Slashdot Mirror

Look I've seen code break. You haven't. I don't care if you get a team of 30 coders with a combined experience of 900 years to tell me their apps haven't broken. I've seen apps break, and not only when the code's compiled for a later JRE. We've had to develop specific workarounds and re-release stuff due to this. I can't show you because I'm bound by an employment contract and I'm not about to embarass my employer even if I wasn't. That you don't believe me doesn't make an inkling of difference to my life. Enjoy your fantasy.

If you are going to reply at all the first thing I challenge you to do is explain this migration guide by Sun for Java 1.3 to 5.0:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/JM_White_Paper_R6A.pdf ...complete with a whole section on runtime issues

More references. Again not the best. Wish I could show you my good example but see above.
http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=731 921&messageID=4212821
http://www.codecomments.com/archive251-2005-5-4986 00.html
http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=432 494&messageID=2042086
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id =4783788
http://helpdesk.wisc.edu/page.php?id=2891
http://www.javalobby.org/java/forums/t18329.html
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id =6204839

The above links very clearly show installing the latest JRE is not sufficient to run all your old code. With many Java applications, you can't just remove all older versions of a JRE and upgrade to the latest.

I also recall that if your code is applet based, the tags used to invoke the JRE changed after Microsoft dumped their custom JVM due to the legal action between Sun and MS.

The bottom line is that you're calling anyone who has seen anything break due to a newer JRE a fool and a liar based on your "30 years of experience". I know for a fact that this is false. Your arrogance is astounding and your insistance on this makes me wonder what you've been doing for 30 years since I know of no complex environment where the runtime backward compatibility is so fantastic that you don't need to test a new version to be sure it works for your application.

I don't have a HT-capable proc (AMD Athlon XP 1700), so I don't know anything from personal experience.

I decided to check out how PostgreSQL did with HT.

The first link (1) was suggesting to someone--who was having performance problems under FreeBSD--to turn off HT. Of course, that may not be related to PostgreSQL itself, but rather FreeBSD. I really don't know.

The next thing I found showed some mixed results with ext2 under Linux (2). Somethings showed gain with HT, but not others.

Another link (3) commented that HT with Java requires special consideration when coding.

I didn't come up with anything useful under PostgreSQL, so I checked out Linux.

According to Linux Electrons, Linux performance can drop without proper setup.

"It has been over a decade since the last innovative new spreadsheet - Lotus Improv. Time for something new."

http://www.codecomments.com/message1511409.htm

"- Spreadsheets. The Analyst Spreadsheet (which was also sold as a
separate package) was simply the best. Cells could contain arbitrary
Smalltalk objects, and forula were arbitrary Smalltalk code. When we
showed people things like image manipulation within spreadsheet cells
or computing inverses of matrices containing fractions and/or complex
numbers, they often could not believe what they saw :-)"

Can't find a KB article, but then MS's KB search is fairly annoying. So how about user reports instead?

http://extremetechsupport.org/forum/showthread.pht ml?p=231678

http://www.codecomments.com/archive299-2005-2-4095 50.html

As for "can't be proven/disproven", you're the one who's full of crap. It's easily "proven". Come over to my place, I'll turn the security center back on, disable those alerts, reboot, and you can bloody well watch it continue to alert me.

If you mean that you can't "prove" it by sitting on your ass and spouting off shit you know absolutely nothing about, then yeah, you have a point.

right here, from codecomments.com

Naturally it was used for many things.

Software is not patentable. So why are they persisting to do wrong?

Here's a thought as to why they don't yet get it (nobody wants to tell them why its really not patentable.)

In regards to dealing with increased complexity in software MS has their longhorn and their software factories effort, free software has its edos project, neither of which are in promotion of honesty regarding programming, or what is the application of abstraction physics.

Its really quite simple. To support the non-patentability of software the foundation upon which software is created must be supported the same. Free Software development community doesn't want to do this anymore than proprietary software campanies.

For its always about money based upon some mode of elitism. With Free Software its the service oriented products/applications and complexity out of teh reach of most customers, with proprietary software its exclusive use.

But if the arguement that software is not patentable due to its abstract ideas status, that anyone is capable of abstract logical thought and ideas, then that status has to be supported by making software obviously easy enough that the "free software" label will be because software is easy enough to create that its free in the sense that anyone can create it or cause the machine to, regardless of their knowledge resource. (you don't need to know how a calculator works to use it to calculate an equasion you input or hit the key that does some equasion for you - ie pi)

How do I know this? In a email to various participants of Edos, (Of which experience tells me not to expect any support for honesty about abstraction physics. Or any indication they got the email, as avoidance seems to be thought to be proof against something the thing being avoided), I wrote:

RE: press release "Major European research institutions and Open Source software companies today announced the launch of EDOS, a project dealing with complexity management in the field of Open Source software. The participants will collaborate in the development of theoretical and technical solutions to the management of large-scale, modular software projects..."

Abstraction Physics is the foundation of the practical application solutions. Deal with that, establish the mechanics and create the software mechanism and the rest will come easy (or boringly repetitive), where there is plenty to apply "navigational mapping" to and productively exaust the funds on and I believe to accomplish a lot more then thought possible regarding the EDOS goals.

from: - ffii.org - Software Patents
to: Advances in software are advances in abstraction
Then to: Abstraction Physics

Microsofts direction with longhorn.

Google search "web" for: "Timothy Rue" patents a few links from that search are here
and here (-see comment #4 - I'm/VIC USPTO published protected!)

I can wonder why the USPTO edited my comment and removed the near transparent markup but here is the version I sent them (with contact information limited). Also this google finding.

The Virtual Interaction Configurationion project is GPL'd (forkable and all the other things allowed) and would amount to maybe a drop in the bucket, in comparison to the funding and manpower the EDOS project has available, it could be completed and I believe used to surpass the goals of EDOS.

Current state is that of needing some correction and completion in the current python code, integration of the existing IQ and ID commands and the c