I am looking for a Sybase PowerBuilder 8.0 setup. I found http://www.sybase.com/detail?id=1013232, but the all dowload links are broken.
Where can I download PowerBuilder 8?
You might ask Sybase, but I doubt they'd sell it to you. AFAIK, they haven't sold PB8 in about 8 years, and it hasn't been supported in 6 years. The current eval (11.5 at the time of this writing) is available off their main product page, if free is what you're after.
If it's PB8 you need, then you may be out of luck. Occasionally, you see an old copy sold on eBay, but I've had someone suggest to me that the license terms don't allow resale, so I'm not sure how legal this option is. (I'm no lawyer; maybe you'd want to ask that on "Litigation Overflow".) I'm sure I can leave the even less legal options up to your imagination.
Availability might be another reason to argue for an upgrade, beyond the technical reasons and new features, like operating system support. The PHBs won't like it, but then again, some live to aggravate PHBs; not you I'm sure.
Sorry, and good luck,
Terry
PB8? Sounds like you have to work on an existing system. The company that owns the code and is sponsoring the project surely has a legal license for you to use. It would need to provide you access to its copy if you don't have your own to work with.
Barring that, if you have access to the original code, it should be possible to migrate the application to a newer version of PB, although as Terry notes, PB8 is out of support and I'm not sure if there would be difficulties migrating. There would most certainly be some if the code features any special customizations or usage of now obsolete objects. In that case I can see how you would probably be best served by having PB8 to make adjustments noted by the migration assistant before completing the code conversion.
Related
It's been 10 years since this question was asked and answered here and I'd like to see what current thoughts are.
We have a third party app that we've supported for at least that long. It's an Access runtime application that connects to SQL Server and contains highly confidential data.
Some years ago we moved the database to an SQL Server running on Server Core. More recently we've been asked to run the first upgrade of the database schema in 6 years. The vendor provided upgrade package appears to be built using VB6 and won't run on the server. It also doesn't support running the updates remotely. We have a couple of ways that we can get it done but it has presented me with an opportunity to finally move on from what I think is not an enterprise product.
As part of that I've been asked why I think this product is so bad and, in my estimation, antiquated. My immediate internal response is that it's not a real application, it's Access. That's compounded by the fact that we're paying a pretty good bit for it and I think that there are better, more robust solutions now available that are also cheaper (I think in the end that's all that should matter).
That said I acknowledge that there my be some bias in my opinions on this particular app. Looking back at that old post a few things stand out.
I think there's a big difference between internally developed applications built this way and paid for solutions. Supporting an internally developed app written in Access may still have some positives. I don't think the positives pointed out in the top answer hold up when you're paying someone for it. The disadvantages are precisely what we're running in to.
Reporting isn't being done in Access. It's now mostly being done with outside tools. Most users want to see web based reporting.
A couple of the responses mentioned professional Access developers or this type of application being the COBOL of the 21st century. I think that's an apt description. I'm not sure professional Access developers still exist. How long should we try to maintain this and how long do we think the vendor will be able to?
I think the main mistake about Access is to consider it as a tool made for amateurs to develop applications. It can work this way, but keep in mind that amateur development will give you amateur applications, while professional development will give you professional results
Maybe this is the crux of my problem in particular. I'm not convinced that our application is 'professional'. It feels semi-pro if I'm generous. The VB6 updater is one clue and there are other components that have given me cause for concern over the years.
Fair or not, in my mind, most, if not all Access applications in the enterprise have these same issues. At the end of the day, the question is whether it serves the needs of the department using it.
Where does Access fit in the enterprise in 2019?
Microsoft is discontinuing RoboVM and I am not even trying to figure out the hassle in companies and startups who have invested in this framework.
I see three more JAVA cross platform mobile frameworks sitting out there:
Intel's multi-os-engine https://software.intel.com/en-us/multi-os-engine ,
Oracle's MAF http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/maf/overview/index.html
and https://www.codenameone.com .
Has anybody full knowledges of these frameworks?
What about their project health? Is among them any other candidate that we will see to fall apart the same as it was in the case of ROBOVM?
I'm the co-founder of Codename One so I'm pretty biased. Notice you also missed J2Obj-c which is an important option. Codename One predated RoboVM by a while and unlike it we have a business model/revenue which makes long term support more likely.
