I meant that FOSS Java seems to me to be no better, so far, than SUN Java. I agree that some FOSS is better than SUN's products in other areas; OOo is better than StarOffice, for instance.
I would be delighted if they could build a better Java implementation than SUN have done to date. In what specific ways do you think they can better SUN?
"Seems the GNU Classpath, Kaffe, GCJ, etc projects really want to Collaborate [wildebeest.org] and work together [wildebeest.org] with Sun according to their latest release notes [gnu.org]. 2007 might be a pretty interesting year for Java and GNU/Linux (and mobile devices!)"
If SUN Java is GPL'd, why would anybody carry on with an alternative version? Do they really thing that they can do better than SUN? Usually they do worse.
Kaffe in particular has been a problem for my project because it lacks some of the library classes that are an assumed part of the platform. Kaffe with SUN's libraries would be much better for us. However, I've yet to see evidence that Kaffe with complete libraries would be better than SUN's own JVM.
The only reasons for continuing that I can see (other than inertia and possibly hubris) are (a) to have alternate reference implementations for bug comparisons (is it really worth the effort); (b) in case SUN change their mind and close the source again (unlikely, and one can always fork the last free version); (c) in case SUN discontinue their own Java product. Maintaining their own JVM must cost SUN billions and doesn't generate revenue directly. Could they be planning to cease development?
"the real issue here is NOT health - it is being driven by the idea that young minds have access to a world of ideas not under control from those in power. the Internet has a global set of ideas - empowering, liberating, libralizing, and educating ideasl this is quite contrary to the mentality in most lower schools which are follow the rules, learn/do what you're told, and tow the line."
No, the real issue here is health.
You're right that many adults are scared by the oppurtunities offered to children by the Intenet. Over the last few years there has been a stream of articles in the UK press fretting that Internet use somehow damages children's mentality, and these seem to be part of the FUD you describe. The fuss about the microwaves is different. Save your ammunition for the right target.
For many people in the UK, there is a default assumption that authorities are lying to them about health risks. This has been fostered, possibly maliciously, by people in the environmental movement. (Not that environmentalists in general are lying bastards but the movement is stuck with some awkward fellow-travellers.) In the UK, their "proof" is BSE: the government assurances that feeding slaughterhouse waste to cattle was safe; in fact, this led to the BSE crisis. Government says "We are not aware of a risk" (translated: we haven't paid anybody to research the risk.) FUDsters spin this as "Government said there was NO risk and they lied" (implied: government had the research, was aware of the risk and did nothing). The FUDsters have made a conspiracy theory the basis for technical assesment.
In the UK at least, one frquently sees trademarks as "qualified names" with text in parentheses added to disambiguate. Thus, J Bloggs & Co (plumbers) and J Bloggs Ltd. (greengrocers) can both use their names as trademarks. I suspect that the one who registers later gets forced to use the qualifier and the original J Bloggs doesn't have to.
Were this extended to domains, then YouTube would be in trouble. They'd have to add a qualifier to their domain name; meaning, of course a new domain.
Yes, I can refrain from clicking; I'm not a total twitch, nor is my computer usage subconcious. Yes, I can navigate the site with the gestures. Does it make it easier to do things? No, it makes it far harder to get the right action without accidentally triggering others. If that was my banking site I'd be in a right mess by now.
With a mouse I have two distinct, non-confusable actions: move and click. It's important that these are separate as I use them for distinct things. If I only have one action, then the computer never really knows what I mean and does the wrong thing - ALL THE SODDING TIME. Conflating move and click is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. We need MORE distinct controls, not fewer. (Are you listening, Apple? I want my right mouse button back. Where do I send the ransom?)
Right now, all they offer to validate is that the applicant for the certificate owns the domain to which the certificate applies. If a business, e.g. a bank, fails to buy up all the domains that could be mistaken for the bank's proper domain then I, were I a fraudster, could buy that domain and get a certificate. E.g., I might try to get citybank.com if I wanted to phish for citibank.com customers. The fact that I can do this doesn't mean that the certificate authority is negligent. They're correctly binding certificates to domains and only issuing to the domain owners. That's what they've always claimed to do.
The new kind of validation (I think) would eliminate this combination of domain squatting and certification for phishing attacks. It could be a reasonable approach for merchants if the validation is done well. However, many sites have accidentally-similar names, especially where the same organization initials have been used in different TLDs like.com and.net. In this case, neither organization would be able to get extended validation.
"Answer: there is no law that requires you to be finger printed if you want a pint. There is no government roll out of fingerprint checking before you can have a pint."
