Slashdot Mirror

java web start?

http://java.sun.com/products/javawebstart/

Google will pay Sun for the privalige of having the Google bar as an optional download with Sun's JVMs. And Google will buy more Sun servers, though details of that are apparantly coming later. Google will also help spread the word on JVMs and OpenOffice.org. Sun will be buying AdWords. There certainly seems to be more coming, but how much and how significant is impossible to say currently.

Here's a good write-up of the event in Stephen O'Grady's RedMonk blog.
Jonathan Schwartz also has some comments in his latest blog entry

The Sun press release.

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/eschrock#to_my_fa ther

Solaris has been Open (not OpenSource) for years -- open on standards, that is. The specs were there on http://docs.sun.com/ the whole time, yet the majority of the slashdot crowd did not have the wisdom to use it.

Moving right along, Solaris was also free for quite a while, and now it has also become OpenSource. Some may argue that not all of the source has been released yet, but it is being worked on. Meanwhile, I challenge anyone to show me another commercial SVR4, AT&T licensed UNIX that has been open sourced.

The entire Solaris platform is much more API/ABI stable than Linux. Solaris is cheaper than Linux precisely because of its API/ABI stability and forward/backward compatibility.

The price tag of $0 or FREE-AS-IN-BEER also helps too.

$0 is a decent price for Solaris -- the most advanced operating environment (not just system, but environment!) on the planet. I'll take that over Linux any day of the week, no questions asked.

And, from what Linux kernel developers have openly written on the kernel mailing list, Linux will *NEVER*, *EVER* have forward/backward compatibility because you get the source code to it and can recompile it yourself.
Check out the Linux kernel mailing list and you can read it for yourself, right from the horse's mouth.

Google IS developing an OS - but it isn't Linux, its a self branded version of the SunJavaDesktopSystem.

http://www.sun.com/software/javadesktopsystem/

Sun and Google Expand Technology Reach and Global Opportunity -- MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Oct. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sun Microsystems, Inc. (Nasdaq: SUNW) and Google Inc. today announced an agreement to promote and distribute their software technologies to millions of users around the world. The agreement aims to make it easier for users to freely obtain Sun's Java(TM) Runtime Environment (JRE), the Google Toolbar and the OpenOffice.org office productivity suite, helping millions of users worldwide to participate in the next wave of Internet growth. Under the agreement, Sun will include the Google Toolbar as an option in its consumer downloads of the Java Runtime Environment on http://java.com/ . In addition, the companies have agreed to explore opportunities to promote and enhance Sun technologies, like the Java Runtime Environment and the OpenOffice.org productivity suite available at http://www.openoffice.org/ . "As a leader in free and open source software, Sun has long recognized that network innovation is vital to the evolution of the global economy," said Scott McNealy, chief executive officer, Sun Microsystems. "Working with Google will make our technologies available more broadly, increase options for users, lower barriers and expand participation worldwide. Free and open source technologies, such as OpenOffice.org, OpenSolaris and Java, have never been safer or offered more choices." "Google and Java are two of the most widely recognized technology brands because they provide users with online tools that enhance their lives on a day to day basis. The Google Toolbar offers useful Internet search services while Java enables richer interactive content. We look forward to exploring other related areas of collaboration," said Eric Schmidt, chief executive officer of Google. About the Java Software for the Desktop The Java software for the desktop, also known as the Java Runtime Environment (JRE), is a software package that needs to be installed on a machine in order to run Java technology-based applications. Over 700 million desktop users leverage Java technology today to have a more interactive experience on the web. Users can download the latest version of the Java software for the desktop for free at java.com, and test drive the hottest Java technology-based games and applications. About the Google Toolbar The Google Toolbar is a powerful search and web surfing utility that seamlessly integrates with users' web browsers. It's available in 34 international languages and supports a built-in word translation that translates English words into other languages. The Google Toolbar is scheduled to be available as a Java Runtime Environment download option in late October. About Google Inc. Google's innovative search technologies connect millions of people around the world with information every day. Founded in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. students Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google today is a top web property in all major global markets. Google's targeted advertising program provides businesses of all sizes with measurable results, while enhancing the overall web experience for users. Google is headquartered in Silicon Valley with offices throughout the Americas, Europe, and Asia. For more information, visit www.google.com. About Sun Microsystems, Inc. A singular vision -- "The Network Is The Computer" -- guides Sun in the development of technologies that power the world's most important markets. Sun's philosophy of sharing innovation and building communities is at the forefront of the next wave of computing: the Participation Age. Sun can be found in more than 100 countries and on the Web at http://sun.com/ . About OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org is an open-source project, home of the OpenOffice.org software, the most widely distributed open-source multi-platform productivity suite. The OpenO

