Re:Lots of languages for JVM
on
Perl and .NET
·
· Score: 1
Strange, you just described.NET. Amazing.
C++ for.NET allows you to mix both bytecode (IL) and native code. And it's a standard (or will soon be, as soon as the ECMA approves it).
Re:"Java is the only language..."
on
Perl and .NET
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft has already submitted.NET (well, at least C# and the CLR (the CLR is the VM)) to the ECMA for standardization.
Re:What is .NET really?
on
Perl and .NET
·
· Score: 1
Java failed (or at least is failing) because Sun focused Java on one langauge. Whether or not that one language can do everything you want is irrelevant, there will always be people (and lots of them) that won't like your language and want to use something else.
While it's true that lots of languages can now target JVM's, this is not widely known, and for the most part the people that do know it say "so what? The JVM is dead".
Microsoft solved this problem by making the language a preference choice from the beginning. By emphasizing the CLR and IL from the get-go. Sure, C# has gotten lots of coverage, it's not the primary focus of.NET.
.NET has become a platform, instead of an environment or language in most peoples eyes. And one other thing, MS has submitted C# and the CLR to the ECMA for standardization, something that Sun said it would do, but then refused at the last minute (several times).
IMO, Microsoft is doing the right thing here. I know it's hard to trust them, and you probably shouldn't, but you can still recognize a good thing for being a good thing.
Re:.NET might be very good to us
on
Perl and .NET
·
· Score: 1
byte order is almost irrelevant for.net, the same way it's basically irrelevant for Java. (I said basicly, I'll get into what that means in a moment).
Since.NET compiles on the fly (rather than interpreted with JIT tacked on later) the byte order is decided by whatever run-time compiler you're using. The run-time compiler will translate the IL code into whatever byte-order is needed by the machine.
Now, where byte order is important is in file formats, and again, that's an application defined thing (Sockets and most other online protocols already address byte-ordering, so that's a non-issue).
The P4 is *NOT* that bad. It's main problem is that it performs poorly with existing software. Software that is recompiled with a P4 aware compiler to avoid P4 bottlenecks (not necessarily optimized for a P4 even) gains much.
This will be a trend we continue to see. People clung to their socket 7 motherboards for years after the PII technology came out, then what happened? AMD followed Intel's lead and went to Socket A.
Existing pipeline technology will hit a brick wall eventually, and everyone will have to upgrade to CPU's which make today's software perform poorly.
Who cares about the 30 second skip? I've become extremely adept at fast forwarding. The TiVo provides a cool feature where if you forward at 2 or 3 speed, then when you stop it backs up a certain number of seconds based on the speed you were fast forwarding.
I've gotten to the point now where I can react perfectly to seeing the show come back on and have the tivo start at the beginning. No overshooting or undershooting.
I think this works great, although it can be annoying when you want to fast forward through boring parts of the show.
I think you mean Shell Integration, not Active Desktop (although they go hand in hand. Shell Integration is more widespread, including the new quicklaunch bar and enhanced start menu while AD refers only to the desktop).
Indeed. Even if this was for the wrong reasons, it has the same effect. H1B's can now leave their jobs for better paying ones, or jobs with a better work environment.
This will force H1B loving companies into competing fairly for their employees (including H1B's).
By releasing Netscape 6 with major standards non-conformance, you're adding yet another platform that content developers have to make their sites compatible with. Then, when Netscape gets around to fixing things, it will be one more (the correct one though).
You've clearly never used CORBA either. CORBA objects can't throw exceptions (because not all languages support exceptions, and even if they did, the broker would somehow have to figure out a translation between a common exception and the specific one used in the language)
Again, not all languages support strings the same way, thus conversions are necessary.
COM has no macros whatsoever. Macros are language dependant things. VB doesn't even support Macros, yet it has COM.
You're confusing specific language implemenations with the technology itself.
Actually, I think it's highly likely that the next version of Office (or even patch) won't run under Wine. And it has little to do with MS doing it on purpose (whether they do or not).
Wine only currently implements "just enough" of the Windows API to make certain programs work. When MS adds a feature, or a call to an unimplemented API, it no longer works. Of course it won't take long to fix Wine, but it will still need fixing after every patch, until such time as Wine implements all of the Win32 API.
Even then, MS is coming out with all new API's for Whistler, called.NET. And after that, a version of Office to run on.NET.
