Just because the features of the languages are close, doesn't mean that the platforms are close. From a language standpoint, since both are OO, and since both rely on type safety, and the safety of an abstract machine, you are correct that they are similar. However, the concepts of Properties (vs. Getter and Setter methods), Enum's, and Delegate's can noteably change the design from one to the other.
However, we are talking about.NET and J2EE, not C# and Java. How would one implement the same design for a Web Application in J2EE and.NET? JSP is based on inline scripting with HTML, with code reuse focusing on procedural subroutines (custom tags), as well as "servlet's" which have some basic objects to interact with the client (eg response, request, and session). ASP.NET is based on an event driven model, with code reuse focusing on OO (Controls - which although seemingly like custom tags, are quite different), as well as any.NET object. In JSP you would follow some sort of a FuseBox type design pattern, and in ASP.NET you would follow a traditional OO software design pattern.
Anyone who has ever seriously used both J2EE and.NET, especially for Web Applications, will dissagree with your contention that the "similarities outweigh the differences by far".
Practically speaking this is false on two fronts. The biggest front is Web Application Development. JSP and ASP.NET are radically different. Anyone who has worked with both for even the smallest project will agree. Application Development also differs between Java's multiple GUI lib's (which are starting to differ between platforms I might add) to.NET's WinForms.
Allthough we can build a shopping cart with both.NET and Java (not to mention Cold Fusion, PHP, and Perl), that doesn't mean that the difference is simply preference.
You are right on. I would like to comment that if you boycott movies like LoTR, you are letting the MPAA win - they're still taking away your freedom.
I myself believe that I have found a good balance. For one, I try to minimize going to the movies. I love the movies, but when I go to a good movie and then buy it on DVD, I'm paying the MPAA twice. I've limited my moviegoing to less then once per month. With some exceptions, epic movies like LoTR are the only movies that I bother seeing in the theatre. With the money I save (and at $9 per pop it's a lot) I donate to the EFF (and then some). The EFF needs serious contributions, because in America laws need to be bought. If all you can afford is $50/year, that's better then nothing. However, the EFF needs much more aggresive contribution as it does not reach as wide of a demographic than say, the ACLU.
Because music has a lower barrier of entry, it's a lot easier to avoid the monopoly. There's a lot of independant musicians on Mp3.Com, as well as on Vinyl. Granted, I'm an aspiring DJ so I understand that Vinyl isn't the best medium for most people. My hope is to get back to the days where local DJ's influenced purchasing decisions as opposed to ClearChannel. Many DJ's now have websites with links to Mp3.Com or independant artist sites so that you can support them directly.
The bottom line, don't boycott, buy smart, and donate to organizations that can actually make a difference.
I'd say it's pretty likely that MS will use a carrot-and-stick approach to force him onto Windows.
First of all, aside from the OEM deals which forced people to include Windows (this of course has been remedied by the DOJ), people are not forced to use Windows. Rick is a big boy, and makes decisions for himself. MS is not the mob that people make them out to be here. First and formost, he's a businessman. He's looking for the best solution for his business, not a religion. If he feels that Linux is best, it's not because of a bunch of zealots or RMS, it's because he feels it's the best technology. If he see's that MS can provide them with a better technology, it's not because he would have gotten a free yacht - trust me, he has enough of those anyway.
Wow - great to hear from a fellow "developer by day, DJ by night". I just started (bought two 1200 M3D's about 2 months ago) and I'm still buying records and practicing for my first set (my first official gig is in March, but I'm lookin to spin in Jan as well).
Ya, Final Scratch looks awesome, but I don't want to drag a computer around.
I have studio grade reference monitors that go down to 34hz (Event 20/20bas). I have many DnB records that have killer baselines - killer because they'll rip up even my nice monitors. Without a subwoofer I am not able to hear the baselines.
I just bought a couple of 1200 M3D's which are a very subtle design change from the MK2's. I liken these turntables to the Hummer (no, not the Jeap made wannabe H2). The design has been around for decades because it was designed so well in the first place, and it's continued to be built using quality components.
Instead of coming up with weird 'royalty' reasons, come up with good business reasons for IBM to open source this product.
Exactly. What some people here don't seem to understand is that IBM is not "loyal" to OSS, they are loyal to profit (it's called a business). They use OSS software in certain solutions because it saves them money. They essentially get to profit off of the backs of OSS programmers who code for free. IBM doesn't buy into the RMS BS, or any of the FSF BS. They are a business in a capitalistic country. Why does this philisophical BS come up every time a company chooses OSS - especially an American company who used to be a monopoly?
