I run on a PIII 733 and I don't see the performance issues you're describing. Yes, it takes a bit to load, but that's because it has a full plugin architecture to support things like auto-pulling from RSS feeds. Also, it does take a lot of memory. But this is due to the way it operates and not anything inherent in Java. Personlly, I have been extremely happy with Azureus. It has been, and will contiue to be, the best Bittorrent client on the map.
For what NASA is doing, what they need is a language that is well-understood (Ada most definitely is), and Java doesn't fall into that category yet...C++, maybe, but not Java.
Sure it does. Once you get down to the embedded development level, it's far easier to plan for capacity and availability. Programmers do it all the time for MIDP cell phone programs. The difficulties you are considering have to do with Desktop applications which use an unpredictable amount of resources.
1. Most of the "management" apps are written by people who are not experts in the Java language, thus tend to fubar it pretty well. This is changing, but slowly.
2. Sun is aware of the remote X issues. This is something they are being slow about addressing, but I believe 1.5 should show a marked performance improvement.
3. P2P programs tend to eat a lot of system resources during operation. This doesn't have so much to do with Java as in the way they are designed.
4. The majority of "good" Java software is outside of the area of Desktop applications. Desktop is still an underdeveloped area for Java.
5. Java programs will always take more resources on a mainstream machine. This is due to the fact that the JVM replicates a lot of the functionality of the OS. In instances where the JVM *is* the OS (e.g. embedded development) the difference in resources is insignificant.
Here are a few examples of Java Desktop programs that do their job extremely well:
As I understand it, this is just a tool to track down potential errors in the software. It is not mission critical software, but rather a tool to analyze mission critical software. I doubt that NASA is too concerned that someone will mess it up beyond belief. They've probably got a review process in place to ensure that any new features are properly checked before they go into use at NASA.
What I find interesting, is that this move seems to signal that NASA is looking at using Java in mission critical areas. (Not just data analysis as in the Mars rovers.) Could it be that NASA is finally giving up on Ada and embracing the safety, reliability, and simplicity of Java? If so, it would certainly be a huge culteral shift for them.
I would still have taken it in. Even if they won't replace it under their extended logic board program, they might have still been covered under the standard 1 yr warranty plan. Never hurts to ask.
There are many people who will not buy fuel from Exon over the oil spill in Alaska.
Actually, this makes my point perfectly. If you want to boycott someone, target them specifically. You *can* stop yourself from paying for Exxon directly, but you *can't* stop the green bean manufacturer from using Exxon petrolium in manufacturing of the can.
Trying to randomly stop people from receiving money for services is pointless. Target the chokepoints.
(like last time ibook 800mhz g4 logic board failure grrr back on this g3 500mhz now)
Did you take it into the shop? The Logic Board failure is a known issue that Apple will fix at no charge. I had to have mine repaired, and they even replaced the outer casing on mine for free!
(The case got beat up after a bus driver stopped suddenly, throwing a woman who was in the back right onto my laptop. It bent the screen backwards (!), but the computer still worked fine. It didn't close quite right after that, though.)
Your post betrays a tremendous misunderstanding of fuel efficiency. Planes are almost *always* more fuel efficient than cars. While Jet Engines are pretty fuel hungry, they actually do extremely well in Miles Per Gallon Per Pasenger. Remember, the 747 may be burning 5 gallons per mile, but it's moving ~500 people plus cargo.
Interesting. So do you think about who you're supporting every time you purchase a book from a store? Or how about when you buy a can of green beans from the SuperMarket? Do you know who you're supporting when you buy a piece of furnature at the store? How about when you watch ads on TV?
Generally, the answer is always a "no" or a "sort of". There are so many people behind the scenes who make these things happen, that there's no way to account for all of them. If you want to boycott someone, your best solution is to first target them, then investigate where they derive money, then organize a boycott around their chokepoint. Your alternative of trying to divine the man behind the curtain in all instances, is both tedious and pointless.
It seems to me that he never lost power. Pixar and NeXT anyone? Not only did Jobs then return to Apple, but his previous company (NeXT) went from near failure to completely taking over Apple.
He may be an asshole, but his persistence pays off. And while a lot of people complained about working for him (and even demonized him in "Pirates of Silicon Valley), the real engineer's accounts seem to simply say that he didn't suffer fools gladly. The Mac team seemed to genuinely like him.