Meh.. All that conjecture and just another corporate alliance. http://www.sun.com/2005-1004/feature/index.html Wake me up when Steve Jobs et al, join the mega-collective also.. G~

That's it?! I hope the webcast had more juice than this press release.

http://wcdata.sun.com/webcast/archives/VIP-2166/

You mean like this? It's nice, but you could get a cheaper box elsewhere. And people who are going to run their office apps as web applications really don't need a 64-bit Opteron... ;)

OTOH, Sun is already offering these boxen for US$29.95/mo (actually three yearly installments of US$359.40), maybe they'll just raise the price a bit (say $5/mo) and include a subscription to whatever service they announce.

What if, behind closed doors at Google they're working on an OS? An OS that's based on Linux, yet with the UI and ease-of-use similar to OSX

Sun is working on project looking glass Which is linux based, and the UI is similar (and maybe even a bit cooler) than osx. Check out the screenshots

Following the Sun assimilation of Tarantella, perhaps it's based on SGD : http://www.sun.com/software/products/sgd/

In the future, it might be a good idea to RTFB before you post. That way, the folks who did read don't get such an ideal opportunity to laugh at your indignant ignorance.

Try this URL instead: http://www.sun.com/events/google/

Direct link to press conference site live at 1:30pm EST

Sun:
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process= SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=83174

For around $20,000 you could build a PC cluster that includes:
20+ x Intel P4 D820 at ~$500 ea.
20+ x AMD64 X2 3800+ at ~$750 ea.

You could almost get a cluster of 40 Intel PCs, each with a dual-core chip running at 2.8 Ghz. Or almost 30 AMD64 PCs, each with a dual-core chip running at 1.8 Ghz. If you shop smart you can get gigabit ethernet on the motherboard and have a fault-tollerant / redundant system with over 10 times the performance of the Sun system.

I don't know about you, but I would take the cluster of AMD X2s. The Intels might beat 'em on price/performance, but the X2s might be a lil bit nicer to work on.

"innovation in Unix that talks about OpenBSD's new heap protection mechanism as a major boon for security.", surely you mean "innovation in *BSD " ?

When taking a look at some of the features of my favorite Unix environment you'll notice that among the security features its also possible to shield processes from each other and control the amount of memory they use (near the bottom, the so called "buffer overflow attack"). If you wish to study this in more detail you can check out the documentation on resource control which explains you the issue in more detail. For the impatient; controlling physical memory and such is explained in chapter 10

Sorry but I can't conclude that this is something new in the world of Unix.

"innovation in Unix that talks about OpenBSD's new heap protection mechanism as a major boon for security.", surely you mean "innovation in *BSD " ?

When taking a look at some of the features of my favorite Unix environment you'll notice that among the security features its also possible to shield processes from each other and control the amount of memory they use (near the bottom, the so called "buffer overflow attack"). If you wish to study this in more detail you can check out the documentation on resource control which explains you the issue in more detail. For the impatient; controlling physical memory and such is explained in chapter 10

Sorry but I can't conclude that this is something new in the world of Unix.

"innovation in Unix that talks about OpenBSD's new heap protection mechanism as a major boon for security.", surely you mean "innovation in *BSD " ?

When taking a look at some of the features of my favorite Unix environment you'll notice that among the security features its also possible to shield processes from each other and control the amount of memory they use (near the bottom, the so called "buffer overflow attack"). If you wish to study this in more detail you can check out the documentation on resource control which explains you the issue in more detail. For the impatient; controlling physical memory and such is explained in chapter 10

Sorry but I can't conclude that this is something new in the world of Unix.