If their products were just Good Enough To Work, they would have never won in the office productivity or consumer desktop space. The bottom line is that their products and business model was far superior. The old kings of the hill are now dead. Microsoft was the underdog at one point. True, part of their strategy is buying up small companies, but that doesn't negate from the quality of their software. Plus, it's the talent that they aquire most of the time, not the actual product. For example, both IIS and IE were born from strategic aquisitions. However, they've both been completely rewritten since then.
I'll agree that MS has it's flaws (like any company), and I could spend a LOT of time critisizing them, but I'm sick of people jealous of their legitimate success.
Because they DO have a huge monopoly, because they DID get it through illicit means
No, they didn't. No court has ever found this to be the case, and most reasonable people consider MS's success due to a combination of good marketing and innovation. This pisses/. off, but the bottom line is OSS is still _playing catchup_.
Don't forget about Word Perfect. I don't remember ever using anything but WP. And for those that didn't, they used Wordstar. Hardly anyone used Word at one point in time - it's not MS's fault that they got ahead of the game and won.
Oh, and if MS is so evil, why is the "UnRedmond" store linked from your sig running on ASP.NET? Seems kind of hypocritcal does it not?
They could just pay them salary and not have that problem. Microsoft tech guys are always in the newsgroups and I know many who particiapte in their own time.
Actually, most people do, but because they don't know what they _CAN_ do, than they are limited to what they thought the wanted to do (in some cases). My mother does silly greeting cards (God bless her!), games (games not available on Linux, but may be available on OS X), CD Audio (this has admittedly gotten a lot better of late with OSS), and other things that I personally don't even know about. My Dad, on the other hand, only uses his box for Word Processing and CD and DVD playing. Of course, in the future he may also want to manage his photos via a firewire camera. This is why I got him a G4 iMac. It works GREAT for him. A linux setup would not have worry-free DVD playing, and the photo management with firewire support is less likely to become available. Plus, OS X is just a heck of a lot easier to use then Gnome or KDE.
Also, I don't have time to setup machines for my parents - I'm extremely busy, and what time I spend with them I want to be socializing, not messing with their boxes. My Mom bought her Dell and got it up and running w/o my help. I bought the Mac with my Dad, but he pretty much did everything on his own while I sat and watched. The only "tech support" calls I've gotten is from my Mom because she uses Outlook and had a virus or spyware or something. I then instructed her how to clean the virus, use adaware, and pointed her to Eudora if she chooses, or to just stick with web-based email clients. So, other than OE being a complete POS, everything's been great. Niether of them care about saving the ~$10 to $50 (Windows and OS X respectively, less ~$40 for a boxed Linux distro) OS cost because all it takes is a couple hours of wasted time trying to get a driver or piece of software to work, and it's just not worth it.
I proposed a solution for a call center to use all Linux based PC's (NetPC's or the like) because all the callcenter did was use email and the web (all of our customer management software is web based). Usability was not a concern since all we had to do is customize an interface that allowed them to go to Web and Email, and maybe even a simple word processer. The problem with Linux comes when a user needs to do more then that. Although Linux has come a long way, I'd much rather stick my parents on WinXP or OS X (I did the latter with my Dad) then any Linux distro.
I waste my time doing this about once a year. I Before Win95 I used Linux almost as much as I used DOS. But, as my time became more valuable a GUI was in need. Win95 gave it to me, X has never given it to me. I'll keep trying so that I'm "open minded", but when a company can take a couple years and get unix on the deskop right (OS X) practically the first time (admittidly, it was released a few months too early), I become uninterested in the year after year failures of the OSS alternatives.
The problem is that when I buy a TV, it is not easily modified. The manufacturer does not give me the production notes to help me dissasemble it. But legally, I CAN dissamble it, for educational pruposes or otherwise. OSS is totally different. I can make a change to it, but I can then sell multiple copies of it. This has nothnig to do with personal ownership, and everything to do with corporations profiting off of the backs of programmers who work for free. EULA's aside (which have yet to be proven that they have any weight in court), no one is stopping you from using SoftIce on a program and recompiling it for your own use - I essentially do that all the time via NOCD "Cracks" so that I don't have to use my CD for games that I OWN. I don't need the entire source code to Quake to make this modification. The difference, again, is that I'm not selling this software to people on ebay. Heck, even Microsoft is not going after people who modify their personal XBox's - they just won't support you. (Note: They ARE going after _Businesses_ who are makeing devices for the purposes of piracy - this is seperate from our individual right to open up the box).
