Slashdot Mirror


Gosling: Partnership with Microsoft Meaning Less and Less

Jeebus writes "At an event in Sydney this week James Gosling questioned the technical relationship between Sun Microsystems and Microsoft in light of the antitrust demands of the European Union. Gosling also talks about reverse engineering, DMCA and collaboration with Microsoft with on identity management. "

145 comments

  1. This is easy... by AntiPasto · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... Microsoft has to let the Sun shine, or else they'd kill all their customers!

    1. Re:This is easy... by CheeseburgerBlue · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Since the dawn of time man has yearned to destroy the sun.

    2. Re:This is easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. If that were true, we'd not have invented lightbulbs or fire.

  2. Best quote by bartash · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gosling described the DMCA, which was passed in the United States a few years ago, as "really vile."

    --
    Read Epic the first RPG novel.
    1. Re:Best quote by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1, Funny

      He must be a terar'ist!!! If you don't like America- LEAVE!

    2. Re:Best quote by xstonedogx · · Score: 1, Troll

      If I understand the moderation system correctly, Funny points don't count towards Karma, and some moderators consider that unfair, so instead use one of the other modifiers.

      One of the moderators obviously has an ironic sense of humor since he moderated your question "Informative". :)

    3. Re:Best quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Gosling is Canadian?

    4. Re:Best quote by Frogbert · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hey if you don't like our American moderation system then you can GEEEDDDOUT

    5. Re:Best quote by Macphisto · · Score: 2, Funny
      If I understand the moderation system correctly

      Hmm.. given the current score of "0, Troll" for your comment, perhaps you do not understand the moderation system correctly.

    6. Re:Best quote by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      Does one decision to moderate my post -1 Troll have any relation to whether or not what I said was factual and accurate? If so, given my current karma rating of "Good" for my commenting history, perhaps I understand it correctly after all?

    7. Re:Best quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another Lawyer Joke: "If we did," he joked, "we'd have to disclose secrets, and they'd come out and shoot us, or even worse, they'd send their lawyers."

  3. of course it means less and less by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 1

    and it will continue to do so until Sun realizes this, then sues Microsoft again on the basis that they didn't get quite what they expected from the lawsuit

    that sounds familiar

    --
    vodka, straight up, thank you!
  4. Duh by wombatmobile · · Score: 1

    The $1.9B was a one-time payment.

    1. Re:Duh by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

      What many people don't realize is that it was paid in Flooz.com stock!

    2. Re:Duh by htd2 · · Score: 1

      The $1.9B was a one-time payment.

      Actually it wasn't there is also a patent exchange agreement which would allow MS to pay royalties to Sun if there is a significant inbalance between the two companies patent portfolio (which there is at the moment).

  5. I wonder... by rackhamh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will Sun serve as an example for other companies to not pursue Microsoft, and wait for governments to do the dirty work instead?

    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


      Sun pursued Microsoft for years, and finally got a cool 2 billion for it. 2 billion is, what, 4% of Microsoft's cash? A 4% hit is actually pretty big, considering the size of these companies.

    2. Re:I wonder... by davecb · · Score: 1
      Sun was one of the big complainants to the EC, actualy, so they were both pursuing MS and asking governments (aka the cops) to chase them too.

      --dave

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  6. I'm confused by PDXNerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when did a business partnership with Microsoft ever "mean" anything anyway (except decreased revenues)?

    1. Re:I'm confused by GonerDoug · · Score: 1

      c'mon, aren't you ALL signed up as MicroSoft 'Partners' too?

    2. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "partnered" you mean fucking, why yes - I do enjoy fucking Microsoft, thanks.. And no, that doesn't threaten my masculinity (whether it should or not is another question...)

    3. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, this "partnership" is more along the lines of Sun sucessfully suing Microsoft and making them their bitch.

    4. Re:I'm confused by TOWebstress · · Score: 1

      Oh come on...don't they sometimes partner with them before buying them out and swallowing all their best products?

      --
      You see the look on my face, and yet you keep talking.
    5. Re:I'm confused by cduffy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup, our VP of Engineering signed us up, much to IT's dismay -- as part of the contract we agreed to do a bunch of stuff we never had any intention of (like building a MS-certified product, though we're a Java shop) and agreed to let the BSA audit us at will... and in return we got a bunch of licenses (time-limited unless we renew), most of which have enough strings on them to be useful for nothing except building products that interoperate with the MS products in question. Bah!

      PS - This post is a work of fiction. It's quite certainly not intended to reflect the politics, actions, etc. of any employer of mine, past or present, and any such similarity is mere coincidence.

    6. Re:I'm confused by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Maybe after the FBI's Virtual Case File disaster, Microsoft Certified Partners will realize that you don't build a mission-critical application from the computer equivilant of Lincoln Logs.

    7. Re:I'm confused by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      Ahh, more unfounded MS-bashing.

      From the articles cited, it certianly sounds like shoddy management and planning caused this project failure, not a particular piece of software. Certainly it would have been reported widely if bugs in the .NET environment made the project flop?

      SAIC, like all huge consultancies, deals with just about every technology and platform. SAIC also does huge Java projects. By your logic, why should we not assume that Java at fault for the VCF failure?

      Anyway, something as big as VCF almost certainly involved multiple platforms, and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts there were plenty of non-MS platforms and technologies in the mix.

    8. Re:I'm confused by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      There seems to be a dearth of actual technology details on VCS, but here's a little tidbit for you: A page on Microsoft's own servers linking MS, SAIC, and VCS (near the bottom of the page).

    9. Re:I'm confused by arivanov · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand the SAIC business model.

      As someone who had dealt with picking up the pieces after a major fubar by these clowns, I can tell you that it has nothing to do with economic reality or delivering a working product. All it has to do with an old boys school called Ma Bell.

      If you want to have your systems compliant to the whatever regulations were left for interop after the breakup of Ma Bell you have to have the certified by Telcordia (they have a monopoly on this). If you want them certified by telcordia they have to be written by SAIC or with SAIC participation. If you look further you will notice that all PHBs in the telcos who want to get the certification, in SAIC and Telcordia are Ma Bell graduates.

      It is a "I rub your back, you rub mine" ring that is enshrined in tradition and some of the US telecom regulations. It has nothing to do with delivering a working product as I have yet to see a single case where SAIC has delivered a working product (many have been accepted, but are they really working is another matter).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  7. EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by sanityspeech · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article:
    "In the past, what we'd have to do is reverse-engineering, and we had been getting into a pickle, because for open-source projects like Samba and OpenOffice, the only way to get the information was by reverse-engineering," he said."Pretty much for ALL the countries in the world, reverse-engineering was a perfectly fine thing to do."
    Seeing that EULAs existed long before the DMCA came into effect, how on earth was it possible to develop a wonderful tool like SAMBA without some reverse engineering? My guess is some EULA(s) must have been violated. Surely, Microsoft could not have supported that.

