Java wasn't invented to run on systems with no JVM and lack of dynamic library support.
Well, D'oh! Cars weren't invented to run without wheels either. So if you want a car, you put wheels on it.
SQLite and BDB, however, will run on those systems.
Why do you believe those are the systems OP was talking about? There's nothing in "handheld" that implies that.
Bias note: You'd probably have to shoot me before you could get me to use Java in an embedable system, or any other for that matter. I'm no Java fanboy defending his religion. I'm a major detractor. As far as I'm concerned the main purpose that Java serves in the universal grand scheme of things is to have something to point and giggle at.I honestly simply don't see your point is all.
we're discussing the Java version of BDB (which would be useless on the types of embedded platforms you're talking about)
Why? This is exactly the sort of thing Java was invented for. Don't confuse whichever head of the Hydra you are familiar with with the body of the beast.
Sun has been very reticent to actually "Open Source" (note the caps) Java because of the problems they had with Microsoft.
But then this all comes out of Java being the product of a commercial company that has been at "war" with Microsoft since day one, with no love lost between them since day one, each striving to dominate the "industry" with their product.
How many forks of Perl/Ruby/Python/PHP have there been?
Why? Because nobody feels any real personal stake in fucking over Larry for personal gain. We (including industry) just use his stuff; and if we have a problem with it we can just drop an email to Larry.
If Java had begun it's life as free software we wouldn't even be talking about this and, in point of fact, we probably wouldn't even be using it.
I can't let you have a whole Porsche for that, but I've got some bits of a 356A available (I'm sitting in its driver's seat right now, both seats (mine and the car's) are almost exactly the same age) that you could have for that.
I took a few photos of the car before it got parted, I could let you have a limited, personal use only, license to a JPEG of one of them for $50, but frankly I don't think that's a terribly good deal for you.
If you want a print though I'm afraid $50 won't cover it. Plus there'll be shipping and handling charges. And that wouldn't include any intellectual property rights (beyond what you have by fair use law). I retain those. If you're interested in purchasing or licensing those our lawyers would have to have a chat.
Don't confuse the issue by mixing up intellectual and physical property. Be sure of what you are "buying."
I remember the 70s, and you got three songs for a quarter, the jukebox company had to buy the record and the venue had to pay ASCAP fees out of that quarter.
And an mp3 is not a high quality product. I posited a quarter for the actual CD quality cut.
The basic mechanical licensing rights cost almost that all by themselves. ..
Proving the fair market value in the absence of having to distribute physical media.
Well, eMusic is also marked by a diversity of stuff in one place.
That may well be, but that isn't the claim, is it? The claim is that they are the only place to buy unemcumbered music online compatible with the iPod, and that is, quite frankly, what we in the trade call a "lie."
Now, if only they would switch to a flat $0.25 per song. ..
Yes. That's the price point I've long claimed would be the correct one for downloaded music. Quite frankly I think that's about right for a.wav, maybe a dime for lossey compression.
I only buy CDs. New directly from the artist or used for the commerically obtained stuff, but I think I'd be inclined to buy a shitload of mp3s for a dime apiece; and go back for the wav of the shit I actually liked, so they be selling me the good shit for $.35 a track.
A good incentive for promoting better music.
Of course, that isn't what they want, is it? Music is just soap/corn flakes to the commercial industry. They'd be happier selling anything else if they could make a better profit on it, but they've discovered that "crime" pays quite well if you can make it legally supported somehow.
"there's only two companies in the world that can sell to them--Apple and eMusic."
It's rather a startling point . ..
. . . given how many people are doing it; and have been doing it for so long. Even more startling that Ars Technica seems to be uncritically accepting the marketing claim in the article and run with the ball. It's, well . ..doofey.
It's even more doofey that Slashdot, which has run any number of stories about outfits selling/distributing unencumbered mp3s, should perpetuate the claim, but, well, it's Slashdot.
The real issue in the Microsoft case was leveraging monopoly powers in a criminally coercive manner, with hints of fraud (as per the DR DOS case), not the mere bundling of the browser with the OS for "free."
Unfair competition, not the perfectly legitimate competition of offering something cheaper/free.
If you have strange sores, or another infection, a biopsy will reveal abnormalities.
But Dude, they have pictures of little bits of fluff pulled from acrylic yarn. I'm sure they could send in the actual bits of fluff to the CDC if they really wanted to and thus demonstrate with actual, physical evidence that they are infected with itchy sweaters.
My SO actually convicted someone of possession of a burglery tool.
The tool?
A screwdriver.
What makes this doublely daft is that the perp, who did commit a burglery, didn't use it in the comission of the burglery, it was . . . part of the loot.
Go read the code. It is a black letter crime of fact. Being supplied with a false ID does not supply one with an affirmative defense.
