But it is just insanely stupid for Google not to have already moved the core Android libraries away from Java, so that the java interface just becomes a wrapper.
Except that's precisely what Oracle is suing over.
Except that you didn't get my point. I will state it more simply: Google needs a quick exit path from Oracle's Java trap. They had plenty time to dig an exit tunnel and they didn't. So now it is just, stand and fight or else. Sure, I expect Google to win, but taking that kind of risk unnecessarily is just plain stupid.
Sticking stubbornly to Java as the native platform for Android was stupid, but then Google does lots of stupid things. However, if it defeats Troll Oracle's attempts to extend intellectual property rights in directions that harm society, then it may all turn out well. But it is just insanely stupid for Google not to have already moved the core Android libraries away from Java, so that the java interface just becomes a wrapper. It's because Googler's aren't really as smart as they like to tell each other they are, and that filters down from the top.
And now I can understand why Oracle's shorts are in a knot.
Sure you can, just like the rest of us. Larry's shorts are in a knot because he wants to do a particularly evil thing by fencing in what is supposed to belong the the commons, that is to say, the languages we use. And the rest of us (except for you perhaps) know it is a bad idea, don't want him to, and are taking steps to prevent it. As everybody knows, that is why Larry's shorts are in a knot.
the only thing that I can come up with is just like MSFT tried to do in the 90s they tried to take advantage of all the experience that developers have with Java without bothering to actually get the rights to do so
It's nothing like that, please do not insult our intellgence. Microsoft's purpose was to pollute the Java brand by popularizing its incompatible version, calling it Java, whereas it was possible and even the default that Java programs developed with Microsoft's version would not operate correctly with Sun's version. As you know.
But Bazaar didn't disappear, it was rewritten from Bash to Python and is now used by a number of high profile projects including MySQL, Inkscape and Ubuntu.
Linus says that is because there are too many copyright holders involved to change that now.
A lot of tech companies which provide major support for the kernel would be more likely to shy away from it if they had to deal with the v3 license.
You don't know that. Apple (read: Steve Jobs) made a big show of dropping Samba over v3, but then they also made a big show of using FreeBSD instead of Linux so I don't read much into that. Actually, GPL v3 is more compatible with other licenses than v2, for example it is compatible with the Apache license favored by all of Google and Apple, and Oracle.
Linus didn't set out to spread a philosophy, he set out to make something useful. He found a particular philosophy useful in the creation of this thing. Stallman is out to spread a religion.
Ah, you exaggerate methinks. RMS is also responsible for many practical things, including GCC. His failure to produce a viable operating system kernel says more about his technical aptitude for that particular design problem than anything else.
Linux and open source in general, created more opportunity and employment than all the politicians combined. While the wealth wasn't concentrated in his hands like the Ellison's and Gates' of the world, what he started created a lot of income for many others.
Wow, that's a perspective I never considered. Linus and RMS gave to the world more in terms of absolute dollars than the combined greed of Larry Ellison and Bill Gates managed to take away. Now, who is greater?
I find it short-sighted of the jury to have ignored this aspect of things and if I were Linus Torvald, I would share the prize with Stallman in a very public gesture.
Patience, there's always next year's prize.
Personally, I would rate RMS's contribution even more influential than Linus's, being fundamental to both GCC and Linux for starters, but it's a close call.
Personality is who I am. Attitude is my reaction to you. Don't confuse the two.
I think you're confused about that. And about the concept of social interaction in general.
But please explain to me who is going to do a moon shot, who is not independently wealthy, a government, or a major corporation.
By dividing the project up into smaller, discrete parts which have a sufficiently low entry cost that private individuals and groups can participate in a meaningful capacity.
It won't work. A moon shot is just too big a project to benefit substantively by breaking out a few small parts. By all means, invite participation from one and all but recognize that the core of the project is big and expensive, must be engineered accordingly, and at commensurate cost.
Woo, I'm not sure whether I want to talk to you, you seem to have issues. But please explain to me who is going to do a moon shot, who is not independently wealthy, a government, or a major corporation.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that's precisely what Oracle is suing over.
Except that you didn't get my point. I will state it more simply: Google needs a quick exit path from Oracle's Java trap. They had plenty time to dig an exit tunnel and they didn't. So now it is just, stand and fight or else. Sure, I expect Google to win, but taking that kind of risk unnecessarily is just plain stupid.
More clear now?
