Of course it is in Webster's. The terms has been repeated so often and for so long the corporations have managed to 'frame the debate' - which is my entire point.
If we are going to play the 'definition game' then why not start with Wikipedia, where 'Software Piracy' re-directs to Copyright Infringement of Software. This is because although copyright infrigement of software is 'commonly referred to as software piracy' it is *not the same thing*! (despite Big Media trying to convince you it is).
However, in legal terms 'piracy' is an offence that does not include copyright infringment. Just because Webster's seeks to define a new and often-used phrase does not make the fallacy true! Getting folks like yourself to equate unsavoury pirates with copyright infringement was a deliberate ploy by Big Media - and some guillable people fall for the trick so hard that they even defend the position of Big Media rather than scratch down below the surface to find what is really going on.
Please Oligonicella, use your intellect and spend some time to find out what has been happen historically. For a long time commercial interests have slowly been eroding the laws and legal system. This is summarised by Havard professor Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_%28book%29). I hope after reading this book you'll feel less inclined to debate the 'letter of the law' (dictionary definitions) and debate about the 'spirit of the law' (the big picture). Happy holidays.
> In fact most of the copying of British manufacturing technology came about because of the war of 1812 and the British blockades and trade restrictions that prevented manufactured goods from outside the US from entering the country during the period following the revolution. This of course required the US to improvise mightily in moving its agrarian economy to one that included manufacturing capability.
So you admit that the US did steal. At least we can agree on that. I do have some followng questions though (with a train of thought):
So, you are saying that if a nation is at war with you then it is not immoral to steal their technology?
so cyberwar counts as a reason to steal?
so it is ok for the Chinese and Iranians to steal tech from the US then? would it have been ok for the Japanese to steal US tech in 1940? of course not
I'm trying to point out the contradiction in your position 'that is ok to steal' because there is some (weak) justification?
Going further (dangerous! but I'm trying to make a point), it is very unfortunate that the "we're the US so whatever we did/do is justified" attitude causes all sorts of bad things to happen outside the US. Recent example: the "Abu Gharib" mess happened because the "we're the Lone Ranger coming to save the World" attitude means some people feel that whatever they do is justified; it is a very dangerous attitude to have as not all people will weigh the justification against morality (although it is also clear that the vast majority of US servicemen were exemplary in the face of provocation - so this is not intended an anti-US swipe at all).
To summarize I think we agree that the US took tech from England when the English had higher tech than the US. Now that the US has the higher tech it is seeking to protect its investment (as you naturally would) but my point is that this is extremely hypocritical, especially when your legal protections and legislative systems are now so draconian (DCMA), anti-competitive, anti-democratic (ACTA,shills) and even worse are being enforced on other countries (ACTA,unfair trade treaties). Your position is that it was justified.
My position is that such justifications are dangerous and can be used to justify all sorts of immorality (this is in no way exclusive to the US, although the US does seem to use such justifications a lot). Now switching back to the topic at hand. The terms 'piracy' and 'intellectual property' are widley used because the corporations are repeating them endlessly yet they have no basis in lay (other terms cover the infringements). Unfortunately even some of the citizenry justify the corporate positions, despite historically the commerical operations themselves having changed their minds on it. Please note, I'm not for copyright infringement at all, I am for liberty of the citizenry though (eg libraries should retain the right to share copyrighted works; it should remain legal to share a newspaper; you should have the right to re-sell a game or book you have used - these are all slowly coming under threat).
> The interesting thing about copyright & free software advocates is the way they define 'free'. If free means that I can give my work to others without anyone placing encumbrances, then that's a good definition to advocate. More often than not, I hear the sentiment that since software must be free, anyone can take someone else's work whether they like it or not.
Man, you are behind the eight ball on this one. Here, I'll help straighten you out.
> If free means that I can give my work to others without anyone placing encumbrances, then that's a good definition to advocate.