Do you use GPL'd software to paint your house green? Do you use it to pick daisies by the side of the road at four in the morning? No.
A drivers license doesn't say you can't watch reruns of 'BJ and the Bear', but it might say you can't watch them *WHILE YOU ARE DRIVING* (Most states have laws about drivers not being allowed to participate in distracting activities)
This is the point. The software is being used for a purpose, and that purpose is evil (by most people's yardsticks). The software most certainly has a right to restrict it's usage in evil ways. I've read licenses which prohibit the use of software in nuclear weapons research and the like. It's not that uncommon.
To put it another way. Suppose you invent and patent a widget that someone else wants to put into a baby mulching device. Do you freely license the patent to him on the grounds that "Well, what he does with the patent is irrelevant to the patent itself?" I doubt it.
Now, how is this thread on-topic? It discusses IIS and Apache performance based on Dell's published specs. Certainly, the credibility of Dell, based on it's business practices, is on-topic to such a discussion.
Clearly you did not read the first few messages in this thread.
I said boycott Linux until a human rights clause is added to the GPL. Such a clause would legally prohibit anyone from using GPL'd software to violate human rights (of course it would still happen, but so does piracy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use Licenses anymore because we can't stop it). Not having such a clause in the GPL admits that the software can be used for any purpose, including violating human rights and turns a blind eye to it. This is "silent approval", or knowing that something is happening and not specifically disapproving of it.
I'm actually not suggesting any such boycott. But what I am saying is that if you're going to suggest horror over a company doing business with China, then you should also express horror that your pet operating system is also used in such a fashion (for all we know, Dell is selling the Chinese computers with Linux on them).
Is it really so hard to fathom that I'm just asking people to be consistent? i don't care which way you go, but if you're going to criticize one and not the other, then that is hypocricy.
Of course any technology can be used for good or evil, but does that mean you have to KNOWINGLY contribute to evil?
The Chinese government has already admitted it uses Linux (and extensively at that). This has been muched hyped by the community as a good thing. If you contribute to Linux, your work is being used to violate others human rights. If you are a supporter of Linux, then you are supporting the "silent approval" of the use of Linux to violate human rights.
Hey, personally, I could care less. I just hate hypocrites. And people that bitch about how "horrified" people should be that Dell sells it's computers to china, should also be horrified that the Linux community and the FSF silently condone the violation of human rights by allowing their work to be used for such. If you're horrified by one, but not the other, you are a hypocrite.
The GPL already *DOES* put restrictions on who can use GPL'd software. For instance, I can't use GPL'd software in my own code unless I also release my code under GPL. That means I am restricted from using GPL'd code in a non-GPL'd program.
The GPL already says who can and cannot us it's software and for what purposes. That means that the GPL already *IS* 'Free-only-for-those-we-want-it-to-be-free-for Software'.
Anyone that's ever implemented a caching scheme knows that there are diminishing returns on disk caching. As the cache grows larger, it takes longer to find entries in the cache, and the more housekeeping and CPU time is required to maintain it (remember, under SMP loads, you need to check cache coherancy and synchronize access to this as well).
Easy. Linux can be (and probably is) used to manage activities which involve violating human rights. Suppose a Linux system were used to manage troops in Tibet, or perhaps it were used to control Nuclear Missle guidance systems. The open source software would be aiding and abetting human rights violations.
While a human rights clause probably would not stop those people from using it (it would be under their legal control), it at least would make an effort to state that it shouldn't be used as such.
In any event. My argument is that if you're going to be on a high horse about Human Rights, start at home. Look at what your favorite OS could and probably is being used for.
Hmm... If doing business with China should horrify you, then why are you using Linux?
Remember, China has chosen Linux for primary use. If you are so concerned about human rights, you should boycott Linux (and all GPL'd software really) until the license has a human rights clause in it.
Are you going to do that? Or are you just blowing smoke about how important Human Rights are to you?
Slashdot Mirror
Strange, you just described .NET. Amazing.
.NET allows you to mix both bytecode (IL) and native code. And it's a standard (or will soon be, as soon as the ECMA approves it).
C++ for
Microsoft has already submitted .NET (well, at least C# and the CLR (the CLR is the VM)) to the ECMA for standardization.