Okkkaaayyyy... And why is the referrer such a big problem again? Does it make the book more expensive for you? Does it impair your ability to get to the book? Does it do anything to you at all, or are you just whining because you'd rather not support Slashdot (or whoever has the referrer) while you use the services?
A few days ago, my company's VP of Systems (read: head of IT) and I were walking back from lunch when we got on the subject of GarageBand and then Macintoshes. My good friend the VP stated that he absolutely loved the design of the new Mac Minis. The damn things were so functional, and yet so cheap. He'd setup several of these for relatives and they had all loved them. Anyway, as we were talking, we came to the conclusion that Steve Jobs may be an asshole, but at least he's a brilliant asshole!
I need to brush up on my QC theory, but if I remember correctly, quantum computers exploit "spooky action at a distance" (aka Quantum Entanglement). This allows one set of particles to perform the real calculations, while another set of particles is observed.
Quantum Leap was an excellent TV show that ran through the late 80's and early 90's. The premise was that "Dr. Sam Becket" (who now plays Captain Archer on Enterprise) invented a time machine that would allow him to reach points throughout his lifetime. The problem is that he never quite got the kinks worked out of his retrieval program, and now finds himself randomly leaping from life to life. The tagline of the show was, "striving to put right what once went wrong and hoping each time that his next leap will be the leap home." (Usually then followed by us seeing him leaping into someone's life. Something utterly confusing then happens to him and he utters the words, "Oh boy".)
What is your point? My point is that RMS is requiring the software to be free. There is no economic ability to follow the GPL and still make a profit through direct sales of software you create. Your comment about source code is moot. There are no controls on the software's redistribution. Anyone can give it away for free once you sell the first copy. Requiring them to give away the source code as well is hardly any barrier.
RMS's viewpoint (the GPL, in this case) is that free redistribution of source code is a required right.
Nonsense. I just pointed you to section 3 which clearly gives someone the right and ability to redistribute the binaries. Pull your head out and pay attention.
RMS doesn't advocate people making money off of other people's work -- the right to do anything with the code including give it away has the secondary effect of allowing other people to make a buck on your work or even distribute it for free.
Well, THAT'S not a contradiction. (/sarcasm) The GPL is a legal document that embodies Stallman's beliefs. How you can dismiss the redistribution as "merely a side effect" is beyond me.
The trick is to make it clear that you are the original author and that the quality of your distribution is higher than that of your competitor's because it's coming straight from the source.
Oh yes. That always works. I'll just make a new version so that others can redistribute that for me as well.
Tell you what. I'll go sell a new OS that works better than both Windows, Linux, and MacOSX combined. I'll distribute it under GPL. So what will probably happen? Someone will pop up to resell my software without giving back to me? Well I'll sue them for trademark infringement (using my trademark to promote their product). No worries, that will only land me in hot water with Slashdot boneheads who then call me a traitor to the GPL. I'm sure I'll get a verbal bitchslapping from RMS himself as well. "Software should be free as in Freedom! Anyone should be able to make money off of it!"
Down to +1 now. Interesting, is it not? That's why the founding fathers of the US fought so hard for freedom of speech. Everyone should be free to have an opinion, and I encourage everyone to express it. Do not blindly accept everything you're told.
Part of what RMS advocates is the free redistribution of software but only if you took already available code (ie, someone else's work), modified it and want to redistribute it in its modified state.
Have you *read* the GPL? It says I can redistribute it all I want. I don't need to modify anything! One sale. That's it. That's all I can sell before distribution is beyond my control.
I heard him at least once on NPR talking about Dmitri's case and decrying the same.
Well then. A talk on NPR, you say? That settles it. He's a hero, pin a medal on his chest. I'm sure he was clear about how bad the law was and wasn't at all using the interview to promote himself, was he?
I think I'll take a page out of his book then by making things happen.
I want world peace. You should all stop fighting and elect me to lead you into a new millennium of peace. Only through my ideals can we be free from the tyranny of world war. Just give me control your land and I will ensure that it is always peaceful!
Slashdot Mirror
I run on a PIII 733 and I don't see the performance issues you're describing. Yes, it takes a bit to load, but that's because it has a full plugin architecture to support things like auto-pulling from RSS feeds. Also, it does take a lot of memory. But this is due to the way it operates and not anything inherent in Java. Personlly, I have been extremely happy with Azureus. It has been, and will contiue to be, the best Bittorrent client on the map.
Mods, please correct the parent's moderation. He is not trolling, just expressing his experience and opinion.