This is free. It is also completely unprotected. Protection is essential to prevent "Embrace, extend, extinguish". Cases of this are Kerberos (which Microsoft esesentially killed as a common authentication with their NT authentication which extended and altered Kerberos); Transport Neutral Encapsulation Format (which is designed to anything but); and Java (where Microsoft sought to defeat the openness of Java by making a Windows-only version, but was defeated in court). From these, and many other examples if you care to look, you can see that a free but unprotected work will not last long as a free and widely used work. Hence it becomes necessary to make your work "free and protected" (protected from embrace, extend, extinguish by others).
If you want the freedom for *users* to be able to modify the software they use then it is necessary to use a free and protected license. Unfotunately the BSD license is free but has such weak protection it basically gives the author and users little protection from embrace, extend, extingush by unscrupulous corporations and individuals.
> More often than not, I hear the sentiment that since software must be free, anyone can take someone else's work whether they like it or not.
Then somone mis-informed is saying those things and you are right to baulk at the statements. AFAIK, the Free Software movement believes in copyright. The author of a work has no obligation to give the work to others. If they do decide to share with others then the Free Software movement believes that if you give something for free without protection then it will not remain free for long. If you contribute something for free with the protections then the freedoms will be perpetual.
Opponents of the Free Software movement often complain that the GPL and other licenses have 'infected' the code. What those people want to do is take the free software, incorporate it in their own product but share nothing of what was done. This is possible with the LGPL license (which recognises such as need in some cases) but not with the GPL license. The developers (eg. corporate interests) who are against the Free Software movement thus want to the "freedom to take" without passing such freedom on to their own users. From what you have written it seems you have an opinion which gets this backwards.
I hope that I've hope to explain this for you. The Free Software guys are (mostly) reasonable people trying to benefit everyone in a very hostile environment (as I say again, corporate interests want to lock users in and prevent the users from having true choice and freedom). However, there is a lot of misinformation (often well intentioned, but wrong in a Chinese Whispers kind of way) about the aims of the Free Software movement and licensing. The more you look at it from the original source (go to fsf.org!) then you can see their position is not unreasonable at all.
Actually, I don't copyright infringe - unless you count listening to music on youtube as such. I am against such things, so your assumptions about me are actually all incorrect (although they do fit the sterotype of the typical non-produicing sponger).
> First - as Oligonicella points out, your exercise in pedantry is not only a vanity but also incorrect. Piracy is commonly used (and defined in the dictionary) to equate to copyright infringement. Words can have more than one meaning.
Of course it is *now* in the dictionary. Big Corporations repeat phrases like 'piracy' and "Intellectual Property' again, and again, and and again (example: there is no such thing as 'Intelectual Property': legally there are patents, copyright, trademarks, and trade secrets;but not IP). Eventually the uninformed fall for it, and the dictionaries (Webster => US) put it in because it has been bandied about so much. However, repeating something incorrect doesn't make it true it just makes the fallacy commonly used. This is deliberate, and very clever ploy by the US Big Media companies, the guys who brought DMCA to the US and are now exporting it to NZ and elsewhere via ACTA (negotiated in secret, and initially drafted not by 2 poeple from the US government and 12 from Big Media interests - hardly representative of the people).
This framing of the debate has been happening for some time. Sure, don't believe me. How about you listen to a Harvard law professor, Lawrence Lessig, and see what he has to say on the subject. It will open your eyes a bit I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_(book) (summarized so you don't have to read the actual book)
I also think you have made the mistake of picking people who defend intellectual freedoms as copyright infringers, I think this may be because you have not yet understood the distinction between free (libre) and free (gratis). Easy to do since we have only one word in English (which is why the Latin terms get used by the Free Software movement, to make the distinction). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_Libre
So, amigo, your reply to my post made some assumptions that were correct for many people but not correct in my case. I hope the links I've given give you some holiday reading and also some food for thought. Just like Neo, we can only free minds when they are ready. The time to make sure the corporations don't subvert our lives too much (note: corporates and capitalism are ok, they just shouldn't be making and ammending our laws for their interests or blocking laws instigated by the citizenry). Kia kaha!