Java failed (or at least is failing) because Sun focused Java on one langauge. Whether or not that one language can do everything you want is irrelevant, there will always be people (and lots of them) that won't like your language and want to use something else.
.NET.
While it's true that lots of languages can now target JVM's, this is not widely known, and for the most part the people that do know it say "so what? The JVM is dead".
Microsoft solved this problem by making the language a preference choice from the beginning. By emphasizing the CLR and IL from the get-go. Sure, C# has gotten lots of coverage, it's not the primary focus of
.NET has become a platform, instead of an environment or language in most peoples eyes. And one other thing, MS has submitted C# and the CLR to the ECMA for standardization, something that Sun said it would do, but then refused at the last minute (several times).
IMO, Microsoft is doing the right thing here. I know it's hard to trust them, and you probably shouldn't, but you can still recognize a good thing for being a good thing.
byte order is almost irrelevant for .net, the same way it's basically irrelevant for Java. (I said basicly, I'll get into what that means in a moment).
.NET compiles on the fly (rather than interpreted with JIT tacked on later) the byte order is decided by whatever run-time compiler you're using. The run-time compiler will translate the IL code into whatever byte-order is needed by the machine.
Since
Now, where byte order is important is in file formats, and again, that's an application defined thing (Sockets and most other online protocols already address byte-ordering, so that's a non-issue).
The P4 is *NOT* that bad. It's main problem is that it performs poorly with existing software. Software that is recompiled with a P4 aware compiler to avoid P4 bottlenecks (not necessarily optimized for a P4 even) gains much.
This will be a trend we continue to see. People clung to their socket 7 motherboards for years after the PII technology came out, then what happened? AMD followed Intel's lead and went to Socket A.
Existing pipeline technology will hit a brick wall eventually, and everyone will have to upgrade to CPU's which make today's software perform poorly.
Well, he already knows Italian, which gives him a huge head start.
(To bring this on topic) I don't think knowing the language is a requirement to working overseas, but it certainly helps.
Who cares about the 30 second skip? I've become extremely adept at fast forwarding. The TiVo provides a cool feature where if you forward at 2 or 3 speed, then when you stop it backs up a certain number of seconds based on the speed you were fast forwarding.
I've gotten to the point now where I can react perfectly to seeing the show come back on and have the tivo start at the beginning. No overshooting or undershooting.
I think this works great, although it can be annoying when you want to fast forward through boring parts of the show.
I think you mean Shell Integration, not Active Desktop (although they go hand in hand. Shell Integration is more widespread, including the new quicklaunch bar and enhanced start menu while AD refers only to the desktop).
Indeed. Even if this was for the wrong reasons, it has the same effect. H1B's can now leave their jobs for better paying ones, or jobs with a better work environment.
This will force H1B loving companies into competing fairly for their employees (including H1B's).
I don't agree.
By releasing Netscape 6 with major standards non-conformance, you're adding yet another platform that content developers have to make their sites compatible with. Then, when Netscape gets around to fixing things, it will be one more (the correct one though).
>MDI has some advantages, I will admit it. I
>couldn't imagine a developers' IDE without it.
You don't have to imagine, look at Delphi or BCB. It sucks.
You've clearly never used CORBA either. CORBA objects can't throw exceptions (because not all languages support exceptions, and even if they did, the broker would somehow have to figure out a translation between a common exception and the specific one used in the language)
Again, not all languages support strings the same way, thus conversions are necessary.
COM has no macros whatsoever. Macros are language dependant things. VB doesn't even support Macros, yet it has COM.
You're confusing specific language implemenations with the technology itself.
The advertising clause has been removed from the BSD license. It's no longer necessary to credit the RoUCB.
Actually, I think it's highly likely that the next version of Office (or even patch) won't run under Wine. And it has little to do with MS doing it on purpose (whether they do or not).
.NET. And after that, a version of Office to run on .NET.
Wine only currently implements "just enough" of the Windows API to make certain programs work. When MS adds a feature, or a call to an unimplemented API, it no longer works. Of course it won't take long to fix Wine, but it will still need fixing after every patch, until such time as Wine implements all of the Win32 API.
Even then, MS is coming out with all new API's for Whistler, called
You can sell a used CD you bought retail. If you were sent a promotional CD, it often says "Not for resale".
The record company can do this. So can MS.
Do you use GPL'd software to paint your house green? Do you use it to pick daisies by the side of the road at four in the morning? No.