You just need to search around a bit. Here's a few places I know of:
GemPlus
Athena
TX Systems
Note that $5-10 per card is about the best you're going to do in small quantities.
For what NASA is doing, what they need is a language that is well-understood (Ada most definitely is), and Java doesn't fall into that category yet...C++, maybe, but not Java.
Sure it does. Once you get down to the embedded development level, it's far easier to plan for capacity and availability. Programmers do it all the time for MIDP cell phone programs. The difficulties you are considering have to do with Desktop applications which use an unpredictable amount of resources.
A few points:
1. Most of the "management" apps are written by people who are not experts in the Java language, thus tend to fubar it pretty well. This is changing, but slowly.
2. Sun is aware of the remote X issues. This is something they are being slow about addressing, but I believe 1.5 should show a marked performance improvement.
3. P2P programs tend to eat a lot of system resources during operation. This doesn't have so much to do with Java as in the way they are designed.
4. The majority of "good" Java software is outside of the area of Desktop applications. Desktop is still an underdeveloped area for Java.
5. Java programs will always take more resources on a mainstream machine. This is due to the fact that the JVM replicates a lot of the functionality of the OS. In instances where the JVM *is* the OS (e.g. embedded development) the difference in resources is insignificant.
Here are a few examples of Java Desktop programs that do their job extremely well:
Azureus
Wurm Online
JGoodies JDiskReport
DataDino Database Explorer
A few games I wrote for a 4k contest.
As I understand it, this is just a tool to track down potential errors in the software. It is not mission critical software, but rather a tool to analyze mission critical software. I doubt that NASA is too concerned that someone will mess it up beyond belief. They've probably got a review process in place to ensure that any new features are properly checked before they go into use at NASA.
What I find interesting, is that this move seems to signal that NASA is looking at using Java in mission critical areas. (Not just data analysis as in the Mars rovers.) Could it be that NASA is finally giving up on Ada and embracing the safety, reliability, and simplicity of Java? If so, it would certainly be a huge culteral shift for them.
Hmm... maybe I should go polish my resume...
I would still have taken it in. Even if they won't replace it under their extended logic board program, they might have still been covered under the standard 1 yr warranty plan. Never hurts to ask.
There are many people who will not buy fuel from Exon over the oil spill in Alaska.
Actually, this makes my point perfectly. If you want to boycott someone, target them specifically. You *can* stop yourself from paying for Exxon directly, but you *can't* stop the green bean manufacturer from using Exxon petrolium in manufacturing of the can.
Trying to randomly stop people from receiving money for services is pointless. Target the chokepoints.
(like last time ibook 800mhz g4 logic board failure grrr back on this g3 500mhz now)
Did you take it into the shop? The Logic Board failure is a known issue that Apple will fix at no charge. I had to have mine repaired, and they even replaced the outer casing on mine for free!
(The case got beat up after a bus driver stopped suddenly, throwing a woman who was in the back right onto my laptop. It bent the screen backwards (!), but the computer still worked fine. It didn't close quite right after that, though.)
Your post betrays a tremendous misunderstanding of fuel efficiency. Planes are almost *always* more fuel efficient than cars. While Jet Engines are pretty fuel hungry, they actually do extremely well in Miles Per Gallon Per Pasenger. Remember, the 747 may be burning 5 gallons per mile, but it's moving ~500 people plus cargo.
Here's an article I dug up using Google.
I'd like to know who I'm supporting.
Interesting. So do you think about who you're supporting every time you purchase a book from a store? Or how about when you buy a can of green beans from the SuperMarket? Do you know who you're supporting when you buy a piece of furnature at the store? How about when you watch ads on TV?
Generally, the answer is always a "no" or a "sort of". There are so many people behind the scenes who make these things happen, that there's no way to account for all of them. If you want to boycott someone, your best solution is to first target them, then investigate where they derive money, then organize a boycott around their chokepoint. Your alternative of trying to divine the man behind the curtain in all instances, is both tedious and pointless.
But hey, it's your time and energy.
It seems to me that he never lost power. Pixar and NeXT anyone? Not only did Jobs then return to Apple, but his previous company (NeXT) went from near failure to completely taking over Apple.
He may be an asshole, but his persistence pays off. And while a lot of people complained about working for him (and even demonized him in "Pirates of Silicon Valley), the real engineer's accounts seem to simply say that he didn't suffer fools gladly. The Mac team seemed to genuinely like him.