A porn site owner/brewery is guilty of distributing to a minor. . . if they distribute to a minor. It doesn't matter a damn what the minor clicks/provides. Any distributor who believes otherwise may well be in for a rude awakening.
And I can personlly vouch for the fact that above 16 year old (yourself I take it? What legal jurisdiction were you in and what was the actual charge?) may well have been falsely arrested. Just because you are arrested (or even convicted) is not actual evidence of having broken the law, unless you're posting from Myanmar or something.
It may well be perfectly legal for a 16 year old to drink (in my state, for instance) if the alcohol was legally distributed to him, and it is possible to so legally distribute.
Laws against possession/distribution/open container/public drunkeness are not laws against viewing/drinking, although the intent of such laws may well be to make such legally difficult.
The porn site owner is only as guilty as Anheuser-Busch is when a 16 year old drinks a beer.
It is not necessarily criminal for a 16 year old to drink a beer. It is, however, criminal for Anheuser-Busch to supply him with that beer from the Clydsdale pulled wagon.
They do not card at bars because the 16 year old will be arrested. The bar owner doesn't give a shit about what happens to the 16 year old. The bar owner cards because he will be arrested if a 16 year old is found drinking in his establishment.
Slashdot Mirror
. . .you'll have get a fresh culture of them regularly.
I do, that's the problem.
KFG
Nice try, but you still have to go wash your hands before you can come to the dinner table.
KFG
I hope the lawyers are eaten alive by a cauldron full of insane, demonic, snow-weasels.
Why bring Canadian lawyers into it?
KFG
. . .a better cybercriminal than Kevin Mitnick.
Kevin Mitnick is a notorious cybercriminal, not a good one. In point of fact his notoriety is proportional to his failings, not his successes.
"Best" is subjective.
Dude, that was my one and only point.
KFG
Read Simak's "City," although you left out the role of dogs.
KFG
SQLite doesn't come in a Java version.
Another plus. Now if only something could be done about the SQL part.
KFG
Argue all you want
:)
Ok.
1. He suggests SQLite instead of BDB.
That's right, as an alternative, suggesting the use of BDB as an option in the systems he's talking about.
2. He mentions that BDB's "library-based archtecture" is a problem for said platforms.
No, he says that SQLite's library-based architecture is a plus in such systems.
KFG
Java wasn't invented to run on systems with no JVM and lack of dynamic library support.
Well, D'oh! Cars weren't invented to run without wheels either. So if you want a car, you put wheels on it.
SQLite and BDB, however, will run on those systems.
Why do you believe those are the systems OP was talking about? There's nothing in "handheld" that implies that.
Bias note: You'd probably have to shoot me before you could get me to use Java in an embedable system, or any other for that matter. I'm no Java fanboy defending his religion. I'm a major detractor. As far as I'm concerned the main purpose that Java serves in the universal grand scheme of things is to have something to point and giggle at.I honestly simply don't see your point is all.
KFG
we're discussing the Java version of BDB (which would be useless on the types of embedded platforms you're talking about)
Why? This is exactly the sort of thing Java was invented for. Don't confuse whichever head of the Hydra you are familiar with with the body of the beast.
KFG
If Java had begun it's life . . .
Line forms on the left. Be sure to have your headshot ready; so we can shoot your head.
KFG
Sun has been very reticent to actually "Open Source" (note the caps) Java because of the problems they had with Microsoft.
But then this all comes out of Java being the product of a commercial company that has been at "war" with Microsoft since day one, with no love lost between them since day one, each striving to dominate the "industry" with their product.
How many forks of Perl/Ruby/Python/PHP have there been?
Why? Because nobody feels any real personal stake in fucking over Larry for personal gain. We (including industry) just use his stuff; and if we have a problem with it we can just drop an email to Larry.
If Java had begun it's life as free software we wouldn't even be talking about this and, in point of fact, we probably wouldn't even be using it.
KFG
I'd like a Porsche for fifty bucks
I can't let you have a whole Porsche for that, but I've got some bits of a 356A available (I'm sitting in its driver's seat right now, both seats (mine and the car's) are almost exactly the same age) that you could have for that.
I took a few photos of the car before it got parted, I could let you have a limited, personal use only, license to a JPEG of one of them for $50, but frankly I don't think that's a terribly good deal for you.
If you want a print though I'm afraid $50 won't cover it. Plus there'll be shipping and handling charges. And that wouldn't include any intellectual property rights (beyond what you have by fair use law). I retain those. If you're interested in purchasing or licensing those our lawyers would have to have a chat.
Don't confuse the issue by mixing up intellectual and physical property. Be sure of what you are "buying."
