I have three things to say: 1. I installed Firsfox 0.9RC on three computers. None of the install went smooth. One crashed at the end leaving me with no browser. One crashes unsexpectedly every so often, the last one crashes every time I try to select some text. Of course, I reported all of these. I'm just not sure it is ready for "Prime Time" yet. And I'm posting that with IE;-( 2. Slashdot and numerous other websites looks quite bad 10% of the time and refresh fixes it. This is here since Mozilla 1.2. Again, for an "IE Killer" it is a little worrysome. 3. In agreement with the parent, I'd say that if you guys think that having a technically better product is sufficient to kill IE, then you didn't learn anything from the history of software. Almost never has the technically superior product won a battle. In fact, even during the v3 browsers (NS3 vs IE3), IE was gaining ground, even though it was being a much worse browser.
Anyways, I don't think the days of IE are counted yet. Although I am glad to have a better browser.
Point A doesn't use BSD code, I fail to see how this is relevant. They can use first gen code and have full liberty with it, it's BSD. Or they can use gen 1234 of it which is not BSD and they have no liberty. So your first point proves that: 1. Using proprietary code is more restrictive than using BSD code. We knew that. 2. BSD code can be merged with proprietary code, without having that merged code being BSD. This doesn't remove any liberty to people using BSD code. It actually adds one more liberty: You can add YOUR stuff to it without making it public. Note that the original code is still BSD and free for all. People using that code (and only the BSD portion of it) are free as a bird.
Point b is quite obscure to me. How is Windows NT relevant here?
I wouldn't want to leave a cd on the dashboard either for that matter
FWIW, I have let a bunch of CDs in my car for the last 4 years (California) and only the CD-Rs started dying after several years. With a cassette, it is several month.
Personally, I'm waiting and waiting for something that doesn't kill itself And you know that's not going to happen, right? We will get that peace of mind when all our media (songs, videos, PC files,...) will be able to fit in ONE piece of plastic. Then you can easily have 1 backup at home, one in the bank, one at your office, one in your car,...
This is the only way I can envision safety in your data. Make zillions of copies of it.
Hmm, yes, just like the price of CDs dropped after it became ultra-cheap to manufacture them
Well, the CD didn't have any competition at the time. Cassette were poor-quality and died within weeks if left on your dashboard in the summer, and LPs were quite fragile, didn't play on mobile devices, cars, etc... Not even mentionning that both of them lost a bit of their quality on every play, nor they had convenient random access.
CDs came with: 1. conveninent random access 2. High quality of the media (in regard to the competition) 3. High quality of the audio recorded.
Hence, they were a better shot than the competition on three points that were (IMO) very important to the general public.
Now DVD-A and SACD ????? What the heck could be my motive to buy such a thing? 32 bits? 96kbps? 1-bit?
Well if I worked in a recording studio or had a $10k stereo at home, why not... But we are talking general public over here. Joe Smith doesn't care, because none of these formats provide him anything he doesn't have.
Redistribute the mixture you recieved without cost So redistributing BSD code isn't free? I don;t understand your point.
Be assured that improvements to the code are public Well, that's not an impeachment for you. You are not coerced into anything here, you are not impeached or forced to do something.
My point was: As a human being, if you use/distribute/write/etc code with BSD license, you have TWO restrictions: 1. You HAVE TO leave the copyright notice where it is 2. You CANNOT declare yourself the author of that code.
While you have these with GPL, you have a lot more. Hence the idea that BSD is less restrictive than GPL. More restrictions.
Welcome into Open Source world. Works better, cleaner, faster. But you have to update every other week (or month if you are lazy) and all your config is then gone, your task to redo it.
Lots of wasted time. I could run Windows Update every freaking day with all that time and get a system/browser as secure as the open source alternatives. But no one ius mentionning that on/. of course.
Maybe sun should just patent the process of extracting data from a source file and generate a document out of it. After all, Javadoc is anterior to all that crap.
Much like the BSD-licensed code, you may GPL'ed code for anything you wish.
This is not true. If you take a piece of GPL code and modify it, all your modifications have to be GPL as well. Now that doesn't mean you need to make it public. It just means you cannot distribute the resulting binary without offering to distribute the source code as well.
So, if the app is just some random internal-use-only app, then using GPL code is perfectly reasonable and legal. Yes, but the rest of your app is de facto GPL. As mentioned earlier, it doesn't mean you have to make it public, but it still has to be GPL.