    IANAL, so enlightenment on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
    1. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by cduffy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's say that I'm a UNIX guy. I don't own a copy of Microsoft Windows. I never agreed to their EULA.

      I observe and reverse-engineer an over-the-wire file transfer protocol between two computers owned by my friends.

      Now, tell me: How is any EULA violated? I never agreed to it in the first place, so I can't be violating it.

    2. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because along the way, there was some ruling or whatnot, I don't recall exactly, that said a protocol can inherently be reverse-engineered, despite any EULAs about it.

      I think the issue is allowing competition. By locking a protocol, the protocol's owner essentially controls the market around that protocol. But people have the right to interop with that service.

      This was a big point about the IBM antitrust suit, about the AT&T antitrust lawsuit, etc.

    3. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by cecom · · Score: 1

      Now, tell me: How is any EULA violated? I never agreed to it in the first place, so I can't be violating it.

      Not you - your friends violated the EULA by allowing you to use their computers to reverse engineer the protocol. I have never actually read an EULA in its entirety (who has?), but there must be something in there that prohibits that :-)

    4. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe this is a set up to one of those classic jokes:

      How many lawyers does it take to _____________?

    5. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No because I never touch there computer, there computer access my network where I capture the packets and reverse engineer it.

      They only tell me if it works or not... they try and connect to my implementation and they tell me if it works or not.

      I never sign the agreement so I am clean, and they never reverse engineer.

    6. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      The friends didn't allow him to use their computers. They just all happened to be on the same network. Unix guy observed the wire while Windows guys used their own respective computers to share data. Is there a EULA violation there?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    7. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by nbert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      AFAIK SMB used to be an open protocol, so there wasn't any reverse-engineering involved. CIFS might be a different story.

    8. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by Chester+K · · Score: 2

      I observe and reverse-engineer an over-the-wire file transfer protocol between two computers owned by my friends. Now, tell me: How is any EULA violated? I never agreed to it in the first place, so I can't be violating it.

      Probably for the exact same reason you can't legally use a DirecTV decoder; even though you may have never agreed to their terms of service, and even though their signal is being broadcast onto your property.

      No, the fact that you'll get yourself in a heapload of trouble by observing something that was presented to you may not seem to be "common sense", but those are the breaks of living in this society. If you don't like it, don't post about it on Slashdot; go buy some Senators and Congressmen.

      --

      NO CARRIER
    9. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by KarmaBlackballed · · Score: 2, Funny

      You have a point about circumventing EULAs to reverse engineer protocols. Thank heaven the DMCA was created to plug that nasty loop-hole!

      And it is a win-win. We win because now we can all rest easier knowing that big existing companies have less pressure to waste money on technical innovation. And companies also win because we taxpayers pay for DMCA enforcement through our federal tax dollars! (Or did I get the win-win backward, they win the first, we win on the second? Ahhh, forget it.)

      --

      --- -- - -
      Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
    10. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by heybo · · Score: 1

      You got a very good point, Especially if you own the LAN that your two friends are on. You gave them to permission to be on your network. It being your network it would seem you could do whatever you want with captured packets. You have a legal right to sniff your own network. When it is on the wire it is TCP IP packets these are built using open standards and you own the hardware and the wire it is traveling on. There is no M$ on the wire. Bill and Steve's lawyers will figure something out.

    11. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Probably for the exact same reason you can't legally use a DirecTV decoder; even though you may have never agreed to their terms of service, and even though their signal is being broadcast onto your property.

      Seems a non-sequitur to me: DirecTV's broadcasts include anti-circumvention technology, so the DMCA applies to attempts to reverse-engineer them. The same isn't true of SMB/CIFS.

    12. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      No because I never touch there computer, there computer access my network where I capture the packets and reverse engineer it.
      Even better: use a wireless network!!!
    13. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by fodZ · · Score: 2, Informative
      My guess is some EULA(s) must have been violated.

      In Europe at least it is an explictly recognised right of a user to reverse engineer software to the extent necessary to make it interoperate with any other software you have. EULAs cannot exclude this right, and you often see it specifically mentioned that you are allowed to do this in European EULAs.

    14. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by complete+loony · · Score: 3, Funny
      ... the fact that you'll get yourself in a heapload of trouble by observing something that was presented to you ...

      Yeah I know what you mean. She was the one standing naked with the curtains open, I don't know what all the fuss was about.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    15. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by cecom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The friends didn't allow him to use their computers. They just all happened to be on the same network. Unix guy observed the wire while Windows guys used their own respective computers to share data. Is there a EULA violation there?

      I have no idea. But who knows what could happen in a court ? It could be argued that such reverse engineering can not happen without at least some level of cooperation with the Windows-using friends (the Unix guy must find out in some way what SMB operations they are trying to perform, or ask them to do something, etc).

      Realistically, you need extended time with full access to a Windows machine in order to do any useful reveres-engineering. However, does using somebody else's machine consitute an EULA violation, when you didn't agree to the EULA?

      My head hurts. I will shut up (and move to Europe) :-)

      I will shut up

    16. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by droopycom · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Windows guys tell Unix guy if it works or not...
      Unix guy ask Windows guys to do some operation...

      It seems to me that this is a conspiracy to Reverse Engineer...

      I mean, as soon as the Windows guy and the Unix guys start speaking about what they are doing in relation with the product it seems pretty clear to me that the
      1/ Windows guy is violating the Reverse engineering clause in the EULA he agreed to.
      2/ The Unix guy is using Windows by proxy so he has to agree with the EULA.

      This may seem far fetched (even to me) but from a lawyer POV....

    17. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by webhat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the Netherlands you can still reverse engineer, even if a EULA forbids it. Once you've paid for it it's yours to do with what you wish. If you want to stick it through a decompiler or examine the assembly you can.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly the DMCA even provides for reverse engineering if it is for interoperability that the provider won't or can't provide. So if some provider of software doesn't and won't provide a feature it's in your right to create that feature. IANAL so don't take my word for it.

      I can't wait for a virus writer to sue Norton or McAfee for DMCA violations. That would be fun.

      --
      'I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds'
    18. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Isn't samba based on RFC 1001 (written in the 80's)? I suspect Windows used the same documentation. Two things not covered by that RFC are NT 3/4 domain controllers and ADS domain controllers - neither of which samba work with all that reliably.