Okkkaaayyyy... And why is the referrer such a big problem again? Does it make the book more expensive for you? Does it impair your ability to get to the book? Does it do anything to you at all, or are you just whining because you'd rather not support Slashdot (or whoever has the referrer) while you use the services?
Better not click on my sig...
A few days ago, my company's VP of Systems (read: head of IT) and I were walking back from lunch when we got on the subject of GarageBand and then Macintoshes. My good friend the VP stated that he absolutely loved the design of the new Mac Minis. The damn things were so functional, and yet so cheap. He'd setup several of these for relatives and they had all loved them. Anyway, as we were talking, we came to the conclusion that Steve Jobs may be an asshole, but at least he's a brilliant asshole!
;-)
A tribute.
If serenity has finally come, then shouldn't you be - oh, I don't know - serene?
Whoa. A Slashdotter who actually knows who Paul Harvey is? What's this world coming to? ;-)
I need to brush up on my QC theory, but if I remember correctly, quantum computers exploit "spooky action at a distance" (aka Quantum Entanglement). This allows one set of particles to perform the real calculations, while another set of particles is observed.
/me takes a bow
:-)
Bonus points to anyone who can identify my ending line.
Don't panic! I'll go get my towel.
Quantum Leap was an excellent TV show that ran through the late 80's and early 90's. The premise was that "Dr. Sam Becket" (who now plays Captain Archer on Enterprise) invented a time machine that would allow him to reach points throughout his lifetime. The problem is that he never quite got the kinks worked out of his retrieval program, and now finds himself randomly leaping from life to life. The tagline of the show was, "striving to put right what once went wrong and hoping each time that his next leap will be the leap home." (Usually then followed by us seeing him leaping into someone's life. Something utterly confusing then happens to him and he utters the words, "Oh boy".)
And now you know... the rest of the story.
What is your point? My point is that RMS is requiring the software to be free. There is no economic ability to follow the GPL and still make a profit through direct sales of software you create. Your comment about source code is moot. There are no controls on the software's redistribution. Anyone can give it away for free once you sell the first copy. Requiring them to give away the source code as well is hardly any barrier.
RMS's viewpoint (the GPL, in this case) is that free redistribution of source code is a required right.
Nonsense. I just pointed you to section 3 which clearly gives someone the right and ability to redistribute the binaries. Pull your head out and pay attention.
RMS doesn't advocate people making money off of other people's work -- the right to do anything with the code including give it away has the secondary effect of allowing other people to make a buck on your work or even distribute it for free.
Well, THAT'S not a contradiction. (/sarcasm) The GPL is a legal document that embodies Stallman's beliefs. How you can dismiss the redistribution as "merely a side effect" is beyond me.
The trick is to make it clear that you are the original author and that the quality of your distribution is higher than that of your competitor's because it's coming straight from the source.
Oh yes. That always works. I'll just make a new version so that others can redistribute that for me as well.
Tell you what. I'll go sell a new OS that works better than both Windows, Linux, and MacOSX combined. I'll distribute it under GPL. So what will probably happen? Someone will pop up to resell my software without giving back to me? Well I'll sue them for trademark infringement (using my trademark to promote their product). No worries, that will only land me in hot water with Slashdot boneheads who then call me a traitor to the GPL. I'm sure I'll get a verbal bitchslapping from RMS himself as well. "Software should be free as in Freedom! Anyone should be able to make money off of it!"
What a bunch of malarky.
Down to +1 now. Interesting, is it not? That's why the founding fathers of the US fought so hard for freedom of speech. Everyone should be free to have an opinion, and I encourage everyone to express it. Do not blindly accept everything you're told.
Part of what RMS advocates is the free redistribution of software but only if you took already available code (ie, someone else's work), modified it and want to redistribute it in its modified state.
Have you *read* the GPL? It says I can redistribute it all I want. I don't need to modify anything! One sale. That's it. That's all I can sell before distribution is beyond my control.
I heard him at least once on NPR talking about Dmitri's case and decrying the same.
Well then. A talk on NPR, you say? That settles it. He's a hero, pin a medal on his chest. I'm sure he was clear about how bad the law was and wasn't at all using the interview to promote himself, was he?
I think I'll take a page out of his book then by making things happen.
I want world peace. You should all stop fighting and elect me to lead you into a new millennium of peace. Only through my ideals can we be free from the tyranny of world war. Just give me control your land and I will ensure that it is always peaceful!