Microsoft is not a "convicted monopolist", they have a monopoly on the Desktop OS for x86 and Office Productivity product spaces. Apple is competing just fine, and it's not MS's fault that until late Linux has failed on the desktop, and that Sun and Netscape (via all Web Based Software) couldn't take over the desktop with Java like it thought it could.
Please site your references for this "fact" (actually, I suppose that you're not far off but I'm not interested in what you or I "feel", I need real references).
Fact #2:
This has some truth, but the bottom line is it's MY software, not yours to decide what's best for society. Thanks to OOP becoming more and more useful as well as common platforms or communication layers (Java,.NET, XML, Web Services) you'll see more code reuse without the need to open up the source - just the need for reflection and/or documentation.
Oh, and go ask any civil engineering company for even some details on the physics modeling software used for the last major bridge that they built. These companies compete on designing bridges that take up less space and raw materials while achieving incredible levels of structural integrity. It's the physics modeling software that let's them do this, and we'll see how likely they are to let the competition in on any of the details, let alone the source code and algorithms for their models.
You're missing my point when I used the word broaden. I'm saying, his philosophy is really not a software related philosophy, but it's a socioeconomic philosophy which involves all products and services, not just software. His focus on software, IMHO, makes him look like a utopian idealist computer nerd!
If one believes in equality, democracy, and the drive to make a better humanity, one can easily be lead to believe that everyone's time should be equally compensated.
So your time playing XBox is just as valuable as my time being productive? I believe in democracy, and I believe that everyone is create equal, but if you want to be a communitist or communalist then why live in the USA, and why not fight the political fight instead of (excuse the expression) poisoning a legitimate industry?
Slashdot Mirror
What, that the patch get's quickly coded with no regression testing? Regression testing takes TIME, not EYES.
Just because the features of the languages are close, doesn't mean that the platforms are close. From a language standpoint, since both are OO, and since both rely on type safety, and the safety of an abstract machine, you are correct that they are similar. However, the concepts of Properties (vs. Getter and Setter methods), Enum's, and Delegate's can noteably change the design from one to the other.
.NET and J2EE, not C# and Java. How would one implement the same design for a Web Application in J2EE and .NET? JSP is based on inline scripting with HTML, with code reuse focusing on procedural subroutines (custom tags), as well as "servlet's" which have some basic objects to interact with the client (eg response, request, and session). ASP.NET is based on an event driven model, with code reuse focusing on OO (Controls - which although seemingly like custom tags, are quite different), as well as any .NET object. In JSP you would follow some sort of a FuseBox type design pattern, and in ASP.NET you would follow a traditional OO software design pattern.
.NET, especially for Web Applications, will dissagree with your contention that the "similarities outweigh the differences by far".
However, we are talking about
Anyone who has ever seriously used both J2EE and
Practically speaking this is false on two fronts. The biggest front is Web Application Development. JSP and ASP.NET are radically different. Anyone who has worked with both for even the smallest project will agree. Application Development also differs between Java's multiple GUI lib's (which are starting to differ between platforms I might add) to .NET's WinForms.
.NET and Java (not to mention Cold Fusion, PHP, and Perl), that doesn't mean that the difference is simply preference.
Allthough we can build a shopping cart with both
You are right on. I would like to comment that if you boycott movies like LoTR, you are letting the MPAA win - they're still taking away your freedom.
I myself believe that I have found a good balance. For one, I try to minimize going to the movies. I love the movies, but when I go to a good movie and then buy it on DVD, I'm paying the MPAA twice. I've limited my moviegoing to less then once per month. With some exceptions, epic movies like LoTR are the only movies that I bother seeing in the theatre. With the money I save (and at $9 per pop it's a lot) I donate to the EFF (and then some). The EFF needs serious contributions, because in America laws need to be bought. If all you can afford is $50/year, that's better then nothing. However, the EFF needs much more aggresive contribution as it does not reach as wide of a demographic than say, the ACLU.
Because music has a lower barrier of entry, it's a lot easier to avoid the monopoly. There's a lot of independant musicians on Mp3.Com, as well as on Vinyl. Granted, I'm an aspiring DJ so I understand that Vinyl isn't the best medium for most people. My hope is to get back to the days where local DJ's influenced purchasing decisions as opposed to ClearChannel. Many DJ's now have websites with links to Mp3.Com or independant artist sites so that you can support them directly.