I don't want to spread FUD about MAF/MOE so if I got any facts wrong please correct me as I haven't kept up with everything. AFAIK MAF doesn't have much traction, it used to package an interpreted VM and just provide a bridge to Cordova with a few additional plugins. It seems most of Oracles resources are with JET. Back in the day I found a PDF that indicated that MAF has an annual licensing cost of 50K per application, I can't find it now so I don't know if it's applicable but I suggest checking this thoroughly.
MoE isn't a product. It's been a "technology preview" for years and it won't leave that status. Intel stopped all mobile development a few years ago and fired everyone involved, the only reason this wasn't shut down is due to the fact that it isn't a product. It was open sourced but that's just like the open sourcing RoboVM. Both products are over-engineered solutions whose open source code is hard for 3rd party maintenance. It's a full time job to keep up with Apple. Our VM took a far more conservative approach which makes it both easier to maintain/keep up and makes it more efficient. E.g. a hello world in MoE would be over 50mb whereas we support features such as bitcode and can build a release version in under 5mb of size.
Furthermore MOE isn't WORA (Write Once Run Anywhere) which brings me to J2Obj-C which isn't WORA either. If you will sacrifice portability and buy a Mac might as well use J2Obj-C which is more forward compatible than MOE and smaller. It has simpler code and architecture so it won't break if maintenance stops.
If you are a Windows user, using MOE becomes difficult. In fact, you need a Mac available for build reasons or, at least, a cloud hosted mac service.
Moreover, for Windows users, in MOE an iOS simulator is not available (it's only available for OSX users).
Andrea
A manager at work wants my team to use dBASE instead of Python/Postgres for an upcoming web application project. I know dBASE is obsolete, but that by itself isn't convincing enough, since another (unrelated) department has been running it for decades.
The database comparison charts that I found are slightly out of date, or don't mention dBASE at all.
Wikipedia, blogs, and the official marketing page say that dBASE supports SQL, ODBC, that the language is object oriented, and that it can be used to develop web applications.
Can anyone offer any sort of apples to apples comparison of features, performance, reliability, X, between dBASE and Postgres (or even MySQL)?
Can anyone offer a factual explanation of why dBASE isn't a viable solution for modern web applications?
Thanks in advance.
Although dBase is over, and so too (for the most part) is Visual FoxPro (VFP), there are still people out there using it. It is good in that it does not require a "SERVER" based solution as it has it's own much like others that run based on a dll (such as SQLite, Advantage Database and others).
To help you in your argument, and not knowing the facts...
Consider that the file limits are probably still that of a maximum of 2 gig per single file, not entire database, but single file as that is the max of 32-bit systems when dBase (and VFP) were created.
Yes, it can be a fast engine, but what sort of volume / activity are you going to be hit with. As Frank mentioned, where are you going to find someone with strong knowledge with the language, let alone implementing it to the web expertise. So, unless you have it in-house it might be a chore.
What happens for any database table corruptions, which is going to be more reliable and recoverable if there IS an issue.
So, just a few things I would consider to pass on to mgmt.
I've read your question. One of my first projects was in VFP, it was an accounting system (now defunct), and the absolute paramount critical thing you ought to ask is "Why" - Here's why I stopped using it. (1) not scalable, (2) data integrity, (3) ease of hacking, (4) ancient technology, (5) limited "live" resources to help with technology if run into any problems (and you will), (6) no longer supported by the vendor...
Management has asked us to look into implementing licensing features into some existing applications. Up to this point these apps were simply paid for and customers could install them as they please. We need to implement a new licensing model to generate more revenue because our older products work well enough that people do not have a reason to upgrade. So our new customers will have to pay licensing fees and/or be limited to how many installations they can have. I have never dealt with this stuff before, so please pardon my ignorance. I need as much guidance as possible (steering me in the right direction would be great!). We need the following...
Time limited demo versions. When they install the software, it works with full features for a fixed amount of time. After that, when they try to run it, it tells them their license has expired.
Licensing option that limits the app to run on a particular machine.
Licensing option that limits the app to being run by a particular user.
Licensing option that limits the app to a certain total number of users or concurrent users.
Number one is pretty simple to figure out, but I have no idea how to go about implementing the other three. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
I would look at 3rd party solutions for this honestly. There are a lot of concepts intrinsically involved in licensing, and for the cost of one week of development time you can buy a fully featured licensing product to integrate into your stuff. This is a case where writing your own is probably not worth the hassle.