The word 'piracy' is an attempt by Big Media to frame the debate. Let's be clear: 'piracy' is unlawfully attacking a ship on the high seas; 'copyright infringement' means unlawfully copying something. In this case 'freedom' will never equate to piracy. Freedom may mean ignoring copyright infringment if it is for the greater social good (which is my understanding of Stallman's position) - in fact in the past the USA was founded on industries that bypassed patents and copyrights held by British industry (such as automated looms etc), so such as position is not without precedent and is no less moral than the fledgling US government (the 'Founding Fathers' as they seem to be idolized as today).
n00b. No one forces you to adopt the GPL. Only those enlightened souls who *actually create something* can choose to use the GPL. All the *non-creators* who want to use the stuff the creators made without giving their own users the same freedoms are the ones who whinge.
GPL is not slavery and saying it is means you have a poor grasp of it. GPL is set of copyright terms that are designed to avoid slavery/proprietary lock-in/corporate malfeasance to users. If you don't want to use/re-use GPL software then don't. The GPL creators owe you nothing so quit whinging. How about you *create* something yourself - then we'll see what the copyright infringers and software stealers (China is bad for this) make with your stuff.
nb.
> "Now get back to programming Silverlight on your Zune."
This was mean to be a joke made to an someone who seemed to think that Windows development was better and also subtlely point out that actually it was Windows products that were being deprecated (as they must be in order for Microsoft's business model to work) and not Java on Apple. Apologies if you missed the point of the ribbing and took it as a literal personal attack instead.
> "Sorry if your 'critical thinking' selectively ignores words."
This was a direct response to you stating that I lacked critical thinking. I didn't start that one. I was also trying to point out if you cast out insults like that you bettrer be careful - since I knew your point about Java-on-Apple was wrong.
> "Sorry if that disturbs your little Microsoft-is-betterer worldview."
Hardly a venomous insult unless one was a bit sensitive. From your posts and defence of the Microsoft developmemt tools (which I use regularly) it appeared you think Apple development sucks, Windows is better, and Jav ais dying. From your posts you do have a Windows is betterer worldview, which as a development practitioner across all the operating systems I have to disagree with you there - Windows development really sucks because Microsoft love making their tools far more complicated (damn compiler switches for different flavours of Windows that a good compiler could work out itself).
Anyone who wants to resort to physical violence to resolve a debate, even a heated one, has an anger management problem. Sticks and stones... Plus, it is a bad idea with me, I've done boxing for a very long time (while I worked on the PhD in Astrophysics in fact):) But yes, I get your point and thanks for taking the time ot make it. I hope you also learned that the other person can actually be right and to double-check your facts before you post. Cheers.
Your "righteous indigination"? You were wrong and I was trying to point out something exceeding obvious. It took several frustrating attempts to get it through to you but you. Sorry I had to bludgeon it through, which you took as ad hominem, and then diverted with an irrelevant Windows vs Linux debate. My intent was not to ruffle your ego. My original statements were about tools, not operating systems, since it appears you didn't read my post properly at all before coming up with verifiably FALSE FUD about Java. Sorry man, if anyone should feel aggrieved with your incorrect statements and slowness in getting the point it should be me - but I'm cool. If you had been correct then I would have been pleased to have learned something as I'm an ex-physicist and will change my worldview as soon as I realise something is wrong and someone has a better world model. I'm just very glad you learned something and I hope that means you won't have to put up the Java FUD here anymore and throw tantrums when you don't grok stuff or when covering your error ('punk', lol). Peace.
"Apple supplied" - those are the key words. Sorry if your 'critical thinking' selectively ignores words. Basically they are saying don't rely on APPLE supplying a Java (or anything else for that matter). There is no prohibition on Oracle (which is the current handover plan Apple and Oracle are working through - which I guess you don't know about), or IBM, or GNU Classpath supplying one. Sorry if that disturbs your little Microsoft-is-betterer worldview.
You are missing the point. You can coarsely predict the future value of some stocks and it is not good for Microsoft. Crowing about their growth in the past does not make them a good investment now. That was my point.
Actually it is better and should always have been with Sun/Oracle (and also OpenJDK). Oracle have a far larger interest in keeping Java up to date on all the platforms than Apple do.