    19. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      In the U.S you can't breathe the same air as Steve Ballmer and friends approves it.

      The irony is that so many other countries are fully using pirated versions of windows, and they don't give a fuck about M$ EULA. I want to say Asia has got to be the worst.

    20. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by Trepalium · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's file sharing uses NETBIOS for naming, etc, but there are other elements to it, too. Microsoft published a draft to the IETF for CIFS (formerly SMB). It's only a subset of the functionality that Windows actually supports, and it was chock full of errors and omissions. There were also several books written about SMB. The earliest I can find is Protocols for X/Open PC Interworking: SMB, Version 2, published October 1992. The first version may have been published more than two years earlier, in January 1990, but I'm having difficulty finding that information. The Samba site says that the first version, developed in 1992, was based on reverse engineering the wire protocol of the MS-DOS SMB client. The later versions may have made use of this other documentation.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    21. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's how reverse engineering works and it used to be perfectly legal. How do you think we have "IBM compatible" PCs? ;p

    22. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by vandan · · Score: 1
      No, the fact that you'll get yourself in a heapload of trouble by observing something that was presented to you may not seem to be "common sense", but those are the breaks of living in this society. If you don't like it, don't post about it on Slashdot; go buy some Senators and Congressmen.

      Good to see someone else has a handle on American politics. The problem is that we don't have the money to buy congressmen and senators. The system is certainly rigged in favour of big business.

      This is why I get so offended when I see the US claiming that they will bring their flavour of 'democracy' to Iraq ... and the rest of the world. Democracy is an absolute failure in the US. The DMCA is but one example of this fact. There are a plethory of others, and I'm sure Bush will present us with yet more examples in his coming reign of terror.
    23. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by BrynM · · Score: 2, Informative
      Probably for the exact same reason you can't legally use a DirecTV decoder; even though you may have never agreed to their terms of service, and even though their signal is being broadcast onto your property.
      In his example, he was monitoring the traffic of friends with their consent. In your DirectTV example, you're monitoring the traffic without their consent (you only have consent to use the decoder, not look at the traffic directly). There's a big difference there legally. The DMCA was meant to curb sniffing, snooping or copying unauthorized content via electronic means. You're right that this is where the DMCA get's prickly (especially compared to the EULA example) because it theoretically prohibits "circumvention" regardless of who owns the content according to some folks.

      The truth of the matter is that someone with legal rights to the content must call you on your actions. DirectTV will get mad at you and friends won't. Regardless, the folks who made the transport/protocol that carries the traffic (if they are a third party) legally still don't have any means to attack you (unless they make you out to be a national threat, but that's a whole other political discussion). You can legally observe any network traffic as long as you have permission to view it's contents. In a controlled environment, that's not hard to do - but on public networks it's near impossible. The Samba folks used a controlled environment to avoid legal complications.

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    24. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by Juanvaldes · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's how reverse engineering works and it used to be perfectly legal. How do you think we have "IBM compatible" PCs? ;p
      For everyones connivence I have highlighted the key word.

    25. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by davecb · · Score: 1
      Actually it was reverse-engineered first, then published, then changed with only occasional efforts to publish the changes.

      --dave

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    26. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by fiddlesticks · · Score: 1

      your friends go to jail

      but hey, you get rich

    27. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      US claiming that they will bring their flavour of 'democracy' to Iraq

      Most people weren't supposed to notice that the CPA was doing massive privatisation of Iraqi government owned businesses. And loosen up restrictions on foreign ownership, etc.

      "Democracy" is interesting, though. What would happen if the electorate votes in representatives who decide to nationalize oil production, for example? Will the U.S. uphold democracy in that case?

      It is more likely that the IMF and World Bank will tell any would-be socialists that their credit rating on the world market would go to zero.

      With the U.S. trade and federal deficits, it is only a short time before such international financial pressure is exerted on the U.S. government itself.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    28. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by mjm1231 · · Score: 1
      This is how I remember the story (which, I think, was in the intro to an earlier edition of one of the O'reilly Samba books... Can't seem to find an online link to corroborate it though): Andrew Tridgell reverse engineered the NetBIOS protocol to link a DOS pc with a unix box using packet captures. He then contacted the original developers of smb at IBM (not Microsoft!) and found that most of the information he needed to create his implementation was documented and readily available. In other words, he did reverse engineering, but most of it was unnecessary.

      Later components of Samba (domain authentication, etc.) almost certainly did require reverse engineering, though.

      A shortened version of the story (about a third of the way down the page).

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    29. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      OK, what if the 3 guys are in the same room, on the same hub, and unix guy is just looking over at the monitors and watching what's going on, or just listening to the roomates when they say "OK, I just put the file in the share folder, go ahead and download it now, it's ready!" and the other guy says "OK, I'm downloading it right now!"

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    30. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by fingerfucker · · Score: 1

      I observe and reverse-engineer an over-the-wire file transfer protocol between two computers owned by my friends.

      It's not really about the protocol. Even though you are interested in the protocol's innerworkings, you are essentially eavesdropping on a private 'conversation' (of course unless you own the network transport and make the permission to eavesdrop as a part of the network usage agreement).

      It appears this case would be treated as eavesdropping, for which I believe there are some pretty uncontested laws in most western-world countries.

      Stretching it further, however, I personally believe that e.g. if cell phone towers push GSM/CDMA/TDMA signals through your house, it is nobody's business whether you are eavesdropping or not, they should apply other legal means available to them to prevent the signal from reaching your house if they want you not to listen to it. But that's just my personal opinion.

    31. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by fingerfucker · · Score: 1

      In this case, EULA should not forget to prohibit usage of the software that uses the said protocol in an environment where the user at the same time doesn't agree not to give permission to the network provider to sniff the network.

      In other words, if the EULA is well written, it will allow to hold the user acocuntable for damage to the software provider caused by as many forms of potentially hurtful (to the software provider) usages as possible.

    32. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      It's not really about the protocol. Even though you are interested in the protocol's innerworkings, you are essentially eavesdropping on a private 'conversation'

      Remember: In this example, the two endpoints are on systems run by my friends. It's their own content that's being moved over the wire, and it's understood that they don't mind me watching.

    33. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Why would they go to jail?

      Name a law that they'd be breaching.

    34. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by fingerfucker · · Score: 1

      Yep, so essentially that means that if the EULA is good enough, it will try to not allow the use of the software in an environment where the holder of the license on usage of that software at the same time gives any third party consent to eavesdropping.

      This way, the software producer ensures that they can hold the end user accountable for damages incurred by letting (and notice that I used 'letting' not 'actively preventing') someone sniff those packets.