"innovation in Unix that talks about OpenBSD's new heap protection mechanism as a major boon for security.", surely you mean "innovation in *BSD " ?

When taking a look at some of the features of my favorite Unix environment you'll notice that among the security features its also possible to shield processes from each other and control the amount of memory they use (near the bottom, the so called "buffer overflow attack"). If you wish to study this in more detail you can check out the documentation on resource control which explains you the issue in more detail. For the impatient; controlling physical memory and such is explained in chapter 10

Sorry but I can't conclude that this is something new in the world of Unix.

The Semantic Web does not expect everyone to agree on an ontological framework, just as OO programming does not require everyone to use everyone else's classes. When you write an little java ontology (also known as a class library), you put your 'ontology' in a special name space which allows mixing and matching. To get your library widely adopted you need to do a lot more than write it. You need:

• to have a good ontology that others want to use
• put it up in a namespace that people trust (say the W3C, the IETF, the OMG, or something like that)
• work with others to make it known
• solve a pressing issue

In Java one well known and respected channel for this to happen is the Java Community Process. People can use other channels of course, and often do. But from time to time everyone agrees that there is no need to keep re-inventing a framework and they then decide to go to some standards body to agree on some common mapping, to help interoperability. The interoperability in Java was there all along of course. But what was needed is a Convention to use a certain vocabulary.

Exactly the same will be true in the Semantic Web. The best ontologies will survive. Processes will be put in place to help foster good ones.

Also I think you should not think that the only use of ontologies is to annotate web pages. The semantic web is here to help you speak about resources in general, not just web resources. You may have more luck thinking about the Semantic Web in terms of a way of doing what SQL currently does [4] (see SPARQL) but in a much much more scalable way.

Henry Story

[1] Java Annotations and the Semantic Web
[2] UML, MOF, MDA, OWL: how they all fit together
[3] Would a little DOAP help?
[4] SPARQL to ignite web 2.0

The Semantic Web does not expect everyone to agree on an ontological framework, just as OO programming does not require everyone to use everyone else's classes. When you write an little java ontology (also known as a class library), you put your 'ontology' in a special name space which allows mixing and matching. To get your library widely adopted you need to do a lot more than write it. You need:

• to have a good ontology that others want to use
• put it up in a namespace that people trust (say the W3C, the IETF, the OMG, or something like that)
• work with others to make it known
• solve a pressing issue

In Java one well known and respected channel for this to happen is the Java Community Process. People can use other channels of course, and often do. But from time to time everyone agrees that there is no need to keep re-inventing a framework and they then decide to go to some standards body to agree on some common mapping, to help interoperability. The interoperability in Java was there all along of course. But what was needed is a Convention to use a certain vocabulary.

Exactly the same will be true in the Semantic Web. The best ontologies will survive. Processes will be put in place to help foster good ones.

Also I think you should not think that the only use of ontologies is to annotate web pages. The semantic web is here to help you speak about resources in general, not just web resources. You may have more luck thinking about the Semantic Web in terms of a way of doing what SQL currently does [4] (see SPARQL) but in a much much more scalable way.

Henry Story

[1] Java Annotations and the Semantic Web
[2] UML, MOF, MDA, OWL: how they all fit together
[3] Would a little DOAP help?
[4] SPARQL to ignite web 2.0

The Semantic Web does not expect everyone to agree on an ontological framework, just as OO programming does not require everyone to use everyone else's classes. When you write an little java ontology (also known as a class library), you put your 'ontology' in a special name space which allows mixing and matching. To get your library widely adopted you need to do a lot more than write it. You need:

• to have a good ontology that others want to use
• put it up in a namespace that people trust (say the W3C, the IETF, the OMG, or something like that)
• work with others to make it known
• solve a pressing issue

In Java one well known and respected channel for this to happen is the Java Community Process. People can use other channels of course, and often do. But from time to time everyone agrees that there is no need to keep re-inventing a framework and they then decide to go to some standards body to agree on some common mapping, to help interoperability. The interoperability in Java was there all along of course. But what was needed is a Convention to use a certain vocabulary.