Nope, in that case I can use GCJ to compile my Java to anwhere C compiles to - and have done so for embedded devices in the past. Incidentally, what Apple are talking about is the "Apple-supplied" runtime. They are now working with Oracle so that the Oracle-supplied runtime works on Apple. Meanwhile the OpenJDK already is ahead of both of them (OpenJDK 7 works on Apple already). That's the nice thing about a healthy ecosystem with more than a single-source supplier and a mix of proprietary and Free Software. Now get back to programming Silverlight on your Zune:)
Actually, I have Apple hardware (among others) but prefer Java for most development (since I do use Windows, Linux and OS X as I stated, and Java covers it all). Java is simple *by design* - despite having two decades of dev experience on a lot of languages I've come to the conclusion that part of being good is finding the simplest way to do things, not the most complex way (before you start - I've a PhD in Astrophysics I have a better than fair chance of handling the complex stuff). This is where Microsoft fails miserably - in their *design*.
Actually, if Microsoft didn't do share buy backs with their profits their stock price would have dropped already. I don't have any of their stock but given the low dividend for their stock price I would not want to be holding their stock for much longer.
Actually I own a MacBook Pro (in addition to other Windows and Linux boxen) and most of the programs work really well - far better than their counterparts on Windows. So if the common denominator (the MacBook) works ok for most stuff then it is Office that is busted. Some of that may be intentional (works better on Windows, by design - it certainly used to be this way until very recently) or not intentional (try to get it good, but don't really care about the Mac). Either way, their software is not that good when you compare it to the reliability of other developers. Some of this may be because their development tools are pretty awful (so many hoops and flags and settings to get something to compile - all because they are so Windows focussed).
You are free to alter OpenJDK. You are free to create a *compatible* implementation. You may not use the word Java unless you pass the TCK. Tell me how this is not Free Software, and while you are at it tell me how this stacks up against your original assertion (Java is as non-Free as Windows).
> You are not allowed to change or use Java source based on the Java "open source" license, and more importantly due to patents by Oracle.
Again, you have been listening to too much FUD and your understanding of the situation is tenuous (which leads you to avoid Java instead and adopt non-Free technology instead, just what Microsoft want and you fell for it hook-line-and sinker and furthermore even repeat the FUD). Oracle will use its patents to defend agains people who break the licensing conditions and make non-compatible versions of Java (eg Google) just as Sun did with Microsoft (and was proven correct by the court). While I dislike Oracle's business ethos and practice as much as the next joe, it is the OpenJDK where the action is at, and this is Free Software (but must be defended so write-once run-anywhere still works - and I rely on this on a daily basis).
Yeah Java is about as open source as Microsoft Windows. Didn't the whole Harmony fiasco teach you something ? It doesn't matter if the JDK is open source when Oracle is the only one that can grant conformance tests to an implementation. And if you try to improve on Java without Oracle's good graces you open yourself to big Larry's lawyers. Just like Google. What a fucking joke.
If Oracle goes crazy then no-one will care if they do or don't grant conformance to their implementation. What will matter is that OpenJDK (and probably allies) will still be usable and extendable by anyone thanks to it being Free Software. This is an exactly analogous situation to OpenOffice and LibreOffice. What matters is the version that users are using and maintainers are maintaining - in that example it is LibreOffice that has the momentum and no-one cares a whit that Oracle has 'gone off the deep end'. Java also has the same beauty in its situation (even if you can't seem to grok it). In fact, this is one of the things that Free Software gives you (that Open Source does not, since you probably don't even know the difference). This is not at all analogous to the.NET/Windows situation which you mentioned. That's quite a Fail, amigo - I suggest you do some of your own research on software licensing and stop reading the bollox FUD on MSDN and poorly-informed synchophantic sites.
Who cares if Oracle kill their Java. The Free Software OpenJDK is where the action is at. Then there is IBM Java, and GNU gcj/classpath, and Kaffe, and others. It is not a situation like.NET where if Microsoft kills it then it'll die everywhere (due to the proprietary licensing).
You do know that the Java runtime is an order of managitude smaller than the.NET runtime dont you (and that is not even considering that.NET also requires the bulk on Windows while Java does not). In short, your knowledge is severly out of date - you musta been drinking the Microsoft koolaid. Well, here is news for you,.NET will be superceded by another Microsoft product long before people stop using Java (especially in the Enterprise space).