A drivers license doesn't say you can't watch reruns of 'BJ and the Bear', but it might say you can't watch them *WHILE YOU ARE DRIVING* (Most states have laws about drivers not being allowed to participate in distracting activities)
This is the point. The software is being used for a purpose, and that purpose is evil (by most people's yardsticks). The software most certainly has a right to restrict it's usage in evil ways. I've read licenses which prohibit the use of software in nuclear weapons research and the like. It's not that uncommon.
To put it another way. Suppose you invent and patent a widget that someone else wants to put into a baby mulching device. Do you freely license the patent to him on the grounds that "Well, what he does with the patent is irrelevant to the patent itself?" I doubt it.
Now, how is this thread on-topic? It discusses IIS and Apache performance based on Dell's published specs. Certainly, the credibility of Dell, based on it's business practices, is on-topic to such a discussion.
Clearly you did not read the first few messages in this thread.
I said boycott Linux until a human rights clause is added to the GPL. Such a clause would legally prohibit anyone from using GPL'd software to violate human rights (of course it would still happen, but so does piracy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use Licenses anymore because we can't stop it). Not having such a clause in the GPL admits that the software can be used for any purpose, including violating human rights and turns a blind eye to it. This is "silent approval", or knowing that something is happening and not specifically disapproving of it.
I'm actually not suggesting any such boycott. But what I am saying is that if you're going to suggest horror over a company doing business with China, then you should also express horror that your pet operating system is also used in such a fashion (for all we know, Dell is selling the Chinese computers with Linux on them).
Is it really so hard to fathom that I'm just asking people to be consistent? i don't care which way you go, but if you're going to criticize one and not the other, then that is hypocricy.
Of course any technology can be used for good or evil, but does that mean you have to KNOWINGLY contribute to evil?
The Chinese government has already admitted it uses Linux (and extensively at that). This has been muched hyped by the community as a good thing. If you contribute to Linux, your work is being used to violate others human rights. If you are a supporter of Linux, then you are supporting the "silent approval" of the use of Linux to violate human rights.
Hey, personally, I could care less. I just hate hypocrites. And people that bitch about how "horrified" people should be that Dell sells it's computers to china, should also be horrified that the Linux community and the FSF silently condone the violation of human rights by allowing their work to be used for such. If you're horrified by one, but not the other, you are a hypocrite.
Well, you obviously haven't read the GPL then.
The GPL already *DOES* put restrictions on who can use GPL'd software. For instance, I can't use GPL'd software in my own code unless I also release my code under GPL. That means I am restricted from using GPL'd code in a non-GPL'd program.
The GPL already says who can and cannot us it's software and for what purposes. That means that the GPL already *IS* 'Free-only-for-those-we-want-it-to-be-free-for Software'.
Anyone that's ever implemented a caching scheme knows that there are diminishing returns on disk caching. As the cache grows larger, it takes longer to find entries in the cache, and the more housekeeping and CPU time is required to maintain it (remember, under SMP loads, you need to check cache coherancy and synchronize access to this as well).
Easy. Linux can be (and probably is) used to manage activities which involve violating human rights. Suppose a Linux system were used to manage troops in Tibet, or perhaps it were used to control Nuclear Missle guidance systems. The open source software would be aiding and abetting human rights violations.
While a human rights clause probably would not stop those people from using it (it would be under their legal control), it at least would make an effort to state that it shouldn't be used as such.
In any event. My argument is that if you're going to be on a high horse about Human Rights, start at home. Look at what your favorite OS could and probably is being used for.
As I thought. Human Rights are not as important to most people as Free Software. I'm sure the Tibetans applaud your morals.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that any given test is most likely not going illustrate useage on YOUR server.
The only way to do tht is with tests performed in your environment, with your data, your pages, and your customers.
Tell your boss: "Would you buy a car without test driving it and the competition? Why buy a web server without doing the same?"
Adding more memory does not necessarily increase performance. This is only the case if the tasks are memory bound and are using swap heavily.
Hmm... If doing business with China should horrify you, then why are you using Linux?
Remember, China has chosen Linux for primary use. If you are so concerned about human rights, you should boycott Linux (and all GPL'd software really) until the license has a human rights clause in it.
Are you going to do that? Or are you just blowing smoke about how important Human Rights are to you?