The bottom line, don't boycott, buy smart, and donate to organizations that can actually make a difference.
I'd say it's pretty likely that MS will use a carrot-and-stick approach to force him onto Windows.
First of all, aside from the OEM deals which forced people to include Windows (this of course has been remedied by the DOJ), people are not forced to use Windows. Rick is a big boy, and makes decisions for himself. MS is not the mob that people make them out to be here. First and formost, he's a businessman. He's looking for the best solution for his business, not a religion. If he feels that Linux is best, it's not because of a bunch of zealots or RMS, it's because he feels it's the best technology. If he see's that MS can provide them with a better technology, it's not because he would have gotten a free yacht - trust me, he has enough of those anyway.
Not a change at all. If you read the article he clearly states, "I don't think Linux is going to be successful as a desktop replacement."
Wow - great to hear from a fellow "developer by day, DJ by night". I just started (bought two 1200 M3D's about 2 months ago) and I'm still buying records and practicing for my first set (my first official gig is in March, but I'm lookin to spin in Jan as well).
Ya, Final Scratch looks awesome, but I don't want to drag a computer around.
D don't buy that Vinyl has a hard time below 60hz
I have studio grade reference monitors that go down to 34hz (Event 20/20bas). I have many DnB records that have killer baselines - killer because they'll rip up even my nice monitors. Without a subwoofer I am not able to hear the baselines.
I mean most folks under 25 haven't even seen an LP...
Hey, I'm 23, and as of 2 months ago ALL of the music I've purchased is on Vinyl, and I don't expect that to change.
I just bought a couple of 1200 M3D's which are a very subtle design change from the MK2's. I liken these turntables to the Hummer (no, not the Jeap made wannabe H2). The design has been around for decades because it was designed so well in the first place, and it's continued to be built using quality components.
Oh, and what type of stuff do you spin?
Instead of coming up with weird 'royalty' reasons, come up with good business reasons for IBM to open source this product.
Exactly. What some people here don't seem to understand is that IBM is not "loyal" to OSS, they are loyal to profit (it's called a business). They use OSS software in certain solutions because it saves them money. They essentially get to profit off of the backs of OSS programmers who code for free. IBM doesn't buy into the RMS BS, or any of the FSF BS. They are a business in a capitalistic country. Why does this philisophical BS come up every time a company chooses OSS - especially an American company who used to be a monopoly?
The only problem would be this little concept known as PIRACY.
If their products were just Good Enough To Work, they would have never won in the office productivity or consumer desktop space. The bottom line is that their products and business model was far superior. The old kings of the hill are now dead. Microsoft was the underdog at one point. True, part of their strategy is buying up small companies, but that doesn't negate from the quality of their software. Plus, it's the talent that they aquire most of the time, not the actual product. For example, both IIS and IE were born from strategic aquisitions. However, they've both been completely rewritten since then.
I'll agree that MS has it's flaws (like any company), and I could spend a LOT of time critisizing them, but I'm sick of people jealous of their legitimate success.
So? If you're boycotting MS then don't promote a business that uses them.
Because they DO have a huge monopoly, because they DID get it through illicit means
/. off, but the bottom line is OSS is still _playing catchup_.
No, they didn't. No court has ever found this to be the case, and most reasonable people consider MS's success due to a combination of good marketing and innovation. This pisses
Don't forget about Word Perfect. I don't remember ever using anything but WP. And for those that didn't, they used Wordstar. Hardly anyone used Word at one point in time - it's not MS's fault that they got ahead of the game and won.
Oh, and if MS is so evil, why is the "UnRedmond" store linked from your sig running on ASP.NET? Seems kind of hypocritcal does it not?
OK, neither were fully-featured but they did everything 75% of people would ever need.
Which is 50% more than _I_ need!
They could just pay them salary and not have that problem. Microsoft tech guys are always in the newsgroups and I know many who particiapte in their own time.
Actually, most people do, but because they don't know what they _CAN_ do, than they are limited to what they thought the wanted to do (in some cases). My mother does silly greeting cards (God bless her!), games (games not available on Linux, but may be available on OS X), CD Audio (this has admittedly gotten a lot better of late with OSS), and other things that I personally don't even know about. My Dad, on the other hand, only uses his box for Word Processing and CD and DVD playing. Of course, in the future he may also want to manage his photos via a firewire camera. This is why I got him a G4 iMac. It works GREAT for him. A linux setup would not have worry-free DVD playing, and the photo management with firewire support is less likely to become available. Plus, OS X is just a heck of a lot easier to use then Gnome or KDE.