Where have you been, sinophile? China is late to the party - many, many other countries have had people with engineering/scientific backgrounds running the country or in significant positions within government. It is great that China is too, but they're hardly the first dontyaknow?
Slashdot Mirror
If we are going to play the 'definition game' then why not start with Wikipedia, where 'Software Piracy' re-directs to Copyright Infringement of Software. This is because although copyright infrigement of software is 'commonly referred to as software piracy' it is *not the same thing*! (despite Big Media trying to convince you it is).
However, in legal terms 'piracy' is an offence that does not include copyright infringment. Just because Webster's seeks to define a new and often-used phrase does not make the fallacy true! Getting folks like yourself to equate unsavoury pirates with copyright infringement was a deliberate ploy by Big Media - and some guillable people fall for the trick so hard that they even defend the position of Big Media rather than scratch down below the surface to find what is really going on.
Please Oligonicella, use your intellect and spend some time to find out what has been happen historically. For a long time commercial interests have slowly been eroding the laws and legal system. This is summarised by Havard professor Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_%28book%29). I hope after reading this book you'll feel less inclined to debate the 'letter of the law' (dictionary definitions) and debate about the 'spirit of the law' (the big picture). Happy holidays.
So you admit that the US did steal. At least we can agree on that. I do have some followng questions though (with a train of thought):
So, you are saying that if a nation is at war with you then it is not immoral to steal their technology?
so cyberwar counts as a reason to steal?
so it is ok for the Chinese and Iranians to steal tech from the US then? would it have been ok for the Japanese to steal US tech in 1940? of course not
I'm trying to point out the contradiction in your position 'that is ok to steal' because there is some (weak) justification?
Going further (dangerous! but I'm trying to make a point), it is very unfortunate that the "we're the US so whatever we did/do is justified" attitude causes all sorts of bad things to happen outside the US. Recent example: the "Abu Gharib" mess happened because the "we're the Lone Ranger coming to save the World" attitude means some people feel that whatever they do is justified; it is a very dangerous attitude to have as not all people will weigh the justification against morality (although it is also clear that the vast majority of US servicemen were exemplary in the face of provocation - so this is not intended an anti-US swipe at all).
To summarize I think we agree that the US took tech from England when the English had higher tech than the US. Now that the US has the higher tech it is seeking to protect its investment (as you naturally would) but my point is that this is extremely hypocritical, especially when your legal protections and legislative systems are now so draconian (DCMA), anti-competitive, anti-democratic (ACTA,shills) and even worse are being enforced on other countries (ACTA,unfair trade treaties). Your position is that it was justified.
My position is that such justifications are dangerous and can be used to justify all sorts of immorality (this is in no way exclusive to the US, although the US does seem to use such justifications a lot). Now switching back to the topic at hand. The terms 'piracy' and 'intellectual property' are widley used because the corporations are repeating them endlessly yet they have no basis in lay (other terms cover the infringements). Unfortunately even some of the citizenry justify the corporate positions, despite historically the commerical operations themselves having changed their minds on it. Please note, I'm not for copyright infringement at all, I am for liberty of the citizenry though (eg libraries should retain the right to share copyrighted works; it should remain legal to share a newspaper; you should have the right to re-sell a game or book you have used - these are all slowly coming under threat).
> and this is your attempt to frame the debate, so you can steal more #$%^
lol (but in fact wrong in my case).
Man, you are behind the eight ball on this one. Here, I'll help straighten you out.
> If free means that I can give my work to others without anyone placing encumbrances, then that's a good definition to advocate.
This is free. It is also completely unprotected. Protection is essential to prevent "Embrace, extend, extinguish". Cases of this are Kerberos (which Microsoft esesentially killed as a common authentication with their NT authentication which extended and altered Kerberos); Transport Neutral Encapsulation Format (which is designed to anything but); and Java (where Microsoft sought to defeat the openness of Java by making a Windows-only version, but was defeated in court). From these, and many other examples if you care to look, you can see that a free but unprotected work will not last long as a free and widely used work. Hence it becomes necessary to make your work "free and protected" (protected from embrace, extend, extinguish by others).