There is more than one way to do so, some which would not mean disclosing the source of your code. Wow! That's a statement! Since the GPL is all about distributing the source code along with the binaries, I don't really know how you could do that. Please tell me if there is another solution.
Well, first, I would like to apologize for the AC asshole that replied to your post. Clearly brainless.
Second, I didn't say anything that contradict your post. BSD and GPL are different licenses. I totally understand the different approaches.
One difference, though, is that you tend to discard BSD against GPL which is - to you - better. You have to understand that different people may think differently.
Las of all, one of your last statements: "Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are?".
On that I will disagree. GPL is more restrictive than BSD: I don't think you can find one situatons where someone would be impeached or forced to do something with BSD and not with GPL. The opposite trivially doesn't stand.
Don't be mistaken. This doesn't mean that a developper of BSD code will get more reward than a developper of GPL code. It means that whoever you are (integrator, developer, user), you have less restrictions with a piece of code under the BSD license than with a GPL code.
No flame intended, not quality judgement, just a fair statement: Less restrictions.
You want to use GPL code, everything has to be GPL You want to use BSD code, go ahead
You want to write GPL code. All of it has to be that way You want to write BSD code, go ahead.
The list could go on and on, proving one point: BSD is less restrictive than GPL. Nothing else.
2000 was already too late, IMO. Although all alternatives to IE, Outlook, and Office weren't really that usable yet (Mozilla was bloated and sluggish, OpenOffice buggy, etc...). Hence my "no real competition"
That's why. I'm not smoking anything. Maybe I should.
Well, if I understand the GPL accurately, you can't use a GPL lib without sharing your entire codebase. That's a bit restrictive to me. As a result, we don't use any GPL code in my company, because we would have to integrate it within our app, and our app would become GPL by that action.
It is as fast as C/C++. The two limiting factors are startup time (gotta start the VM, gotta let hotspot spot the hot spots) and memory footprint (GC issue, mostly).
Last time I tried Espial Escape, it was quite fast. 100% pure Java. Of course, the downside at the time was that it was pretty much compatible with NS4, which is now useless, but I read that things are evolving quite fast on that front...
while the core language is simple, making a nifty little GUI work is not I totally agree with that point of view. It's actually not the fault of the language/libraries at all (IMO) but for the lack of a decent GUI builder. I haven't tried JBuilder & others in a while, but the last time I tried, it was really ugly (As compared to other nice GUI builders for other languages).
Of course, it is a weaknes of Java to lack such a nice builder.
Thus the cycle continues -- effort to learn Java depends on its success on the desktop. Success on the desktop depends on effort to learn Java Hmm, interesting. I don't actually think the effort to learn Java is that big. But of coure I already know it, so I am biaised...
As for the jar file, I ended up creating one but wasn't able to launch it from the command line. Something about explicitly pointing to the main class or whatnot. So a jar file is nothing else but a zip of a bunch of.class files and a few descriptors (sometimes more than that). And yes, since the jar file contains several classes, you need to specify which class is the main class you wish to execute when someone is trying to execute the jar. That's what the descriptors are all about.
You realize that this is like saying "I has issues creating a.o file with gcc", right? If you can't get a jar file, you didn't go very far in your investigations.
Haven't gotten around to running Eclipse and trying again
Last time I tried, it was really simple: Run the installer, double click on the.cmd (or.sh on unix I guess). If you can't get that working, then I guess Java is not for you.
I agree completely. They had their perfect cross-platform platform back then. They could have done so much, back when there was no real competition in that area (read desktop apps, such as browser, office, etc...), that every move they make now just look odd at best.
Me too. Have you ever watched a 80fps film? There are some movie theatres in theme parks that show some of these. You wouldn't believe how smooth & soft the travelings are.
The issue with this is that when you get back to a regular 24fps movie theatre, you just can't help but notice how sluggish it looks.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have something seriously weird on your systems
Well, that's three Win2K! Mozilla always worked well, Firefox worked like a charm until the 0.9RC. What can I say?
I have three things to say: ;-(
1. I installed Firsfox 0.9RC on three computers. None of the install went smooth. One crashed at the end leaving me with no browser. One crashes unsexpectedly every so often, the last one crashes every time I try to select some text.
Of course, I reported all of these. I'm just not sure it is ready for "Prime Time" yet. And I'm posting that with IE
2. Slashdot and numerous other websites looks quite bad 10% of the time and refresh fixes it. This is here since Mozilla 1.2. Again, for an "IE Killer" it is a little worrysome.