I've previously used the Desaware licensing system for user and machine based licensing. Works well enough, no complaints. I believe their framework will be robust enough to handle all 4 of your requirements. http://www.desaware.com/products/licensingsystem/index.aspx
All these scnarios can be pretty complicate to implement and get just right (and hassle-free). Instead of wasting your time on this, consider using a commercial licensing solution like CryptoLicensing. It supports all the scenarios you want including trials, machine-locked, user-locked and floating/concurrent.
DISCLAIMER: I work for LogicNP Software, the developers of CryptoLicensing.
I'm not a Silverlight developer (yet) and what is putting me off - and many others, I think - is the relative lack of browser installations of it compared to Flash.
But I'm not clear on why website visitors have to explicitly install Silverlight themselves - which appears to be the major stumbling block.
Since the vast majority of computer users use Windows, is there a reason that Microsoft are not forcing Silverlight onto Windows machines through a Windows update?
They do this (and continue to do so) with the .NET framework runtimes, so why not with Silverlight? Legal issue, perhaps?
Getting sued by all its competitors is what stops this
There are several reasons why not to do it.
Users should have choice over what gets installed. I realize from a developer standpoint we know some users who are clueless about what this software does, so why put the choice in their hands? Fine, MS should make it easy for users to install it if they don't have it when they visit a site that uses it. Then they can make an informed decision. Do I want to use this site or not?
Corporate Approvals. Companies go through software validation procedures and that is why some will still be on XP for some time. If they were forced to validate these pieces because microsoft was forcing them down the pipe, they'd be pissed off. So thus MS gives corporations control over the windows updates that get approved/installed. And corporations are where MS makes their money.
PC Manufactures choosing what software to preinstall. Here the manufacturers have the ability to push silverlight or not.
Competitor's software isn't automatically installed. You actually have to install flash. Some PC manufacturers might bundle it with the PC but if you install yourself or for a corporate deployment, it isn't there by default.
The monopoly power abuse concerns mentioned. But I think this is actually the least important reason.
Silverlight won't hit mainstream adoption till there is that one app that everyone must have that uses it. Like the office online example above.
I think that would be the wrong way to go about trying to gain adoption. The product should merit installation on it's own, not lean on the Windows installation base for support. Writing the free version of Office online (EDIT: I meant the Office Web Applications) in Silverlight, however, is a great way to gain adoption (even with the non-SL version available too http://blogs.msdn.com/officewebapps/archive/2009/08/05/9858563.aspx).
Also, since this is a browser plugin, how would that work? Can a Windows update install plugins for firefox, opera, or whatever browser the user prefers? Doesn't seem feasible to me but I'm really not sure.
They actually suggest it in Windows Update. I politely refuse it.
There may be an anti-trust reason for this also, remember what happened with Java, even when it was from Sun they still had a problem with it.
If you keep waiting for Silverlight to catch on, it never will be enough, start developing now and when there are many great web-apps that support Silverlight then maybe it will get more popular, plus it is very easy to install and you can target Mac and Windows, and some extent Moonlight too as it reaches support for Silverlight 2.0 and some 3.0 there may be Mac-Windows-Linux apps you can write.
I recommend Silverlight to anyone who develops in .NET, I am a little biased as I'm writing an application at the moment in Silverlight.
I suspect that they are waiting for the technology to mature and/or gain more acceptance. Once a critical mass of sites and/or users have it installed they might do.
The other alternative is that they might be waiting until they've completed the "merger" of WPF and Silverlight. I can't see them continuing to keep these two very similar technologies separate.
After all Adobe don't force Flash on everybody.
Can't speak for Microsoft, but I am dismayed by the question. I don't want extra crap pushed to my machine (or into my life in general). I only want extra stuff if I pull it. Stuff like that should always be "opt in" instead of "opt out" or "no option at all."
The european union has filed anti-trust suits against Microsoft which is probably why they don't put it in their updates.
I however don't install it because i don't like unnecessary processor cycles being used up for advertising much in the way that flash is used. Flash I've uninstalled on many of my computers in protest, though i admit it's on my media center in the living room because people use it for you tube.
For all the hype, Silverlight is not all that great to develop in and doesn't bring anything to the user experience that couldn't be better achieved through dhtml/ajax.