    35. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      In theory, I suppose that's possible. I've yet to see it done in practice.

      Remember, the top of this thread was roughly someone saying "I can't believe Samba was developed without breaching any EULAs".

    36. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by fingerfucker · · Score: 1

      Remember, the top of this thread was roughly someone saying "I can't believe Samba was developed without breaching any EULAs".

      What I'd like to know as a follow-up though is whether you can pull a reverse engineering feat just like Samba even today legally?

      Even if the EULA were to prohibit the users from letting other people do e.g. network traffic sniffing (or other reverse engineering), it would still be possible for the engineer to 'go undercover' and do it so that those end users still couldn't be held accountable.

      Suppose Samba didn't exist. If one were to implement Samba, it could (with what degree of legal certainty?) be proven that reverse engineering is the sole and only way to figure out the protocol by reverse engineering. Even so, would this be enough or would this evidence be too circumstantial to prove one actually reverse-engineered? And even if it were, wouldn't that mean reverse engineering by sniffing could become illegal? This brings out how ridiculous DMCA is, but doesn't that also suggest that we might be getting close to being slapped with a DMCA also for other for other than copyright prevention 'protocols'...?

      So long as there is no law similar in function as DMCA but for non-copyright related reverse engineering, isn't reverse engineering essentially completely legal (given that the end user of the software cannot be reasonably required to prevent his use of the software from exposing it to reverse engineering)?

    37. Re:EULA, DMCA and Reverse Engineering. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      First off, the DMCA has a loophole for reverse engineering done for purposes of interoperability.

      Second, it's quite straightforward to demonstrate that one engaged in reverse-engineering -- the same way you demonstrate in court that you went through a clean-room process: Affidavats and work-product from the involved staff. (In clean-room reverse engineering, one maintains a Chinese wall between reverse-engineering and product development staff; this was the process used when reproducing the IBM PC's BIOS).

      The rest of your post is too convoluted for me to parse without rereading it more than three times, which is my limit.

  8. Partnership? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Partnership with Micro$oft? It reminds me of this partnership I once had as a gimp with that sadist lady domina...

  9. It's simple by michelcultivo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sun dominate the Enterprise users and Microsoft dominate the low-end users with their software, one is trying to acquire knowledge from another. Very simple, even a penguin can see this.

    1. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice linkwhoring but its a little more complicated than you make it.

      Basically, Microsoft controls the directory services in many corporations, and Sun needs to interoperate with them or be left out in the cold for certain applications. (No, NDS flames pls, just telling you how it is).

    2. Re:It's simple by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
      Problem is that Microsoft's vastly more likely to eat Sun's lunch than vice-versa. The most probable outcome from all this is that MS gets more headway at the top of the market while Sun collapses into a White Dwarf. Since Microsoft is the monopolist /. justifiably loves to hate, that would be a Bad Thing.

      Sorry, the astronomy metaphors are too easy...

  10. I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The partnership may mean little to James Gosling in his division's day to day activities, but what about for the rest of the company?

    The lines seem to be drawing themselves out - on one side, we have Sun, Microsoft; on the other, it's IBM, Red Hat, Novell and the rest of the pro-Linux crowd.

    And then there is HP, trying to do a dance right in the middle, but getting smacked by the fodder coming from both sides.

    1. Re:I beg to differ by Bondolo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to take exception to your definition of the teams. On what basis are you saying that Sun is on the "Microsoft team"?

      The Microsoft payout was for civil damages and a settlement in the long ongoing Java suit which it seems they were likely to lose in the long run. They lost, Sun won. Sun gets the money. It was not Microsoft "buying Sun loyalty" or a payoff for Sun to do their dirty work. To characterise it as otherwise would need a lot of evidence--beyond the conjectural crap which seems to dominate these discussions.

      The substance of the agreement was that Sun and Microsoft would no longer act like mortal enemies. It was not a pact of eternal friendship and devotion. It did nothing more than normalize relations. Prior to the agreement they wouldn't even agree that an agreement was possible. Going forward Sun will work with Microsoft on some iniatives and oppose them on others. Just like Sun does with Oracle, IBM, RedHat, HP, Novell, etc.

      Cmon, do you really think anyone would be stupid enough to repeat SGI's mistake and plan to succeed by being the best Microsoft lickspittle?

      Oh, and poor HP. Maybe the reason they are lost in the middle is because they can't decide what direction they're going. Support Itanium? Yep! Support Opteron? Yep! Support PA-RISC? Forever! Support HPUX? Yep! Support Linux? yep! Support Windows? Of course! Hurray for everything! (The same can be said of IBM, but they hide it better).

      --
      -- "Most people prefer a popular myth to an unpopular truth"
    2. Re:I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the basis that Linux is constantly barraged by Sun. On the basis of all the FUD coming from Schwartz about how Linux may have copyright problems (taking the Microsoft/SCO line). On the basis of releasing 1600 patents, but not indemnifying them for Linux.

    3. Re:I beg to differ by njcoder · · Score: 1

      OSRM are claiming that Linux has a lot of IP problems as well.... And for only 150k a year they'll indemnify you. Maybe they're in cahoots with MS as well?

    4. Re:I beg to differ by reachbach · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. Most of the agreement has to do with identity & interoperability of software products.The rest of the story was an off-court settlement by M$ (in other words, accepting defeat and paying the compensation, so to say). Stop thes brainless rants like "Sun is on M$'s team", "M$ asked to open up solaris to kill linux" and crap like that. If you can accept the truth that Solaris is a better OS than Linux, embrace it. Noone in Sun is trying to kill Linux. Remember, they're promoting Linux on the desktop. Ask IBM or HP or Dell what their best-selling desktops run on. Solaris is positioned aggresively on the serverside by sun for the simple reason that it's a superior os to be running on a 32 way box.Period. (I'm saying this for the zillionth time-)Stop blindly flaming and adopt a more logical,balaced view.

  11. I was there by harikiri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember James talking about the whole Microsoft/Sun collaboration. Apparently there is some confusion over what the legal agreement between the two is.

    The main thing I remember him saying was that there are issues in working with MS, in that even if MS lets them have insider info on say their filesystem, they can't release this info to the Samba developers because of NDA's and IP licensing restrictions. So they have to be really careful and get signoff before they can open certain things up.

    Another interesting discussion was the whole SWT vs SWING debate. James remained an advocate of Swing, and accused SWT of falling into the same traps that AWT had back in the day. From what he said, it sounded like he was saying that Swing is flexible and powerful enough to do whatever you want, but that was also its downside. An example he used was back when they were auditing Netbeans 3.6 to figure out why it was so slow. Apparently the developers had gone overboard with monitoring events, and a single drag of a window resizer would trigger thousands of events (an "event storm" he called it), which would also in turn spawn a bunch of "stormlets", small event loops (events triggering other events which trigger other events ad nauseum). Apparently this was the cause of the slowness.