3. In agreement with the parent, I'd say that if you guys think that having a technically better product is sufficient to kill IE, then you didn't learn anything from the history of software. Almost never has the technically superior product won a battle. In fact, even during the v3 browsers (NS3 vs IE3), IE was gaining ground, even though it was being a much worse browser.
Anyways, I don't think the days of IE are counted yet. Although I am glad to have a better browser.
Well, interesting.
Point A doesn't use BSD code, I fail to see how this is relevant. They can use first gen code and have full liberty with it, it's BSD. Or they can use gen 1234 of it which is not BSD and they have no liberty. So your first point proves that:
1. Using proprietary code is more restrictive than using BSD code. We knew that.
2. BSD code can be merged with proprietary code, without having that merged code being BSD. This doesn't remove any liberty to people using BSD code. It actually adds one more liberty: You can add YOUR stuff to it without making it public. Note that the original code is still BSD and free for all. People using that code (and only the BSD portion of it) are free as a bird.
Point b is quite obscure to me. How is Windows NT relevant here?
I wouldn't want to leave a cd on the dashboard either for that matter
...) will be able to fit in ONE piece of plastic. Then you can easily have 1 backup at home, one in the bank, one at your office, one in your car, ...
FWIW, I have let a bunch of CDs in my car for the last 4 years (California) and only the CD-Rs started dying after several years. With a cassette, it is several month.
Personally, I'm waiting and waiting for something that doesn't kill itself
And you know that's not going to happen, right? We will get that peace of mind when all our media (songs, videos, PC files,
This is the only way I can envision safety in your data. Make zillions of copies of it.
Hmm, yes, just like the price of CDs dropped after it became ultra-cheap to manufacture them
Well, the CD didn't have any competition at the time. Cassette were poor-quality and died within weeks if left on your dashboard in the summer, and LPs were quite fragile, didn't play on mobile devices, cars, etc... Not even mentionning that both of them lost a bit of their quality on every play, nor they had convenient random access.
CDs came with:
1. conveninent random access
2. High quality of the media (in regard to the competition)
3. High quality of the audio recorded.
Hence, they were a better shot than the competition on three points that were (IMO) very important to the general public.
Now DVD-A and SACD ????? What the heck could be my motive to buy such a thing? 32 bits? 96kbps? 1-bit?
Well if I worked in a recording studio or had a $10k stereo at home, why not... But we are talking general public over here. Joe Smith doesn't care, because none of these formats provide him anything he doesn't have.
Please, change (a) or (b) and tell me how the person you are considering is more free with the GPL. Please, do.
You question my example, but so far I've been the only one to provide one. A little easy, if you want my inner feeling.
Redistribute the mixture you recieved without cost
So redistributing BSD code isn't free? I don;t understand your point.
Be assured that improvements to the code are public
Well, that's not an impeachment for you. You are not coerced into anything here, you are not impeached or forced to do something.
My point was: As a human being, if you use/distribute/write/etc code with BSD license, you have TWO restrictions:
1. You HAVE TO leave the copyright notice where it is
2. You CANNOT declare yourself the author of that code.
While you have these with GPL, you have a lot more. Hence the idea that BSD is less restrictive than GPL. More restrictions.
Thi would most of all outlaw human brain. After all, that's a device capable of unencrypting a signal.
Welcome into Open Source world. Works better, cleaner, faster. But you have to update every other week (or month if you are lazy) and all your config is then gone, your task to redo it.
/. of course.
Lots of wasted time. I could run Windows Update every freaking day with all that time and get a system/browser as secure as the open source alternatives. But no one ius mentionning that on
Conclusion: Either SCO was lying then, or they're lying now, or they were just clueless both then and now.
Unfortunately, I have to go with the third option.
I'd rather go with all three options.
Maybe sun should just patent the process of extracting data from a source file and generate a document out of it. After all, Javadoc is anterior to all that crap.
Much like the BSD-licensed code, you may GPL'ed code for anything you wish.
This is not true. If you take a piece of GPL code and modify it, all your modifications have to be GPL as well. Now that doesn't mean you need to make it public. It just means you cannot distribute the resulting binary without offering to distribute the source code as well.
So, if the app is just some random internal-use-only app, then using GPL code is perfectly reasonable and legal.
Yes, but the rest of your app is de facto GPL. As mentioned earlier, it doesn't mean you have to make it public, but it still has to be GPL.
