Slashdot Mirror

Thanks, good post there. I dug around a bit and found this page about the PS3's supposed Linux kernel. Unfortunately it confirms what you said about the 3D functionality not being available from Linux. Also saw this exhaustive thread on the PS3 features. Much of it is speculation and I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Sony does and how much power it will eventually give to the user.

Do you work for Microsoft?

stop trolling, you schmuck.

Honestly, I don't think it's all that similar to Beowulf clustering (which tends to be focused on high performance or high availability, while JXTA trades off performance for portability/implementability) and the only similarity to Gnutella is that it's peer-to-peer.

The most obvious difference between JXTA and the popular P2P systems (like Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, Mojo Nation, Jabber, etc.) is that JXTA isn't an application; it's a toolkit for building P2P apps. Unfortunately, that means in the short term it doesn't really do anything. But it appears (from a very cursory inspection of the docs) to handle mundane details like finding other peers, sending messages (over a variety of protocols apparently including Bluetooth, not just TCP), relaying through NATs and firewalls, etc.

If you want to play with JXTA, the Getting Started PDF has a tutorial for using the shell.

BTW, here's a convenient Mac OS X package of the JXTA Shell since Sun didn't build one.

The IRC conversation shows that Napster and one of his "partners" were being idiotic dickheads about the whole situation. I took it that de Icaza et al got motivated due in good part to the IRC conversation.

The arrogance and stupidity of the Napster partners is staggering. Based upon their hype one would think they were going public next week and had a staff of thousands. Based upon their technical discussions one would think they were trying to figure out pointers to get through "Intro to C". These guys will fortunately point the way to more capable companies who wish to accomplish the same thing. Their blatant mistakes will be avoided by smarter people next time around.

His conclusion that Sun's Java license is OK if you're not charging money for a product is based on the assumption that Sun won't charge you any money if you're not making any money. Unfortunately, that's wrong.

According to the Java license, you can't ship a binary based on modified Java source unless it passes the compatibility tests. But the tests cost money! Likewise, even if you don't distribute the code at all and are only using it for "internal use", you still have to pass the compatibility tests and get a trademark license (which costs money).

So that invalidates his entire argument that the Java license is acceptable.

too lazy to log in,
Wesley Felter

IANAL, but I noticed a few annoyances in the license. The main problem is that if you try to re-implement DvJu from scratch, you apparently aren't allowed to distribute the result.