Exactly the same will be true in the Semantic Web. The best ontologies will survive. Processes will be put in place to help foster good ones.

Also I think you should not think that the only use of ontologies is to annotate web pages. The semantic web is here to help you speak about resources in general, not just web resources. You may have more luck thinking about the Semantic Web in terms of a way of doing what SQL currently does [4] (see SPARQL) but in a much much more scalable way.

Henry Story

[1] Java Annotations and the Semantic Web
[2] UML, MOF, MDA, OWL: how they all fit together
[3] Would a little DOAP help?
[4] SPARQL to ignite web 2.0

The Semantic Web does not expect everyone to agree on an ontological framework, just as OO programming does not require everyone to use everyone else's classes. When you write an little java ontology (also known as a class library), you put your 'ontology' in a special name space which allows mixing and matching. To get your library widely adopted you need to do a lot more than write it. You need:

• to have a good ontology that others want to use
• put it up in a namespace that people trust (say the W3C, the IETF, the OMG, or something like that)
• work with others to make it known
• solve a pressing issue

In Java one well known and respected channel for this to happen is the Java Community Process. People can use other channels of course, and often do. But from time to time everyone agrees that there is no need to keep re-inventing a framework and they then decide to go to some standards body to agree on some common mapping, to help interoperability. The interoperability in Java was there all along of course. But what was needed is a Convention to use a certain vocabulary.

Exactly the same will be true in the Semantic Web. The best ontologies will survive. Processes will be put in place to help foster good ones.

Also I think you should not think that the only use of ontologies is to annotate web pages. The semantic web is here to help you speak about resources in general, not just web resources. You may have more luck thinking about the Semantic Web in terms of a way of doing what SQL currently does [4] (see SPARQL) but in a much much more scalable way.

Henry Story

[1] Java Annotations and the Semantic Web
[2] UML, MOF, MDA, OWL: how they all fit together
[3] Would a little DOAP help?
[4] SPARQL to ignite web 2.0

The Semantic Web does not expect everyone to agree on an ontological framework, just as OO programming does not require everyone to use everyone else's classes. When you write an little java ontology (also known as a class library), you put your 'ontology' in a special name space which allows mixing and matching. To get your library widely adopted you need to do a lot more than write it. You need:

• to have a good ontology that others want to use
• put it up in a namespace that people trust (say the W3C, the IETF, the OMG, or something like that)
• work with others to make it known
• solve a pressing issue

In Java one well known and respected channel for this to happen is the Java Community Process. People can use other channels of course, and often do. But from time to time everyone agrees that there is no need to keep re-inventing a framework and they then decide to go to some standards body to agree on some common mapping, to help interoperability. The interoperability in Java was there all along of course. But what was needed is a Convention to use a certain vocabulary.

Exactly the same will be true in the Semantic Web. The best ontologies will survive. Processes will be put in place to help foster good ones.

Also I think you should not think that the only use of ontologies is to annotate web pages. The semantic web is here to help you speak about resources in general, not just web resources. You may have more luck thinking about the Semantic Web in terms of a way of doing what SQL currently does [4] (see SPARQL) but in a much much more scalable way.

Henry Story

[1] Java Annotations and the Semantic Web
[2] UML, MOF, MDA, OWL: how they all fit together
[3] Would a little DOAP help?
[4] SPARQL to ignite web 2.0

Ah, but then I'd argue that the thing you built is not truly generic. It's factored wrong.

It's a very common flaw, which one finds all over the place in OO design--interfaces that are just too damn big, do way too many things, and therefore are (at best) a pain to implement when you need a meaningful subset of the functionality.

One of my favorite examples is the Java Collections API, whose interfaces in general provide too many interaction protocols that a collection class must implement. So God help you if you want your, say, straightforward singly-linked list (à la Lisp), to implement the java.util.List interface. You'll need to implement all sorts of extra stuff to make it work, even though little of it responds to the protocol that is used to interact with such a list (last-in-first-out, direct access only to the head of the list).

In general, you should only define a generic interface when you have some generic algorithm that doesn't care about the details of the objects it operates on, as long as they provide operations X, Y and Z. And even then, your interface should only require operations X, Y and Z.