Sticking stubbornly to Java as the native platform for Android was stupid, but then Google does lots of stupid things. However, if it defeats Troll Oracle's attempts to extend intellectual property rights in directions that harm society, then it may all turn out well. But it is just insanely stupid for Google not to have already moved the core Android libraries away from Java, so that the java interface just becomes a wrapper. It's because Googler's aren't really as smart as they like to tell each other they are, and that filters down from the top.
Google claims to implement NOT any of Snoracle's Java platforms
How dare you misspell Whoracle's name.
And now I can understand why Oracle's shorts are in a knot.
Sure you can, just like the rest of us. Larry's shorts are in a knot because he wants to do a particularly evil thing by fencing in what is supposed to belong the the commons, that is to say, the languages we use. And the rest of us (except for you perhaps) know it is a bad idea, don't want him to, and are taking steps to prevent it. As everybody knows, that is why Larry's shorts are in a knot.
the only thing that I can come up with is just like MSFT tried to do in the 90s they tried to take advantage of all the experience that developers have with Java without bothering to actually get the rights to do so
It's nothing like that, please do not insult our intellgence. Microsoft's purpose was to pollute the Java brand by popularizing its incompatible version, calling it Java, whereas it was possible and even the default that Java programs developed with Microsoft's version would not operate correctly with Sun's version. As you know.
Except that the license is for the patents which is what Sun held.
So if the patents are invalid or do not apply to Google's implementation, then no license is needed?
I'd like to have my home robot change the battery.
But Bazaar didn't disappear, it was rewritten from Bash to Python and is now used by a number of high profile projects including MySQL, Inkscape and Ubuntu.
Linux is still only licensed under the GPLv2.
Linus says that is because there are too many copyright holders involved to change that now.
A lot of tech companies which provide major support for the kernel would be more likely to shy away from it if they had to deal with the v3 license.
You don't know that. Apple (read: Steve Jobs) made a big show of dropping Samba over v3, but then they also made a big show of using FreeBSD instead of Linux so I don't read much into that. Actually, GPL v3 is more compatible with other licenses than v2, for example it is compatible with the Apache license favored by all of Google and Apple, and Oracle.
Linus didn't set out to spread a philosophy, he set out to make something useful. He found a particular philosophy useful in the creation of this thing. Stallman is out to spread a religion.
Ah, you exaggerate methinks. RMS is also responsible for many practical things, including GCC. His failure to produce a viable operating system kernel says more about his technical aptitude for that particular design problem than anything else.
...and tame ego of Linus...
And whatever gave you the idea that Linus's ego is tame? Linus himself would be happy to disabuse you of that misaprehension.
Linux and open source in general, created more opportunity and employment than all the politicians combined. While the wealth wasn't concentrated in his hands like the Ellison's and Gates' of the world, what he started created a lot of income for many others.
Wow, that's a perspective I never considered. Linus and RMS gave to the world more in terms of absolute dollars than the combined greed of Larry Ellison and Bill Gates managed to take away. Now, who is greater?
I find it short-sighted of the jury to have ignored this aspect of things and if I were Linus Torvald, I would share the prize with Stallman in a very public gesture.
Patience, there's always next year's prize.
Personally, I would rate RMS's contribution even more influential than Linus's, being fundamental to both GCC and Linux for starters, but it's a close call.
...and happy endings bore me to tears.
I'm an optimist but I still appreciate the occasional dose of good literary pessimism just for the sake of balance.
Personality is who I am. Attitude is my reaction to you. Don't confuse the two.
I think you're confused about that. And about the concept of social interaction in general.
But please explain to me who is going to do a moon shot, who is not independently wealthy, a government, or a major corporation.
By dividing the project up into smaller, discrete parts which have a sufficiently low entry cost that private individuals and groups can participate in a meaningful capacity.
It won't work. A moon shot is just too big a project to benefit substantively by breaking out a few small parts. By all means, invite participation from one and all but recognize that the core of the project is big and expensive, must be engineered accordingly, and at commensurate cost.
Woo, I'm not sure whether I want to talk to you, you seem to have issues. But please explain to me who is going to do a moon shot, who is not independently wealthy, a government, or a major corporation.
And apparently I found a Microsoft moderator
You would rather that only governments could participate in big science stunts?
Wow, Google monetizing their cache much? Two popup ads per click.
Unlike you perhaps, I found that each and every point is interesting and would likely affect my work flow.
Points in favor of Microsoft Word:
1. Incompatibility
2. General shittiness
In other news, self-flagellation is on the rise.
Here is an abstract at least.
Here they come.
See, here they are.
I've yet to load any Word file and have it look the same as it does in Word, and that's a deal breaker in a collaborative setting.
In the long run, it sounds to me like a deal breaker for Microsoft Word.