Sure, but equally, there's no law requiring any landlord to serve you if he doesn't want to. If the landlord wants to appease the magistrates by enforcing fingerprinting, then he can refuse any customers who don't cooperate; even non-drinking customers. That makes this scheme rather toxic: it's made to look like a free decision by the licencees, but it's driven by local government pressure which in turn is wound up by pressure from central government.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant that FOSS Java seems to me to be no better, so far, than SUN Java. I agree that some FOSS is better than SUN's products in other areas; OOo is better than StarOffice, for instance.
I would be delighted if they could build a better Java implementation than SUN have done to date. In what specific ways do you think they can better SUN?
If SUN Java is GPL'd, why would anybody carry on with an alternative version? Do they really thing that they can do better than SUN? Usually they do worse.
Kaffe in particular has been a problem for my project because it lacks some of the library classes that are an assumed part of the platform. Kaffe with SUN's libraries would be much better for us. However, I've yet to see evidence that Kaffe with complete libraries would be better than SUN's own JVM.
The only reasons for continuing that I can see (other than inertia and possibly hubris) are (a) to have alternate reference implementations for bug comparisons (is it really worth the effort); (b) in case SUN change their mind and close the source again (unlikely, and one can always fork the last free version); (c) in case SUN discontinue their own Java product. Maintaining their own JVM must cost SUN billions and doesn't generate revenue directly. Could they be planning to cease development?
For finding stuff, applications in particular, try installing Quicksilver.
No, the real issue here is health.
You're right that many adults are scared by the oppurtunities offered to children by the Intenet. Over the last few years there has been a stream of articles in the UK press fretting that Internet use somehow damages children's mentality, and these seem to be part of the FUD you describe. The fuss about the microwaves is different. Save your ammunition for the right target.
For many people in the UK, there is a default assumption that authorities are lying to them about health risks. This has been fostered, possibly maliciously, by people in the environmental movement. (Not that environmentalists in general are lying bastards but the movement is stuck with some awkward fellow-travellers.) In the UK, their "proof" is BSE: the government assurances that feeding slaughterhouse waste to cattle was safe; in fact, this led to the BSE crisis. Government says "We are not aware of a risk" (translated: we haven't paid anybody to research the risk.) FUDsters spin this as "Government said there was NO risk and they lied" (implied: government had the research, was aware of the risk and did nothing). The FUDsters have made a conspiracy theory the basis for technical assesment.
In the UK at least, one frquently sees trademarks as "qualified names" with text in parentheses added to disambiguate. Thus, J Bloggs & Co (plumbers) and J Bloggs Ltd. (greengrocers) can both use their names as trademarks. I suspect that the one who registers later gets forced to use the qualifier and the original J Bloggs doesn't have to.
Were this extended to domains, then YouTube would be in trouble. They'd have to add a qualifier to their domain name; meaning, of course a new domain.
Tried it, hated it within 60 seconds.
Yes, I can refrain from clicking; I'm not a total twitch, nor is my computer usage subconcious. Yes, I can navigate the site with the gestures. Does it make it easier to do things? No, it makes it far harder to get the right action without accidentally triggering others. If that was my banking site I'd be in a right mess by now.
With a mouse I have two distinct, non-confusable actions: move and click. It's important that these are separate as I use them for distinct things. If I only have one action, then the computer never really knows what I mean and does the wrong thing - ALL THE SODDING TIME. Conflating move and click is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. We need MORE distinct controls, not fewer. (Are you listening, Apple? I want my right mouse button back. Where do I send the ransom?)
Right now, all they offer to validate is that the applicant for the certificate owns the domain to which the certificate applies. If a business, e.g. a bank, fails to buy up all the domains that could be mistaken for the bank's proper domain then I, were I a fraudster, could buy that domain and get a certificate. E.g., I might try to get citybank.com if I wanted to phish for citibank.com customers. The fact that I can do this doesn't mean that the certificate authority is negligent. They're correctly binding certificates to domains and only issuing to the domain owners. That's what they've always claimed to do.
The new kind of validation (I think) would eliminate this combination of domain squatting and certification for phishing attacks. It could be a reasonable approach for merchants if the validation is done well. However, many sites have accidentally-similar names, especially where the same organization initials have been used in different TLDs like .com and .net. In this case, neither organization would be able to get extended validation.
Sure, but equally, there's no law requiring any landlord to serve you if he doesn't want to. If the landlord wants to appease the magistrates by enforcing fingerprinting, then he can refuse any customers who don't cooperate; even non-drinking customers. That makes this scheme rather toxic: it's made to look like a free decision by the licencees, but it's driven by local government pressure which in turn is wound up by pressure from central government.
No, it's the web browser used by oxen. And Asses.