If you want the freedom for *users* to be able to modify the software they use then it is necessary to use a free and protected license. Unfotunately the BSD license is free but has such weak protection it basically gives the author and users little protection from embrace, extend, extingush by unscrupulous corporations and individuals.
> More often than not, I hear the sentiment that since software must be free, anyone can take someone else's work whether they like it or not.
Then somone mis-informed is saying those things and you are right to baulk at the statements. AFAIK, the Free Software movement believes in copyright. The author of a work has no obligation to give the work to others. If they do decide to share with others then the Free Software movement believes that if you give something for free without protection then it will not remain free for long. If you contribute something for free with the protections then the freedoms will be perpetual.
Opponents of the Free Software movement often complain that the GPL and other licenses have 'infected' the code. What those people want to do is take the free software, incorporate it in their own product but share nothing of what was done. This is possible with the LGPL license (which recognises such as need in some cases) but not with the GPL license. The developers (eg. corporate interests) who are against the Free Software movement thus want to the "freedom to take" without passing such freedom on to their own users. From what you have written it seems you have an opinion which gets this backwards.
I hope that I've hope to explain this for you. The Free Software guys are (mostly) reasonable people trying to benefit everyone in a very hostile environment (as I say again, corporate interests want to lock users in and prevent the users from having true choice and freedom). However, there is a lot of misinformation (often well intentioned, but wrong in a Chinese Whispers kind of way) about the aims of the Free Software movement and licensing. The more you look at it from the original source (go to fsf.org!) then you can see their position is not unreasonable at all.
Actually, I don't copyright infringe - unless you count listening to music on youtube as such. I am against such things, so your assumptions about me are actually all incorrect (although they do fit the sterotype of the typical non-produicing sponger).
> First - as Oligonicella points out, your exercise in pedantry is not only a vanity but also incorrect. Piracy is commonly used (and defined in the dictionary) to equate to copyright infringement. Words can have more than one meaning.
Of course it is *now* in the dictionary. Big Corporations repeat phrases like 'piracy' and "Intellectual Property' again, and again, and and again (example: there is no such thing as 'Intelectual Property': legally there are patents, copyright, trademarks, and trade secrets;but not IP). Eventually the uninformed fall for it, and the dictionaries (Webster => US) put it in because it has been bandied about so much. However, repeating something incorrect doesn't make it true it just makes the fallacy commonly used. This is deliberate, and very clever ploy by the US Big Media companies, the guys who brought DMCA to the US and are now exporting it to NZ and elsewhere via ACTA (negotiated in secret, and initially drafted not by 2 poeple from the US government and 12 from Big Media interests - hardly representative of the people).
This framing of the debate has been happening for some time. Sure, don't believe me. How about you listen to a Harvard law professor, Lawrence Lessig, and see what he has to say on the subject. It will open your eyes a bit I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_(book) (summarized so you don't have to read the actual book)
I also think you have made the mistake of picking people who defend intellectual freedoms as copyright infringers, I think this may be because you have not yet understood the distinction between free (libre) and free (gratis). Easy to do since we have only one word in English (which is why the Latin terms get used by the Free Software movement, to make the distinction).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_Libre
So, amigo, your reply to my post made some assumptions that were correct for many people but not correct in my case. I hope the links I've given give you some holiday reading and also some food for thought. Just like Neo, we can only free minds when they are ready. The time to make sure the corporations don't subvert our lives too much (note: corporates and capitalism are ok, they just shouldn't be making and ammending our laws for their interests or blocking laws instigated by the citizenry). Kia kaha!
Quit whinging. It needed to be fixed and is now fixed - this is just the transition period.