There is more than one way to do so, some which would not mean disclosing the source of your code.
Wow! That's a statement! Since the GPL is all about distributing the source code along with the binaries, I don't really know how you could do that. Please tell me if there is another solution.
Is it legal? AFAIK, all the stories published are "Copyright 1997-2004, OSDN - Open Source Development Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved."
Oh well....
Well, first, I would like to apologize for the AC asshole that replied to your post. Clearly brainless.
Second, I didn't say anything that contradict your post. BSD and GPL are different licenses. I totally understand the different approaches.
One difference, though, is that you tend to discard BSD against GPL which is - to you - better. You have to understand that different people may think differently.
Las of all, one of your last statements: "Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are?".
On that I will disagree. GPL is more restrictive than BSD: I don't think you can find one situatons where someone would be impeached or forced to do something with BSD and not with GPL. The opposite trivially doesn't stand.
Don't be mistaken. This doesn't mean that a developper of BSD code will get more reward than a developper of GPL code. It means that whoever you are (integrator, developer, user), you have less restrictions with a piece of code under the BSD license than with a GPL code.
No flame intended, not quality judgement, just a fair statement: Less restrictions.
You want to use GPL code, everything has to be GPL
You want to use BSD code, go ahead
You want to write GPL code. All of it has to be that way
You want to write BSD code, go ahead.
The list could go on and on, proving one point: BSD is less restrictive than GPL. Nothing else.
2000 was already too late, IMO. Although all alternatives to IE, Outlook, and Office weren't really that usable yet (Mozilla was bloated and sluggish, OpenOffice buggy, etc...). Hence my "no real competition"
That's why. I'm not smoking anything. Maybe I should.
they only have to share back their modifications
Well, if I understand the GPL accurately, you can't use a GPL lib without sharing your entire codebase. That's a bit restrictive to me. As a result, we don't use any GPL code in my company, because we would have to integrate it within our app, and our app would become GPL by that action.
See how it is restrictive now?
LGPL, that is a much less restrictive license.
look at GNOME and KDE - there has been so much innovation coming out of them
What kind of innovations are you referring to? Cloning Appl/M$ already existing UI?
Although it is not as fast as C / C++
It is as fast as C/C++. The two limiting factors are startup time (gotta start the VM, gotta let hotspot spot the hot spots) and memory footprint (GC issue, mostly).
But for runtime, it is as fast.
Last time I tried Espial Escape, it was quite fast. 100% pure Java. Of course, the downside at the time was that it was pretty much compatible with NS4, which is now useless, but I read that things are evolving quite fast on that front...
http://www.espial.com/
while the core language is simple, making a nifty little GUI work is not
I totally agree with that point of view. It's actually not the fault of the language/libraries at all (IMO) but for the lack of a decent GUI builder. I haven't tried JBuilder & others in a while, but the last time I tried, it was really ugly (As compared to other nice GUI builders for other languages).
Of course, it is a weaknes of Java to lack such a nice builder.
Thus the cycle continues -- effort to learn Java depends on its success on the desktop. Success on the desktop depends on effort to learn Java
.class files and a few descriptors (sometimes more than that). And yes, since the jar file contains several classes, you need to specify which class is the main class you wish to execute when someone is trying to execute the jar. That's what the descriptors are all about.
Hmm, interesting. I don't actually think the effort to learn Java is that big. But of coure I already know it, so I am biaised...
As for the jar file, I ended up creating one but wasn't able to launch it from the command line. Something about explicitly pointing to the main class or whatnot.
So a jar file is nothing else but a zip of a bunch of
I had issues creating a jar file
.o file with gcc", right? If you can't get a jar file, you didn't go very far in your investigations.
.cmd (or .sh on unix I guess). If you can't get that working, then I guess Java is not for you.
You realize that this is like saying "I has issues creating a
Haven't gotten around to running Eclipse and trying again
Last time I tried, it was really simple: Run the installer, double click on the
I agree completely. They had their perfect cross-platform platform back then. They could have done so much, back when there was no real competition in that area (read desktop apps, such as browser, office, etc...), that every move they make now just look odd at best.
Oooops, you should read "ips" everywhere I wrote "fps"...
We're talking film frames here
Me too. Have you ever watched a 80fps film? There are some movie theatres in theme parks that show some of these. You wouldn't believe how smooth & soft the travelings are.
The issue with this is that when you get back to a regular 24fps movie theatre, you just can't help but notice how sluggish it looks.