Or another way of putting it: ideally, the argument and return types of public methods in your classes should as a general rule be interfaces that declare only the actual methods that your class's implementation calls, and these latter should be small in number.

Or even simpler: if it ain't small, it ain't really generic.

Ah, but then I'd argue that the thing you built is not truly generic. It's factored wrong.

It's a very common flaw, which one finds all over the place in OO design--interfaces that are just too damn big, do way too many things, and therefore are (at best) a pain to implement when you need a meaningful subset of the functionality.

One of my favorite examples is the Java Collections API, whose interfaces in general provide too many interaction protocols that a collection class must implement. So God help you if you want your, say, straightforward singly-linked list (à la Lisp), to implement the java.util.List interface. You'll need to implement all sorts of extra stuff to make it work, even though little of it responds to the protocol that is used to interact with such a list (last-in-first-out, direct access only to the head of the list).

In general, you should only define a generic interface when you have some generic algorithm that doesn't care about the details of the objects it operates on, as long as they provide operations X, Y and Z. And even then, your interface should only require operations X, Y and Z.

Or another way of putting it: ideally, the argument and return types of public methods in your classes should as a general rule be interfaces that declare only the actual methods that your class's implementation calls, and these latter should be small in number.

Or even simpler: if it ain't small, it ain't really generic.

I mean, there exist many fast IMAP clients. Certainly Pine is fast, some (e.g. myself) find it very convenient, and it should be easy to recompile for OS X. It is not free software though.

More seriously, today's software market is such that selling a small app for money is not likely to be profitable. Too many people will write email clients, editors, OS kernels ... and give them away at no cost ("free as in beer"). Most of that software is actually Free Software (TM), but that's beside the point here. This is not dissimilar from the period in the 80s and early 90s when anytime someone would start selling a nice utility Microsoft would bundle similar functionality into DOS or Windows (anyone remember SideKick?). Today that means taht if your piece of software does something not too complicated, and many people would like to have this functionality, then someone will develop a free alternative. When it comes to web-browsing or e-mail reading, you have to content with massive efforts like the , which is even worse.

This is not to say there's room for commercial software today -- but it's in a different market. Since the cost of distributing software is now about zero, and the cost of writing it is effectively small (in the sense that many projects find many people are willing to donate their effots), to charge for software it must embody something more -- some kind of expensive research or expertise that is difficult to duplicate in a community project.

For example, GCC is a great cross-platform compiler, but if you need a good optimizing compiler you will pay for the real thing: 's ICC, or Sun's compilers. In a different field, there is little competition for AutoCAD.

It seems the grammar checker [does it have a grammar checker?] is not working right:

From StarOffice 8 Demonstration
"Create new database or connect to exist ones"

Man... talk about nazis!

On the issue of patents, Sun also did a clear announcement today on the issue of patents that Sun might/does have that could related to the standard (since it's based on work by OOo via Sun, naturally they do have patents): See this blog entry by Simon Phipps (Sun's Open Source Ombudsman) for more info. It's a blanket promise, irrevocable, global, not time-limited, reciprocal...

Absolutely. Having a ton of cables would suck. But I don't see why it couldn't be just one cable going to the case and then maybe even some sort of modular cabling system (a la xconnect) inside.

I don't think you need to extrapolate too much as in everything external, but the PSU in particular is bulky, generates a lot of heat, etc.

If you do want to extrapolate, however, I remember reading in a Wired Magazine a few years ago Sun had some plans for a technology where, if memory serves, any hardware would just be part of the network. Need a new HD, plug it into the network, need a second monitor? Plug it into the network. It might have turned to this JINI.

"Please tell me how this can be done in less than 10 lines of code in php."

PHP Lens, there are others.

I do find your santimony amusing though. You go on bragging about how ASP.NET is better then PHP as if that says something. Is it better then webobjects? Is it better then tapestry? is it better then ruby on rails? Is slapping gui controls in visual studio easier then using Java studio creator?

ASP.NET is just another freakin web application toolkit. To me it's in the middle to the bottom of the pack. There is nothing special about it, there are many products that are easier to use, create more cross browser applications, cost less, and make more scalable and easier to maintain code.