The word 'piracy' is an attempt by Big Media to frame the debate. Let's be clear: 'piracy' is unlawfully attacking a ship on the high seas; 'copyright infringement' means unlawfully copying something. In this case 'freedom' will never equate to piracy. Freedom may mean ignoring copyright infringment if it is for the greater social good (which is my understanding of Stallman's position) - in fact in the past the USA was founded on industries that bypassed patents and copyrights held by British industry (such as automated looms etc), so such as position is not without precedent and is no less moral than the fledgling US government (the 'Founding Fathers' as they seem to be idolized as today).
n00b. No one forces you to adopt the GPL. Only those enlightened souls who *actually create something* can choose to use the GPL. All the *non-creators* who want to use the stuff the creators made without giving their own users the same freedoms are the ones who whinge.
GPL is not slavery and saying it is means you have a poor grasp of it. GPL is set of copyright terms that are designed to avoid slavery/proprietary lock-in/corporate malfeasance to users. If you don't want to use/re-use GPL software then don't. The GPL creators owe you nothing so quit whinging. How about you *create* something yourself - then we'll see what the copyright infringers and software stealers (China is bad for this) make with your stuff.
And you were still wrong. Punk.
> "Now get back to programming Silverlight on your Zune."
This was mean to be a joke made to an someone who seemed to think that Windows development was better and also subtlely point out that actually it was Windows products that were being deprecated (as they must be in order for Microsoft's business model to work) and not Java on Apple. Apologies if you missed the point of the ribbing and took it as a literal personal attack instead.
> "Sorry if your 'critical thinking' selectively ignores words."
This was a direct response to you stating that I lacked critical thinking. I didn't start that one. I was also trying to point out if you cast out insults like that you bettrer be careful - since I knew your point about Java-on-Apple was wrong.
> "Sorry if that disturbs your little Microsoft-is-betterer worldview."
Hardly a venomous insult unless one was a bit sensitive. From your posts and defence of the Microsoft developmemt tools (which I use regularly) it appeared you think Apple development sucks, Windows is better, and Jav ais dying. From your posts you do have a Windows is betterer worldview, which as a development practitioner across all the operating systems I have to disagree with you there - Windows development really sucks because Microsoft love making their tools far more complicated (damn compiler switches for different flavours of Windows that a good compiler could work out itself).
Anyone who wants to resort to physical violence to resolve a debate, even a heated one, has an anger management problem. Sticks and stones ... Plus, it is a bad idea with me, I've done boxing for a very long time (while I worked on the PhD in Astrophysics in fact) :) But yes, I get your point and thanks for taking the time ot make it. I hope you also learned that the other person can actually be right and to double-check your facts before you post. Cheers.
Your "righteous indigination"? You were wrong and I was trying to point out something exceeding obvious. It took several frustrating attempts to get it through to you but you. Sorry I had to bludgeon it through, which you took as ad hominem, and then diverted with an irrelevant Windows vs Linux debate. My intent was not to ruffle your ego. My original statements were about tools, not operating systems, since it appears you didn't read my post properly at all before coming up with verifiably FALSE FUD about Java. Sorry man, if anyone should feel aggrieved with your incorrect statements and slowness in getting the point it should be me - but I'm cool. If you had been correct then I would have been pleased to have learned something as I'm an ex-physicist and will change my worldview as soon as I realise something is wrong and someone has a better world model. I'm just very glad you learned something and I hope that means you won't have to put up the Java FUD here anymore and throw tantrums when you don't grok stuff or when covering your error ('punk', lol). Peace.
"Apple supplied" - those are the key words. Sorry if your 'critical thinking' selectively ignores words. Basically they are saying don't rely on APPLE supplying a Java (or anything else for that matter). There is no prohibition on Oracle (which is the current handover plan Apple and Oracle are working through - which I guess you don't know about), or IBM, or GNU Classpath supplying one. Sorry if that disturbs your little Microsoft-is-betterer worldview.
You are missing the point. You can coarsely predict the future value of some stocks and it is not good for Microsoft. Crowing about their growth in the past does not make them a good investment now. That was my point.
Actually it is better and should always have been with Sun/Oracle (and also OpenJDK). Oracle have a far larger interest in keeping Java up to date on all the platforms than Apple do.