    One of the people who was asking a question of James asked the audience to raise their hands if they used Eclipse. I would guess that around 90% of the audience raised their hands.

    When asked his opinion on the IBM vs SCO court case, his response: "I want some of what they're smoking". He didn't get asked about Sun's IP stance however.

    I also have a picture that I took of the cake for the 10th anniversary of Java. It's sitting on my phone at the moment, but I saw some other attendees take snapshots too.

    Sorry this is a little haphazard. I didn't really take notes. :)

    --
    Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...
    1. Re:I was there by flacco · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...

      funniest goddamn sig i've seen yet

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  12. Make Samba actually work? by desau · · Score: 1, Insightful

    From the article:

    "... but we can't then turn around and be part of the open-source Samba project, and make Samba actually work."

    I wasn't aware that Samba didn't work.

    Seems to work fine for me.

    1. Re:Make Samba actually work? by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      "... but we can't then turn around and be part of the open-source Samba project, and make Samba actually work."

      I wasn't aware that Samba didn't work.


      That's business speak for "until we can figure out how to make money from it". :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Make Samba actually work? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Can it easily replace an Active Directory Server? Nope. Can it *easily* replace a Windows NT Domain - not really.

      Otherwise it works great :).

    3. Re:Make Samba actually work? by stor · · Score: 1

      Can it easily replace an Active Directory Server? Nope.

      Not easily but it can replicate a lot of the functionality of AD if you pair it up with a directory server such as OpenLDAP.

      Yeah yeah, probably not in the "easy" basket. Fairly straight-forward if you're a half-decent Sysadmin though.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  13. Had me then dropped me by KarmaBlackballed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The last paragraph of the news story ends like this: In the hour-and-a-half session, Gosling answered many questions on a range of topics, including Eclipse and other Java IDEs (integrated development environments), DVD technology, security in Microsoft's .Net platform, the future of embedded software and more.

    Only problem is the author thinks that's all we care to know about that. Sorta like writing "yadayadayada".

    No need to actually report what his answers were. (Guess only an extreme geek like myself cares to hear what he said about these obscure technical topics.)

    --

    --- -- - -
    Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
  14. Howdy (Unequal) Partner! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In Republican America, Microsoft fucks YOU!

  15. More is Really Less by value_added · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gosling offers a bit of insight when he says:

    Reverse-engineering in the United States is now "legal for stuff, except stuff doing digital rights management," or DRM, he said. "So what has been happening is folks like Microsoft have been putting DRM into everything. DRM has been put into places you wouldn't think would make a whole lot of sense, like the document format being wrapped in DRM stuff...Under the sheets, the major justification is to make reverse-engineering illegal."

    Bill Gates, on the other hand, offers a very different (albeit hardly suprising) point of view in a recent NY Times article.

    ``Over the years, our industry has tried many approaches to come to grips with the heterogeneity of software,'' Gates said, ``But the solution that has proven consistently effective -- and the one that yields the greatest success for developers today -- is a strong commitment to interoperability.''

    Microsoft is also facing competition from Linux and other software that can be copied and modified freely. Proponents of such software say its flexible distribution makes it easier to design to work with other software.

    Gates argued, however, that open source software encourages the proliferation of different software systems, making it harder to integrate them with other proprietary systems.

    Many Microsoft products already work with other non-Microsoft products, and the company will build more interoperability into the design of its products, Gates said.

    So, there you have it. Things are fine, and getting better.

    1. Re:More is Really Less by flacco · · Score: 2, Funny
      Gates argued, however, that open source software encourages the proliferation of different software systems, making it harder to integrate them with other proprietary systems.

      that's what open standards, file formats, and protocols are for - comp sci 101, you big fucking lying piece of shit goony bastard.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  16. Sure it works ... by krygny · · Score: 1

    ... for now.

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
  17. Because a EULA is a contract of adhesion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can only enforce certain things. In California one of the things it can't enforce is release of fair use rights including reverse engineering. There are some famous technologies which would not exist if they were enforceable. From another perspective: Federal copyright law trumps state contract law. However some other states have now decided things the other way... maybe someday the Supreme Court will make a final decision one way or the other.

  18. I was there and asked him a couple of questions by sonamchauhan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was there at this event and asked James Gosling a couple of questions.

    "You spoke earlier about Jython and Ruby -- how Sun does not want to "choose" on the de-facto scripting language for Java.
    Will Sun follow the lead of .NET - and now Perl6 - in supporting multiple languages that compile and run within the same virtual machine?"


    I impression I got about his answer was: No, Sun won't publicly support multiple languages compiling to the JVM like Microsoft does in .NET (though he did not say this explicitly).

    He reiterated the JVM did support multiple languages (the examples he gave were Fortran and Lisp) compiling to Java bytecode and running in the JVM. He said that the JVM architecture has constraints due to which languages like C/C++ cannot run in the JVM efficiently or safely. He said Microsoft actually made a big deal about their support for 'Managed C++' in .NET. He poked fun at this - saying due their support for pointers, etc, their Managed C++ implementation had security security holes "big enough to drive several trucks through".

    "Follow up question: Will the JVM architecture ever change? The Parrot/Perl6 folks talk about how their new Register-Based VM architecture is inherently superior to stack based VMs. Any comments?" [Java uses a stack based VM ]
    His answer boiled down to: "The Perl guys are wrong". He mentioned a few other complex points to justify this. An interesting thing he mentioned was that an early development version of the JVM used a register based VM "that no one other than me saw", and that he changed Java over to a stack based VM since the register based one "sucked so badly".

    At the end of the event, the hosts (Sun Australia I think) brought out a big cake to celebrate the 10th birthday of Java. Gosling said that the day (Wednesday 2/2/05) was "uncomfortably close to the 10th anniversary of the first release of the JVM". The audience gave three hip-hip-hurrahs.

    1. Re:I was there and asked him a couple of questions by stor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The audience gave three hip-hip-hurrahs.

      And then you all started jerking each other off?


      No. Then they started writing java programs. Oh, wait...

      Cheers
      Storf

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    2. Re:I was there and asked him a couple of questions by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Java is nice. But I don't program much in it. I like Perl. Though Gosling said what he said, Parrot/Perl 6 should be better than Java.

      Sad to see people afflicted by perverse fantasies though - hope you both get better soon.

