| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
G Pollock
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:36 pm Post subject: note from John Kaster in CBX forum |
 |
|
He posted a note in the non technical group of the cbuilderx forum. I've
copied it below. Basically the same thing as said here by the Team
B'rs. Plus the that it will likely be a few days.
I haven't posted here in years. But I do want to say that if BCB6 is
the end of the line, and Borland is forcing me to migrate over to the
CBX arena, I will have already purchased the last Borland product that I
ever do. I've been developing with their products (both for hobby and
professionally) for well over a decade starting with Turbo Pascal.
[I've just deleted a lot of my negative comments. I will wait for the
letter before expressing my feelings.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
from John Kaster in CBX non tech forum
Yes, the letter was drafted, edited, and rewritten several times and
all ready to be published. Then our legal took a look at it, and
requested that we not publish it until some pending strategic
agreements that are mentioned in the letter are officially approved.
Sorry for the additional delay. It appears that the legal entanglements
should be resolved in a few days. The product team had it ready, but we
need sign-off from legal for it to be published.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2003 10:19 am Post subject: Re: note from John Kaster in CBX forum |
|
|
Mike Collins wrote:
| Quote: | Why wasn't this letter poster HERE where the whole discussion has been
focused.
|
Don't you think that messages about C++BuilderX should normally go to the
C++BuilderX groups?
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"Grove giveth and Gates taketh away."
- Bob Metcalfe (inventor of Ethernet) on the trend of hardware
speedups not being able to keep up with software demands
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Collins
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2003 10:29 am Post subject: Re: note from John Kaster in CBX forum |
|
|
Why wasn't this letter poster HERE where the whole discussion has been
focused.
Maybe John just got mixed up where he posted, I mean,
cbuilderx.non-technical is easily confused with cbuilder.non-technical
"G Pollock" <no.spam (AT) here (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | He posted a note in the non technical group of the cbuilderx forum. I've
copied it below. Basically the same thing as said here by the Team
B'rs. Plus the that it will likely be a few days.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William E. Mahaffey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2003 9:09 pm Post subject: Re: note from John Kaster in CBX forum |
|
|
Where is it in cbilderx.not-technical? I do not see it.
William
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thomas Maeder [TeamB]
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2003 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: note from John Kaster in CBX forum |
|
|
"William E. Mahaffey" <wmahaffeyREMOVECAPS (AT) PLEASEsuziessoftware (DOT) com> writes:
| Quote: | Where is it in cbilderx.not-technical? I do not see it.
|
The correct name is borland.public.cbuilderx.non-technical
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Kaster (Borland)
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Collins
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:36 am Post subject: Re: note from John Kaster in CBX forum |
|
|
Wouldn't want to break the rules about cross posting :-)
Just thought it would have been helpful to post here, since there has
seemingly been no word for Borland and this / these newsgroups seem to be
the sole point of contact with them. Without a bit of hunting, one would
have missed the post all together, no mention on the website, nothing.
Anyway, I could go on and on about the rights and wrongs of peoples /
Borland's actions but I've already said my piece and I really cant be
bothered - it will make no difference anyway. The letter(s) will come when
the letter(s) come.
I hope that you don't take all of this personally, I don't like to be
critical, especially towards someone whom I have never meet or had contact
with - but it seems you have take the role of 'Borland's Fall Guy' - I hope
there paying you well :-)
"John Kaster (Borland)" <johnk (AT) borland (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | Mike Collins wrote:
Why wasn't this letter poster HERE where the whole discussion has been
focused.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Kaster (Borland)
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hendrik Schober
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2003 9:51 am Post subject: Re: note from John Kaster in CBX forum |
|
|
"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" <rvelthuis (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote:
| Quote: | [...]
Don't you think that messages about C++BuilderX should normally go to the
C++BuilderX groups?
|
I don't see your point. The letter _was_ meant
to address the concerns of BCB users, wasn't it?
| Quote: | Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
|
Schobi
--
[email]SpamTrap (AT) gmx (DOT) de[/email] is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers org
"And why should I know better by now/When I'm old enough not to?"
Beth Orton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Russell Hind
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:14 am Post subject: Re: note from John Kaster in CBX forum |
|
|
Hendrik Schober wrote:
| Quote: | I don't see your point. The letter _was_ meant
to address the concerns of BCB users, wasn't it?
|
My impression was that the letters were to give us some insights into
Borlands future plans for C++BuilderX, VCL etc and where they were going
with the C++ lines of products. The reason for the letters being
announced may have come out of the concerns of BCB users, but I think
the over-all intent is to give us some sort of roadmap for where they
are going.
Russsell
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