I just don't get you guys obsession with such a mediocre tool and programming paradigm.

"That idea died a horrible death, despite Microsoft's best efforts to make the Network the Computer."

I think you'll find it was actually Sun's efforts, even after his efforts with the godawful Network Computer failed McNealy still goes on about it

http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2002-09/sunf lash.20020918.21.html

That idea died a horrible death, despite Microsoft's best efforts to make the Network the Computer.

As others have pointed out, the Network is the Computer was actually Suns slogan. I believe Microsoft did everything in their power to destroy that idea and the idea of platform independence, because at the time they had nothing to compete with in that area, and if it took off it would reduce the importance of Windows and Office. See for instance their immediate attempt to destroy cross-platform Java by introducing Windows platform specifics in the core libraries.

User interface components seems to be the new preferred way to try to lock customers and users in to a specific platform. Previously it was the OS and the apps, but now their relevance is fading. So now we get SWT from IBM trying to triumph Swing in the Java world, and Microsoft trying to get developers dependent on WinForms for instance.

For all the hype, AJAX is just another attempt to plug the feature gap in using web based interfaces (XUL, Java Server Faces, JavaScript...). I think developers are using a cobbled together approach based on web pages + lots of scipting and extra libraries, when perhaps they should considering going all the way and do a heavy client instead. This would reduce complexity and development time and still allow reasonable platform independence. These days they can be just as easily deployed and automatically updated when the server changes, for instance Java Web Start.

You can't even run Java on them.

What do you mean? I thought 1.4.2 and up had support for Itanium. Check this white paper (search for Itanium). Are their claims false, or are you running and older version of the JRE?

Might I suggest you try Sun's Solaris 10. The security is very good and rivals OpenBSD, Java is very well integrated (even preinstalled), and overall just a great OS.

The mighty desktop has been humbled by user demand for the one thing it can't deliver -- mobility. Sun has been selling SunRay desktops for many years. It does exactly what this writer wants, and is a proven technology. The fact that M$ has nothing like this is obvious. For those who are uniformed: http://www.sun.com/desktop/index.jsp?tab=1

As was mentioned in the article, laptops can be difficult to use for a full 8 hour day. The keyboard is all wrong, and the screen is always too low. Docking stations take care of that problem (expensive!), but that still doesn't solve a company-wide problem of laptop support. For example, laptops introduce a problem with keeping all files on a shared server (though folder caching can help somewhat), and laptops are prone to breakage which both increases costs and may result in lost data.

One of the more interesting ideas in recent years has been the Sun Ray Station. Tying into the previous article, the idea is that each employee is given a secure SmartCard that contains both his secret login key as well as information on how to make the Ray Station connect with the server. The advantage this has over traditional thin clients is that the user is allowed to roam to any available computer and simply "plug in". As soon as the card is inserted, your desktop is brought up EXACTLY where you left it!

This technology gets even more exciting when you realize that it can be used from remote locations. i.e. If I have a Ray Station at home (quite fesible given their cost), I can simply insert my card into my home station. The station looks at the info on the card, finds the remote server, and logs me in. Zero configuration, instant satisfaction.

Of course, the idea of Ray Stations doesn't help if you need to work from a coffee shop, hotel, or on the plane. (Many planes are adding wireless data points.) For those situations, Tadpole has developed a laptop-like product known as the Comet. It's a complete portable unit, with a large screen, wifi, and exceedingly long battery life. (Up to 8 hours!) Simply plug your card into the laptop when you're near a Wifi point, and BAM, you've got access to your desktop!

Sadly, the Sun Ray Station concept still leaves you high and dry in many different situations. (e.g. On the bus or train.) But the concept is there, and further research and development by Sun combined with more and more Wifi points popping up may very well lead to the perfect solution that both centralizes your data yet gives employees the mobility they need.

You can.
http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hw/network ing/120/
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process= SunStore&cmdStartWebConfig_CP&familyCode=RACK90036 N&baseSelected=1

Expensive as hell though.

You can.
http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hw/network ing/120/
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process= SunStore&cmdStartWebConfig_CP&familyCode=RACK90036 N&baseSelected=1

Expensive as hell though.