  19. Yes, is there a transcript anywhere?? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd really like to hear the whole of the talk as well. Anyone out there have anything else with more detail?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. Transcripsts. by acomj · · Score: 1

    I said the same thing while at work.. Heh! wheres the interesting part of the article?

    FWIW I did a quick google & google news search. nothing.

  21. news.com.com? by Obliviously · · Score: 1

    the hyperlink is to news.com.com? Why would CNET buy com.com?

    1. Re:news.com.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I dunno why they bought .com.com but they've had it for a loooooooooooooong time. Where have you been?

    2. Re:news.com.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Obliviously!!! ha ha ha ha fuck you.

    3. Re:news.com.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not reading CNET or anything that links to CNET?

      Lucky guy....

  22. All depends on if I told my friend that I was. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Packet monitoring is normal for linux servers.

    So the EULA does not apply. This reversing happens in server rooms. As part of normal network monitoring. Ok that normal so if I replay that it sould work.

  23. He's indeed a terrorist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after all, he came from Canuckistan!

  24. Doesn't Make Sense... by Comatose51 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Usually pacts with the devil take on greater significance as you get closer and closer to death (*cough* Sun *cough*)...

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    1. Re:Doesn't Make Sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *cough*$7.5 billion*cough*jackass*cough*

    2. Re:Doesn't Make Sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *cough* It's called a joke *cough*

    3. Re:Doesn't Make Sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      *cough* the *cough* moderators *cough* obviously *cough* didn't *cough* get *cough* the *cough* damn *cough* joke *gag* *choke*

    4. Re:Doesn't Make Sense... by Loonacy · · Score: 1

      Netcraft hasn't confirmed that Sun is dying.

  25. Partnership? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did partnership with Microsoft mean anything but getting screwed?

    Look, google for the links; partnership with Microsoft never meant anything execpt Microsoft wins and you fade into obscurity!

  26. News to who? by gnovos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I woked at a company a few years ago that was a newly minted "Microsoft Partner". Microsoft came in one day and we all had a big meeting. The rep told us, point blank, that they were developing the same software as us, but were a little behind. The deal was this: We'll liscense them all our software at a n unfathomably great rate, they'll promote our company for two years to thier other partners, and then they'll release thier own version of the software at that point, having built in all the improvements that they can from examining our software, and undercut us.

    If we don't agree to the terms, they'll release thier software now and compete with us directly withotu the two-year gap.

    So basically, that was life as a Microsoft Partner.

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    1. Re:News to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and then you sent your first corporate email and the Microsoft rep saw how poorly you spell, pal (t h e i r, say it after me, t h e i r). He wondered how you ever made it past grade school and then immediately fired you one the spot.

      For everybody else: there, their they're.

      They're all different.

    2. Re:News to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's 'on' not 'one'. on the spot...

    3. Re:News to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but "one the spot..." is not a sentence. You also did not use proper capitalization in your writing.

    4. Re:News to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This anecdote is a perfect example of something I saw on Slashdot some time ago:

      definition of a Microsoft Partner: a victim that Microsoft hasn't gotten to yet.

    5. Re:News to who? by White+Roses · · Score: 1

      Hneh, hneh, 'Buy him out,' boys!

      --
      Do not touch -Willie
  27. Swing not the real stumbling block by Latent+Heat · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From my perspective, Swing is not the real stumbling block.

    Sun has this whole take-it-or-leave it notion about Java, but I have been interested in migrating to Java by rewriting parts of my apps. The JNI allows Java to call C++, but it also allows C++ to call Java, and while parts of it are a little cumbersome, it is well-documented and you can wrap the plumbing in a set of C++ and Java classes. My notion is that I can start with the non-GUI parts of the program, and perhaps even some of the GUI parts by using the MVC and strategy design patterns to uncouple code from the Windows API code, and over time develop something that is easier to migrate away from Windows. Oh, don't worry Chairman Bill, I am probably not leaving Windows anytime soon, it is just that Java has good features and libraries and I am interested in using it.

    For mixed Windows API-managed code programming, I like C++/Java better than C++/C# because to access C# modules from Windows API C++, you have to go through a lot of Windows jive with the GAC and other bits of Klingon language. Connecting C++ and Java through the JNI seems easier to me than connecting unmanaged C++ to C#.

    The hassle is that I am really reluctant to make any program I distribute dependent on a Java install on a Windows computer because there is so much to go wrong -- not setting up the PATH, CLASSPATH considerations, and so on. It is not insurmountable to get Java going under Windows, but it is something for users of one's software to not get right.

    If MS and Sun were to truly make nice, I would like to see the Java runtime integrated with Windows so you could count on it being there if you distribute apps under Windows. Heck, I would settle for the .NET runtime being part of Windows, but even that you have to download and there is a futz factor setting it up.

    1. Re:Swing not the real stumbling block by tim256 · · Score: 1

      I've used swing for the last four years, and I haven't had any performance problems on newer machines. Sure it's a little slower, but that's really not a problem. However, I did find it easier to use C# and a C++ dll easier than using JNI. But, I could never find any good documentation on JNI. I would be nice if you could build exes on Windows that spawned the Sun Java VM kinda like C# does.

    2. Re:Swing not the real stumbling block by clard11 · · Score: 1

      You could just ship a JRE at a specific version and service level with your code ? This is what some middleware vendors do at the server side, so they are shipping their code with the JVM and Class library code they have tested against.

      --
      catch (ModDownException mde) {post.modUp("Interesting")}
    3. Re:Swing not the real stumbling block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hassle is that I am really reluctant to make any program I distribute dependent on a Java install on a Windows computer because there is so much to go wrong -- not setting up the PATH, CLASSPATH considerations, and so on. It is not insurmountable to get Java going under Windows, but it is something for users of one's software to not get right.

      One solution is to ship your whole software package in a directory tree with its own JRE. Then, "intallation" is just copying the tree to the machine, and make a shortcut to a batch/shell file that sets the CLASSPATH for this program to your local environment. A smarter way would be to check to see if a newer JRE is already present on the system and run that if it's there.

    4. Re:Swing not the real stumbling block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another solution is to use SWT for the GUI and GCJ to compile your apps to native code. It does take away a little from the 'write once, run anywhere' philosophy, but it removes the dependency of a JVM and you can simply have different builds (from the same code) for any architecture you wish to support. They also have CNI which is similar to JNI.

    5. Re:Swing not the real stumbling block by barrkel · · Score: 0

      For mixed Windows API-managed code programming, I like C++/Java better than C++/C# because to access C# modules from Windows API C++, you have to go through a lot of Windows jive with the GAC and other bits of Klingon language. Connecting C++ and Java through the JNI seems easier to me than connecting unmanaged C++ to C#.

