUTELY dedicated and ABSOLUTELY cannot afford a new computer.
Basically, you need to hack up the install XML properties in the installation package. Get rid of the "Intel" check javascript-ish code and/or make it always return true. This will enable the "iPhone SDK" checkbox in the installer.
Once you install it, you can use the SDK and cross-compile to ARM (iPhone processor). The simulator even works, but your milage may vary. My experience was so awful that I simply purchased an Intel Power Mac.
You'll need to hack up the install script for every update. This will involve converting the DMG to read/write beforehand. Editing some Javascript embedded in the XML installation package. Then, hacking up your build properties to get rid of "Native System" selections. It's actually very very painful.
You can Google "how" to do it in more detail. I do not suggest EVER releasing to the Apple store with this method. If you just want to play and get accustomed to the platform, then it might work for you.
Again, I MUST stress, this is very very unstable and totally unsupported. Please know what you are doing before you even consider attempting it.
Yes, it's possible. No, it's not fun.
The iPhone SDK only works on Macs with Intel processors. If you want to save money, you might be able to get the iPhone SDK working on a Hackintosh, but building a Hackintosh may be illegal and applying software updates will be annoying.
I suggest looking for a cheap second-hand Intel-based Mac Mini.
As noted by Will, since the SDK only supports the Intel processors, you are limited to a newer Mac unless you build a Hackintosh which may or may not be legal. However, you also don't need the latest and greatest machine to write software with, although better hardware does help! So you have a couple of options if you are looking to save money in that you could get a refurbished Mac from Apple or check around on eBay or Craigslist to see if you could get one.
I'm starting to learn Objective-C and I don't have a Mac (and I don't have plans to get one), but as I see that Cocoa is a very good framework to develop in Objective-C, I want to know: Is it possible to develop using Cocoa in Windows and Linux?
Thanks.
I think that your best bet, if you want to use Cocoa, is to get a Mac. You really won't regret it. GNUstep is a neat solution, but it is impractical to distribute applications built using GNUstep, because (as far as I know), clients must have the runtime installed for it to work.
Cocotron is an amazing project as well, and in the future, it may be useful for you if you want simple apps to run on both Mac OS and Windows. But you would still need a Mac to use it.
If you are interested in using a language like Objective-C with a framework like Cocoa, but don't want to get a Mac, why don't you try web application development with Cappuccino and Objective-J?. Objective-J is an implementation of an Objcective-C-like language in JavaScript, and Cappuccino is a really amazing imitation of the Cocoa framework in Objective-J.
Some examples of what can be created using that framework are 280 Slides and the new, stunningly beautiful EnStore. That's not a perfect solution, and unless you are content to just do web applications, you should buy a Mac.
Take a look at Cocotron
The purpose of the project is to provide an easy to use cross-platform solution for Objective-C development. In particular, source code level compatibility with recent versions of Apple's frameworks (OS X 10.4 and 10.5).
The general goal is to provide complete support on any viable platform, the project is intended to be as portable as possible. However, most of the work at this time is focused on providing support for Microsoft Windows. In particular the NT based versions, 2000 up to Vista.
You can also run Snow leopard Server inside a virtual machine, like VMWare Fusion.
Apple changed it licence in 2008 to allow that, but only with server editions. I have personally used it with some success to deploy iphone applications (Although it was admitably a bit slow).
You will need decent hardware and preferably a dedicated hard-disk drive to be able to use it properly.
And considering the cost of vmware and osx server you might be better off buying a used mac.