You're on Slashdot: you're probably not giving up your PC. But you're not the target market for this change.

Take away the PC and replace it with (say) an iPod, a console-with-DVD-Player and a SunRay (The thin-client device that Sun is pushing.) Assume that the SunRay has some sort of reasonable connection (say, twice the speed of an ordinary DSL line) and that Google starts offering some sort of "GDesktop" web application service

(I know, a lot of ifs.)

The iPod would provide about the same music experience as a PC. The DVD player in the PlayStation, connected to a TV, would give a better video experience than the PC. Console vs. PC gaming is a personal choice; call it a toss up.

This hypothetical consumer is "free" from having to maintain, troubleshoot, upgrade, or replace a PC, yet he or she gets all the utility, and possibly more, for less money up front.

It's Microsoft's worst nightmare. This is why Microsoft hates Google: because it fears web services could be divorced from PCs. It's why Microsoft makes a console system. It's why Apple makes iPods and sells music online.

Microsoft wants your desktop, TV, game console, car, music player, and vacuum cleaner to be differently shaped PCs running Windows. I really hope that never happens.

I like having my own system. But many people don't, and many would be better served by discrete devices.

(And incidentally, I don't work for any of the companies listed herein, nor am I paid to endorse them.)

Netbeans.org doesn't actually say what NetBeans is, except that it's an IDE.

Yes, netbeans.org explicitly says what NetBeans is. If you would've gone so far as the "Products" page, you might have noticed: "NetBeans.org provides an open source, high performance, modular, extensible, multi-platform Java IDE to accelerate the development of Java applications, web services and mobile applications." Yes, it can handle things related to the net, and yes, it can also work with JavaBeans, and it can also be used for developing standard J2SE or J2ME applications.

I noticed that NetBeans comes bundled with Eclipse.

Then you were obviously not paying attention to whatever you were reading, because NetBeans and Eclipse do not come bundled together. NetBeans is Sun's official IDE, and it comes bundled with the Java Development Kit, which is obvious on their download page. Eclipse is an IDE developed by the Eclipse Foudation. Both of them are IDEs for developing Java applications of all sorts, developed separately.

Nope, those performance problems are very real - rendering the page takes anything from 3 to 10 seconds depending on the complexity (with a page of /. comments being the 10second one).

Sound familar. There seem to be a lot of kinks still getting worked out of Windows 64.

If you're running the 64bit version, try installing the "regular" Windows JVM. If you're running the 32bit version, try upgrading to the 64bit version.

Have you tried any other Java GUI programs? If so, have you experienced any performance problems? (ANY performance issues should be a red flag. An AMD 3000+ is more than powerful enough.) Either way, I think the problem is a bit more complex than it being a Java program.

FYI, I'm running ICEBrowser on Windows XP SP2 32bit edition. Page loads are sub-second, and the rendering errors are pretty minor. However, I did run it on my Mac OS X 10.2 machine (which has EXTREMELY poor Java graphics performance, something Apple fixed in later versions) and it does feel a bit sluggish there. It speeds up substantially after a few minutes of use, though. Slashdot page load time is about 4-5 seconds on my Mac.

Once again your assumption is incorrect and outright inflamatory.

Yeah, sorry about that. But your post was in a long chain of highly inflamatory and outright assinine posts. The fact that you're posting as AC, mentioned your mother, and didn't give many details didn't add to your credibility. I'll bite my tongue in the future.

As in:

System.out.printf("The answer is %d",42);

Are you going to argue with the people who designed the software?

Are you?

I don't know what part of "oversimplification" you aren't following here, but you're being an ass. A bullet point does not a deep explanation make. I clearly explained the three modes that Java software can run in, which you have carelessly (purposefully?) ignored. What purpose does that serve other than to get a lot of people very angry?

Go check the sun website. As it specifically states with a bullet point "Interpreted"

Are you going to argue with the people who designed the software?

See: http://www.sun.com/emrkt/rejected/index.html For a while, they also had purported "rejected" ads that spoke of Dell sucking and Sun kicking ass (though I can't remember the exact wording).

See here for current information.

See here for current information.

See here for current information.