      I think that's a specious argument designed simply to prove yourself correct. If I were integrating unsafe, unverifyable C++ with .NET, I wouldn't use unmanaged C++.

  28. Support for Active Directory by cheu0018 · · Score: 1

    They talked about supporting MS AD for their new Solaris 10 release last year. I haven't heard a thing on this subject. Anyone here know if this is coming?

  29. software partnerships / tech partnerships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do not work.

    The exist for two reasons:
    1. Company A wants to slow down / misguide company B
    2. Company A wants to learn how to sell, maintain, and build their own copy of software for a given market (e.g., MS partneering with Sybase for Sybase 4.x and then MS releasing Microsoft SQL Server 6.0 withtout Sybase. A perfectly legal thing to do which Sybase agreed to ).

  30. afraid of PR consequences by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    Sun is afraid of the PR consequences of their relationship with Microsoft, that's why they are trying to downplay it.

    Their agreement has had significant consequences, and Sun's behavior towards open source (e.g., Schwartz's rantings, their fake patent grant, their Java efforts, their attempt to position Solaris against Linux, etc.) show that Sun is not an unequivocal supporter of free software or open source software.

    1. Re:afraid of PR consequences by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
      Sun is afraid of the PR consequences of their relationship with Microsoft, that's why they are trying to downplay it.

      No, Sun is afraid of the technical and hence business consequences of their relationship with Microsoft. The latter has a three step process of dealing with "partners:"

      1) Steal their technology

      2) Make a rival product

      3) Destroy partner, and possibly purchase the dry husk that remains of a once-lush company for a song.

      The most significant consequence of Sun's agreement will probably be Microsoft gaining more ground in server-land on one side of Sun, while Linux gains more ground on the other. These trends were already apparent before the agreement, so I chalk up the agreement to Sun thrashing around in an attempt to find some direction that might keep them in business.

    2. Re:afraid of PR consequences by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Schwartz's rantings

      Schwartz is a total moron, even the most ardent Sun fanboys I know admit that.

      their fake patent grant

      At least it was bigger than IBM's fake patent grant. Neither actually mean jack squat for OSS though.

      their Java efforts

      Actually I believe the relationship with MS came about because of their Java efforts. They used their position as the "controllers" of Java to stop MS from bundling an incompatible version of Java (embrase and extend, as it were) with Windows, and got them to stop and give Sun a ton of money. Now I am no fan of Java anyway (I do mostly C), but had Java been truely open source, nobody would be able to stop MS from doing this.

      their attempt to position Solaris against Linux

      Sun sells both. Their stated position is that Solaris is for more mission critical or high end uses, and Linux is more mid range. Honestly I have to agree to an extent. Linux is great, but it is not quite yet there as far as Solaris and AIX (my personal high end choice) go. However I have no doubt it someday will be.

      Finkployd

    3. Re:afraid of PR consequences by njcoder · · Score: 1
      The patents that sun granted aren't all up for expiring soon and have to do with operating systems, unlike the patents granted by IBM.

      Open source doesn't just mean linux. They have released a lot of open source software. They are releasing their operating system as open source. This creates real competition in the open source kernel/operating system world. Look at other competing open source projects like Geronimo/JBoss, MySQL/PostgreSQL, Apache/ZOPE, etc.

      Projects like Geronimo and JBoss are both open source, the software serves the same purpose but both can still exist and they can't just share code between the two. Having more options is a good thing. It's the same with OpenSolaris vs Linux.

      Most of the things Sun has been saying about Linux have been good. They sell linux on their servers, they have a desktop that runs on linux, they maintain and distribute the Linux port for Java and more. The Linux community just likes to mouth off about Sun since Solaris deployments are an area where linux can gain more market share. It would be nicer if they could do it solely on the merits of Linux rather than resorting to trash talk though.

  31. Bah. I take it all back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But only as a technicality. I was the one who modded the funny post "insightful."

    Why? Well, I had karma, it was expiring today, and I read a lot of comments. At some point you have to pull the trigger even if you're not finding those AC diamonds in the rough. And the comment was, well, by slashdot standards, ammusing. I suppose he could have inserted a forced video game reference, put it in Yoda grammer or something. Then there is a certain level of obvious truth to the hyperbole as an example of contemporty conservative rhetoric. But then I thought, "I've never tried trolling using only mod points before...." So I went ahead and modded him "insightful." That this would ultimately be reflected in his karma total was a nice touch as I was tired of reading crappy comments and I respected the effort. (A lot of GNAA posts will tend to distort ones perceptions, especially the ones that almost deserve to be modded up.) So I went to dump the rest of the points off by abusing the "overrated" option to make posts I didn't want anyone to see go away. Ultimately I had one point remaining. So I checked in only to find out I could indeed troll with mod points. That gave me a warm squishy feeling which quickly dissolved into sadness. On slashdot anyone can troll with anything; so, in the end, I'd accomplished nothing. I modded the guy I mod-trolled "Informative," because a lot of people who grew up with the threat of sudden global nuclear annihilation have a kind of "what the fuck" absurdist sense of humor. Like God, I'm mercurial and I work on a lot of levels, and it can be difficult to make sense of what I do after the fact.

    Sorry about taking the karma back now that the Evangelist mods have come back from their crack break. But it's going to take more than fifty abstracted karma points to get your heathen asses magic'd out of your clothes when the rapture comes anyway.

  32. Re:Bah. I take it all back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you don't want to mod 'funny' try 'interesting' instead of 'insightful'. Some other moderator will come and see that insightfull of yours and it's very obvious that it's not insightfull and anyone knows people mod insightful instead of funny. so try 'interesting' it's much likely to stay than if you mod up 'insightful' for a funny comment.

  33. Re:Bah. I take it all back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, that was wimpy. You have just written that this was a once in a lifetime experience for you. You wanted to feel the rush of exitement, and now you take it back. Next time, go through with it instead of withdrawing in this humiliating way.

  34. Struggling to remember ... but the gist: by aegilops · · Score: 3, Informative
    I was there, hugely underqualified amongst a room packed with full-on Java devs. There were about 600 attendees. Where I get this completely wrong, please be gentle and help out, don't skin me alive, please.

    My recollections:

    Eclipse and other Java IDEs

    I recall James commenting that the presence of other Java IDEs was healthy as it promotes competition and encourages the best dev tools. He used a sports analogy about needing more than one team to have a match. Two of the day's briefings were about the new Sun IDEs, hence the reporter's focus on this. I recall he had tried Eclipse and was being gracious but non-committal about it.