Also, I don't have time to setup machines for my parents - I'm extremely busy, and what time I spend with them I want to be socializing, not messing with their boxes. My Mom bought her Dell and got it up and running w/o my help. I bought the Mac with my Dad, but he pretty much did everything on his own while I sat and watched. The only "tech support" calls I've gotten is from my Mom because she uses Outlook and had a virus or spyware or something. I then instructed her how to clean the virus, use adaware, and pointed her to Eudora if she chooses, or to just stick with web-based email clients. So, other than OE being a complete POS, everything's been great. Niether of them care about saving the ~$10 to $50 (Windows and OS X respectively, less ~$40 for a boxed Linux distro) OS cost because all it takes is a couple hours of wasted time trying to get a driver or piece of software to work, and it's just not worth it.
I proposed a solution for a call center to use all Linux based PC's (NetPC's or the like) because all the callcenter did was use email and the web (all of our customer management software is web based). Usability was not a concern since all we had to do is customize an interface that allowed them to go to Web and Email, and maybe even a simple word processer. The problem with Linux comes when a user needs to do more then that. Although Linux has come a long way, I'd much rather stick my parents on WinXP or OS X (I did the latter with my Dad) then any Linux distro.
I waste my time doing this about once a year. I Before Win95 I used Linux almost as much as I used DOS. But, as my time became more valuable a GUI was in need. Win95 gave it to me, X has never given it to me. I'll keep trying so that I'm "open minded", but when a company can take a couple years and get unix on the deskop right (OS X) practically the first time (admittidly, it was released a few months too early), I become uninterested in the year after year failures of the OSS alternatives.
The problem is that when I buy a TV, it is not easily modified. The manufacturer does not give me the production notes to help me dissasemble it. But legally, I CAN dissamble it, for educational pruposes or otherwise. OSS is totally different. I can make a change to it, but I can then sell multiple copies of it. This has nothnig to do with personal ownership, and everything to do with corporations profiting off of the backs of programmers who work for free. EULA's aside (which have yet to be proven that they have any weight in court), no one is stopping you from using SoftIce on a program and recompiling it for your own use - I essentially do that all the time via NOCD "Cracks" so that I don't have to use my CD for games that I OWN. I don't need the entire source code to Quake to make this modification. The difference, again, is that I'm not selling this software to people on ebay. Heck, even Microsoft is not going after people who modify their personal XBox's - they just won't support you. (Note: They ARE going after _Businesses_ who are makeing devices for the purposes of piracy - this is seperate from our individual right to open up the box).
Microsoft is not a "convicted monopolist", they have a monopoly on the Desktop OS for x86 and Office Productivity product spaces. Apple is competing just fine, and it's not MS's fault that until late Linux has failed on the desktop, and that Sun and Netscape (via all Web Based Software) couldn't take over the desktop with Java like it thought it could.
Fact #1:
.NET, XML, Web Services) you'll see more code reuse without the need to open up the source - just the need for reflection and/or documentation.
Please site your references for this "fact" (actually, I suppose that you're not far off but I'm not interested in what you or I "feel", I need real references).
Fact #2:
This has some truth, but the bottom line is it's MY software, not yours to decide what's best for society. Thanks to OOP becoming more and more useful as well as common platforms or communication layers (Java,
Oh, and go ask any civil engineering company for even some details on the physics modeling software used for the last major bridge that they built. These companies compete on designing bridges that take up less space and raw materials while achieving incredible levels of structural integrity. It's the physics modeling software that let's them do this, and we'll see how likely they are to let the competition in on any of the details, let alone the source code and algorithms for their models.
You're missing my point when I used the word broaden. I'm saying, his philosophy is really not a software related philosophy, but it's a socioeconomic philosophy which involves all products and services, not just software. His focus on software, IMHO, makes him look like a utopian idealist computer nerd!
If one believes in equality, democracy, and the drive to make a better humanity, one can easily be lead to believe that everyone's time should be equally compensated.
So your time playing XBox is just as valuable as my time being productive? I believe in democracy, and I believe that everyone is create equal, but if you want to be a communitist or communalist then why live in the USA, and why not fight the political fight instead of (excuse the expression) poisoning a legitimate industry?