All of these numbers are based on what completely flawed microbenchmarks from a site that used to be called "The Language Shootout". The numbers have been thoroughly debunked several times in the past. See this thread, for example: http://www.javalobby.org/java/forums/t86371.html?start=30
Or just google for "language shootout". It's not that the people who run this are just incompetent (making dumb mistakes like including JVM startup times). It's that they actively allow and even encourage cheating. For example, at least one of the "C" benchmarks actually uses hand-coded assembly (libgmp), and rather than stick to the obvious "program must be written in the language it's listed under" rule, the site maintainer suggests that the "Java" benchmark could be changed to also use assembly. This is all documented in the thread listed above.
After several of these debunkings over the years, they had to change the name from "the language shootout" to something else, as any quick google will show that these benchmarks are completely bogus.
Nothing to see here, move along.
You've just taken what may be the most contorted, ambiguous, controversial half-sentence in the Bill or Rights, chopped off the weird part, and called the sentence simple.
The key section is titled "Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members?", and from my reading of that section, the answer is "no".
You say how a "nonrivalrous public good" is good for the general population, but generally bad for vendors. Well, the Open Group members are those vendors, they are not the "general population" or even "users".
You talk about reduced vendor margins and how vendors must shift to services and make other "uncomfortable changes". But you never make any case that Open Source is good for vendors. In fact, you seem to be saying that it is *not* good for vendors.
You talk about HP's 40% profit margin and say that those good times are over. That may be good for consumers and the industry overall, but it certainly isn't good for HP.
If you really think that Open Source is good for HP, Sun, IBM, and the others, then you need to spell out the reasons much more clearly and concisely. That section right now sounds like you're saying "Open Source isn't as bad for us as you might think".
> I believe that (currently)M$ still says it isn't.
On the contrary, thoughout the trial, every MS employee has been careful to NOT exclude ANY software as potentially being part of the OS. MS is clearly being careful not to hurt their cause if they ever decide they need to tie Office into the OS as they did with IE.
Slashdot Mirror
All of these numbers are based on what completely flawed microbenchmarks from a site that used to be called "The Language Shootout". The numbers have been thoroughly debunked several times in the past. See this thread, for example: http://www.javalobby.org/java/forums/t86371.html?start=30 Or just google for "language shootout". It's not that the people who run this are just incompetent (making dumb mistakes like including JVM startup times). It's that they actively allow and even encourage cheating. For example, at least one of the "C" benchmarks actually uses hand-coded assembly (libgmp), and rather than stick to the obvious "program must be written in the language it's listed under" rule, the site maintainer suggests that the "Java" benchmark could be changed to also use assembly. This is all documented in the thread listed above. After several of these debunkings over the years, they had to change the name from "the language shootout" to something else, as any quick google will show that these benchmarks are completely bogus. Nothing to see here, move along.
You've just taken what may be the most contorted, ambiguous, controversial half-sentence in the Bill or Rights, chopped off the weird part, and called the sentence simple.
The key section is titled "Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members?", and from my reading of that
section, the answer is "no".
You say how a "nonrivalrous public good" is good
for the general population, but generally bad for
vendors. Well, the Open Group members are those
vendors, they are not the "general population"
or even "users".
You talk about reduced vendor margins and how vendors
must shift to services and make other "uncomfortable changes". But you never make any case
that Open Source is good for vendors. In fact,
you seem to be saying that it is *not* good for vendors.
You talk about HP's 40% profit margin and say that
those good times are over. That may be good for
consumers and the industry overall, but it certainly isn't good for HP.
If you really think that Open Source is good for
HP, Sun, IBM, and the others, then you need to
spell out the reasons much more clearly and
concisely. That section right now sounds like you're
saying "Open Source isn't as bad for us as you might think".
Andy
> I believe that (currently)M$ still says it isn't.
On the contrary, thoughout the trial, every MS employee has been careful to NOT exclude ANY software as potentially being part of the OS.
MS is clearly being careful not to hurt their cause if they ever decide they need to tie Office into the OS as they did with IE.
Put them through the things they'll see later in life:
MONDAY: Assign some vague requirements for the project (say a sort program) and make the project due on Friday.
TUESDAY: Answer their questions about the requirements and tell them it's now due on Thursday.
WEDNESDAY: Change the requirements completely.
THURSDAY: Collect the assignments and critique them in front of everyone.
FRIDAY: Make each student add some minor enhancement to the project, but they must modify the code from the person on their left, NOT their own code.
Have each student's grade determined by the student who had to "enhance" the code, not by the teacher, and not even by whether the code worked or not.