    DVD Technology

    James did say that it was a very sloppy bit of crypto, and wasn't intended as a rock solid algorithm but being sufficient to force companies to license the appropriate patents and other agreements.

    .NET Security

    Again, underqualified here, but he commented that the .NET support of C and C++ was ... oh, I wish I could remember the colourful phrase ... something like: "the most brain-dead design decision they could have made". I think it was to do with pointer manipulation and arithmetic, which Microsoft allows in the CLR and causes major problems, rather than in Java which keeps you away from all that.

    Embedded Software

    He was asked what still gets him really excited. He mentioned about the new tiny chips they're building with a micro OS on them, with integrated sensors - I think he called the micro-OS "squawk". He made reference to people using them to plaster all over the sides of bridges to monitor stress patterns. He said that right now they're about an inch square but hope to get them down to the size of your thumbnail. He said that it was a tragedy that you had to have a battery to power these things, as the chip is dwarfed by the battery itself. He mentioned the ubiquity of Java in mobile phones a few times. A few people ribbed him about toasters. One guy pressed him on nanotechnology - driving at an NBIC point of view - James didn't really take the bait which is a shame as I thought that was an interesting question.

    He mentioned on a couple of occasions about doing some work with real time applications of Java. And that this is an interesting area as people wouldn't normally think of Java as a good language for real-time, but he said that when you have conversations with these guys, that what they are doing in real-time applications is really scary and "out there", i.e. the current real-time software approaches are really complex, convoluted and much more fragile than you would either think or would like.

    James also talked about support for OS X (full production support for Java dev tools, just maybe not the daily builds), and the difficulties of working with Apple (no secret previews or insider knowledge).

    There was some talk about scripting languages for Java, with reference to (I'm struggling here) Jython or Ruby. He said people get really religious about it, and he likes the fact that there is not "a single one choice" - the variety is healthy and good.

    He spoke encouragingly over the Java Community Process - people ask him "where is Java going" and he observed that it was healthy that it is not down to one single individual. He talked about the Mustang development process and encouraged people to contribute feedback / ideas or participate in the development process.

    There were some questions about greatest regrets over the language but sadly I am too underqualified to answer. Whatever he said was really insightful (something about operator casting? I can't recall ... I remember him alluding to people accosting him over the left shift operator not being an I/O operator.. but I could have my wires crossed here) - he said "If I had taken out feature XXX of the language, 5% of the audience would say - Yes! that's exactly right, 40% would shrug, and the remainder would come after me with knives drawn".

    He was open, genial, down to Earth, and was a pleasure to go hear speak. I'd recommend it if you get the chance to see something similar near you.

    Aegilops

  35. Re:Bah. I take it all back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, if you're walking down the street, see a YMCA, don't know any better, so you decide to in and it looks gay. Do you take one to be a good sport, or make for the escape hatch? Lesson learned, experiment terminated.

  36. headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better headlines for you:

    "Bill Gates Burnt By Sun"
    "Sun Comes Out of Microsoft's A$$"

    etc...

  37. Re:I was there (albeit a different "there") by davecb · · Score: 1
    harikiri wrote:...even if MS lets them have insider info on say their filesystem, they can't release this info [...] because of NDA's and IP licensing restrictions.

    I used to work with the Sun SMB team, who had licensed code from AT&T, who in turn licensed NT server code from Microsoft. Only a small group of developers were permitted access to the code, and they didn't even give fellow Sun people doing rotations with them (me!) access.

    Which was good, as I am a minor contributor to Samba, and I didn't want to be polluted by knowledge of other people's trade secrets.

    This also applies to a lot of other stuff licensed by Sun: I remember the effort it took to find out what could be released and what couldn't back when Sun first made Solaris 8 source available.

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  38. Corba? by TheLastUser · · Score: 1

    Another option might be to implement your C++ parts as remote objects and then get your java gui to interoperate with them via corba/iiop or xml/rpc. The cool thing, if you use xml/rpc, is that you eventually operate in an asp mode, the gui is downloaded but the business parts sit on a network server somewhere.

    JNI is pretty common, I've never used it, but it kind of scares me to extend the JVM. I worry about stability (my C skills suck) and migration to newer versions of the VM.

  39. JNI how-to by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    My favorite reference on the JNI is at http://tns-www.lcs.mit.edu/manuals/java-api-1.1bet a2/guide/nativemethod/jniTOC.doc.html. As to C++ calling Java, I have two pieces of advice -- one is to call the function to check if you already have a VM before trying to create a VM -- this is needed when running from the Matlab or other environments or sandboxes that fire up VMs. The other piece of advice is that if you keep a handle to a Java object as a data field inside a C++ object, you gotta, gotta have a global lock on it otherwise it will bite you in the butt at an unexpected time (it won't fail 100% and create a lot of debugging) -- this is true whether you call Java from C++ or C++ from Java.

    The C++/Java interface goes both directions -- C++ calls Java or Java calls C++. The usual way is that you write a program in Java, and you use the JNI to call down to C++ to get at some low-level/system-level function -- SWT does their native widgets this way.

    I have in mind writing the application in C++ using the Windows API (the application is already written that way) and using Java for plug-ins, extensions, numerical processing modules and saving GUI migration for last. One, this is a way of incrementally migrating to Java. Two, it is doing the non-GUI code first, and identifies as much of the app as non-GUI and portable that can be split off. Three, the Java class and JAR files seem like a better kind of DLL -- think of them as platform-portable DLL's that are much less bulky than C++-generated DLL's under Windows.

    As to being able to do this in C#/C++, if you write the main app in C#, calling C++ DLL's, COM objects, or ActiveX controls is a piece of cake. Calling C# from C++ is clunky. The C# object has to publish itself as a COM object/ActiveX control and you have to go through some song and dance to register it to make it available that way. Bet it is no big deal having done it once, but every time I get the feeling to do this, I read the long instruction list and decide to lie down until the feeling passes.

    As to comments by others that unmanaged C++ calling C# is, I don't know, evil or something, if that is evil than every unmanaged Windows app that doesn't use .NET is equally evil. But if you accept a place for unmanaged Windows apps, there is no difference between calling an unmanaged DLL and calling a managed DLL -- there is no added security lapse for doing this.

    By the way, what got me started on this is that you can pretty easily call Java from Matlab -- I think Matlab is a pretty good scripting environment for Matlab because you can create instances of any Java class and invoke any of their methods without needing a static main() method as a Java program entry point. Well what Matlab can do, any C++ program can do the same through JNI.

  40. Sorry for the typo :-) by fingerfucker · · Score: 1

    Hehe.

  41. Flamingos by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Gosling is still into them.