Nope, in that case I can use GCJ to compile my Java to anwhere C compiles to - and have done so for embedded devices in the past. Incidentally, what Apple are talking about is the "Apple-supplied" runtime. They are now working with Oracle so that the Oracle-supplied runtime works on Apple. Meanwhile the OpenJDK already is ahead of both of them (OpenJDK 7 works on Apple already). That's the nice thing about a healthy ecosystem with more than a single-source supplier and a mix of proprietary and Free Software. Now get back to programming Silverlight on your Zune :)
Actually, I have Apple hardware (among others) but prefer Java for most development (since I do use Windows, Linux and OS X as I stated, and Java covers it all). Java is simple *by design* - despite having two decades of dev experience on a lot of languages I've come to the conclusion that part of being good is finding the simplest way to do things, not the most complex way (before you start - I've a PhD in Astrophysics I have a better than fair chance of handling the complex stuff). This is where Microsoft fails miserably - in their *design*.
Who cares about the past. What matters in this game is the future.
Actually, if Microsoft didn't do share buy backs with their profits their stock price would have dropped already. I don't have any of their stock but given the low dividend for their stock price I would not want to be holding their stock for much longer.
Actually I own a MacBook Pro (in addition to other Windows and Linux boxen) and most of the programs work really well - far better than their counterparts on Windows. So if the common denominator (the MacBook) works ok for most stuff then it is Office that is busted. Some of that may be intentional (works better on Windows, by design - it certainly used to be this way until very recently) or not intentional (try to get it good, but don't really care about the Mac). Either way, their software is not that good when you compare it to the reliability of other developers. Some of this may be because their development tools are pretty awful (so many hoops and flags and settings to get something to compile - all because they are so Windows focussed).
> You are not allowed to change or use Java source based on the Java "open source" license, and more importantly due to patents by Oracle.
Again, you have been listening to too much FUD and your understanding of the situation is tenuous (which leads you to avoid Java instead and adopt non-Free technology instead, just what Microsoft want and you fell for it hook-line-and sinker and furthermore even repeat the FUD). Oracle will use its patents to defend agains people who break the licensing conditions and make non-compatible versions of Java (eg Google) just as Sun did with Microsoft (and was proven correct by the court). While I dislike Oracle's business ethos and practice as much as the next joe, it is the OpenJDK where the action is at, and this is Free Software (but must be defended so write-once run-anywhere still works - and I rely on this on a daily basis).
Yeah Java is about as open source as Microsoft Windows. Didn't the whole Harmony fiasco teach you something ? It doesn't matter if the JDK is open source when Oracle is the only one that can grant conformance tests to an implementation. And if you try to improve on Java without Oracle's good graces you open yourself to big Larry's lawyers. Just like Google. What a fucking joke.
If Oracle goes crazy then no-one will care if they do or don't grant conformance to their implementation. What will matter is that OpenJDK (and probably allies) will still be usable and extendable by anyone thanks to it being Free Software. This is an exactly analogous situation to OpenOffice and LibreOffice. What matters is the version that users are using and maintainers are maintaining - in that example it is LibreOffice that has the momentum and no-one cares a whit that Oracle has 'gone off the deep end'. Java also has the same beauty in its situation (even if you can't seem to grok it). In fact, this is one of the things that Free Software gives you (that Open Source does not, since you probably don't even know the difference). This is not at all analogous to the .NET/Windows situation which you mentioned. That's quite a Fail, amigo - I suggest you do some of your own research on software licensing and stop reading the bollox FUD on MSDN and poorly-informed synchophantic sites.
Who cares if Oracle kill their Java. The Free Software OpenJDK is where the action is at. Then there is IBM Java, and GNU gcj/classpath, and Kaffe, and others. It is not a situation like .NET where if Microsoft kills it then it'll die everywhere (due to the proprietary licensing).
You do know that the Java runtime is an order of managitude smaller than the .NET runtime dont you (and that is not even considering that .NET also requires the bulk on Windows while Java does not). In short, your knowledge is severly out of date - you musta been drinking the Microsoft koolaid. Well, here is news for you, .NET will be superceded by another Microsoft product long before people stop using Java (especially in the Enterprise space).
Where have you been, sinophile? China is late to the party - many, many other countries have had people with engineering/scientific backgrounds running the country or in significant positions within government. It is great that China is too, but they're hardly the first dontyaknow?