KFG
I remember the 70s, and you got three songs for a quarter, the jukebox company had to buy the record and the venue had to pay ASCAP fees out of that quarter.
.
And an mp3 is not a high quality product. I posited a quarter for the actual CD quality cut.
The basic mechanical licensing rights cost almost that all by themselves. .
Proving the fair market value in the absence of having to distribute physical media.
KFG
Well, eMusic is also marked by a diversity of stuff in one place.
.
.wav, maybe a dime for lossey compression.
That may well be, but that isn't the claim, is it? The claim is that they are the only place to buy unemcumbered music online compatible with the iPod, and that is, quite frankly, what we in the trade call a "lie."
Now, if only they would switch to a flat $0.25 per song. .
Yes. That's the price point I've long claimed would be the correct one for downloaded music. Quite frankly I think that's about right for a
I only buy CDs. New directly from the artist or used for the commerically obtained stuff, but I think I'd be inclined to buy a shitload of mp3s for a dime apiece; and go back for the wav of the shit I actually liked, so they be selling me the good shit for $.35 a track.
A good incentive for promoting better music.
Of course, that isn't what they want, is it? Music is just soap/corn flakes to the commercial industry. They'd be happier selling anything else if they could make a better profit on it, but they've discovered that "crime" pays quite well if you can make it legally supported somehow.
KFG
"there's only two companies in the world that can sell to them--Apple and eMusic."
.
.doofey.
It's rather a startling point . .
. . . given how many people are doing it; and have been doing it for so long. Even more startling that Ars Technica seems to be uncritically accepting the marketing claim in the article and run with the ball. It's, well . .
It's even more doofey that Slashdot, which has run any number of stories about outfits selling/distributing unencumbered mp3s, should perpetuate the claim, but, well, it's Slashdot.
KFG
That would be "nothing."
The real issue in the Microsoft case was leveraging monopoly powers in a criminally coercive manner, with hints of fraud (as per the DR DOS case), not the mere bundling of the browser with the OS for "free."
Unfair competition, not the perfectly legitimate competition of offering something cheaper/free.
KFG
If you have strange sores, or another infection, a biopsy will reveal abnormalities.
But Dude, they have pictures of little bits of fluff pulled from acrylic yarn. I'm sure they could send in the actual bits of fluff to the CDC if they really wanted to and thus demonstrate with actual, physical evidence that they are infected with itchy sweaters.
KFG
What progress can insurgents really say they have made since the start of the war?
They have demonstrated that. . .
Iraq has had free elections, we've incorporated the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites into the government and we training of their military is ongoing . . .
are mockeries?
KFG
How do you pronounce the dollar sign in "M$ Winblows"?
Just like it's spelled:
Ca Ching!
KFG
I take it you're getting sick of this crap too?
KFG
My SO actually convicted someone of possession of a burglery tool.
The tool?
A screwdriver.
What makes this doublely daft is that the perp, who did commit a burglery, didn't use it in the comission of the burglery, it was . . . part of the loot.
KFG
. . .now the only way I can win an obfuscated programming contest is to write it in APL.
.well, if you're a mathematician who's memorized Iverson.
Wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis? APL code is intuitively obvious . .
KFG
Go read the code. It is a black letter crime of fact. Being supplied with a false ID does not supply one with an affirmative defense.
A porn site owner/brewery is guilty of distributing to a minor. . . if they distribute to a minor. It doesn't matter a damn what the minor clicks/provides. Any distributor who believes otherwise may well be in for a rude awakening.
And I can personlly vouch for the fact that above 16 year old (yourself I take it? What legal jurisdiction were you in and what was the actual charge?) may well have been falsely arrested. Just because you are arrested (or even convicted) is not actual evidence of having broken the law, unless you're posting from Myanmar or something.
It may well be perfectly legal for a 16 year old to drink (in my state, for instance) if the alcohol was legally distributed to him, and it is possible to so legally distribute.
Laws against possession/distribution/open container/public drunkeness are not laws against viewing/drinking, although the intent of such laws may well be to make such legally difficult.
KFG
The porn site owner is only as guilty as Anheuser-Busch is when a 16 year old drinks a beer.
It is not necessarily criminal for a 16 year old to drink a beer. It is, however, criminal for Anheuser-Busch to supply him with that beer from the Clydsdale pulled wagon.
They do not card at bars because the 16 year old will be arrested. The bar owner doesn't give a shit about what happens to the 16 year old. The bar owner cards because he will be arrested if a 16 year old is found drinking in his establishment.
KFG
I guess that makes a 16 year old kid viewing porn on the internet a better cyber criminal than Kevin Mitnick.
No, because this is not criminal behavior.
The porn site owner is the criminal better than Kevin Mitnick, who was so bad he was not only suspected of crime, he did time for it.
KFG