Actually, I've read an interview with the leader of Wine who said exactly what I said: that they don't intend to fully implement any version of the Windows API (sorry I don't have a link).
If you think about it, it makes sense. What purpose would it have served to release any version of Wine yet if you knew that the design goal of recreating the Windows API wasn't achieved? We're not talking about bugs, but about fundamentals. It would be like releasing a word processor that can't handle the full alphabet.
But Wine has been released because it has met its minimal goal of running specific Windows applications and it does that fairly successfully. The driving function for future development is the discovery of problems in running these applications or in adding new ones. The driving function isn't a list of API calls that haven't yet been implemented which would be the logical choice if implementing the API was the goal.
What sort of "standard" was Java at the time MS created J++. There wasn't even the toothless JCP at that time. The Java "standard" was entirely controlled by Sun.
"The only way to ensure that all developers had exactly what they wanted, regardless of languages or platforms, was to make everything from the editor frontends to the compiler backends as modular as possible."
If you think that Eclipse ensures that "all developers had exactly what they wanted, regardless of languages or platforms", you've never used it for C++. I'd say developing for C++ using Eclipse is quite competitive with other circa 1992 IDE's.
"I thought the problem was that Microsoft was already judged to be a monopoly, and to have abused their monopoly. See, if Microsoft has a monopoly on the O/S, and they use that O/S monopoly to harm competitors in other markets (office software, search software, media players, etc.) then the government is supposed to step in and protect competition to protect the consumers."
I think if you looked at past US antitrust actions, you won't find much evidence of the level of ongoing scrutiny of monopolies that you wish the current government would exercise with respect to MS. The DOJ has had it's day in court and won. Now it's ready to move on.
Actually, the 1991 action was instigated by the FTC, not the DOJ. So, should we conclude that you're trying to change history simply because you didn't get all the details perfect?
I was referring to the most significant case, United States v. Microsoft. Clearly the companies I mentioned were deeply involved in the case and received millions of dollars in money from MS due to the outcome.
Now the states who have companies that compete with MS want to leave the option open to easily extort more money from MS for the companies that do business in those states.
Well, they've already made a comedy-club version of "Spock's Brain" that is incredibly funny even though it doesn't change a single line of the script. They also add some Shatner songs and commercials.
"Zonk's point is not that iTunes is his only alternative but rather that it is the only convenient one. "
As another poster pointed out, you could use Amazon Ubox to watch and enjoy the added advantage of having the sound and video in sync (which isn't always the case with iTunes).
"Judge Kollar-Kotelly needs to view any DOJ testimony with skepticism."
Given the involvement of companies like Sun and Netscape in the original DOJ action against MS, perhaps judges should have been skeptical of the DOJ throughout the entire process, not just today.
"*One* way to do so would be to GPL your code, but another would be to withdraw it and replace the GPL portion with your own code or other code whose license you comply with."
I don't see how removing the GPL'd code makes the GPL any less (or more) viral. Obviously if you remove the offending code, the GPL is irrelevent. That doesn't change it's nature, however.
Yes, I think that the definition of "distribution" is problematic for the GPL. Can you sell membership to a GPL-breaker organization where you provide GPL derived applications without source since it is all for "internal" use? And why does distributed code "want to be free", but non-distributed code doesn't care? Perhaps RMS isn't quite the fanatic we think he is.
Actually, at the time Java was introduced, Sun's workstation and server sales were doing great. The mistake they made was trying to beat pseudocompetitor MS, instead of thinking about the real competition arising from Linux running on PCs.
"What is more difficult and expensive? Reading, understanding and adhering to any of a number of open-source licenses and keeping track of what you're using and what practices you need to follow to use them for free -- or investing a lot of R&D and development and Q&A time for your own proprietary stuff?"
It depends, but I think the proprietary option is better more often than you might imagine. It seems a lot of software patterns are used to enable globbing a lot of inappropriate software together into an application that is 90% unused bloat and 10% core functionality.
"Much of the rest of the software developing world needs to cross platform portability"
Really? I'd say that vast majority of in-house applications only need to run on a single platform and that even the biggest commercial apps usually only target Windows, Mac, and UNIX derivatives.
The problem with Oak and the set-top boxes was that Sun had no experience in embedded systems and I've never read anything to suggest that Gosling et al knew anything about them either. I suspect that the set-top boxes were far too expensive to be competitive.
Eventually most embedded systems could afford to include massive amounts of memory, so even bloated platforms (by traditional embedded standards) like Java ME or Windows CE could run on them.
When they go out of business and people ask "why", they can just refer you to the ticker symbol.
This not a dig at Java as a language or platform, but rather as a business strategy.
Re:What value DO the entry level certs have?
on
Network Warrior
·
· Score: 1
I get the joke, but actually the idea that there's widespread incompetence among experienced people in the computer industry is a myth propagated primarily by those who want to build up their own ego by tearing down others. The daily WTF mentality is a far greater threat to the profession than any true incompetence.
I think charging people for service and support is evil even if you provide the source code. Actually, I don't really believe that, but I tire of the strange argument that charging a fee for service on software you didn't write is OK (profit!) but selling your application and keeping the source private is a sin.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I've read an interview with the leader of Wine who said exactly what I said: that they don't intend to fully implement any version of the Windows API (sorry I don't have a link).
If you think about it, it makes sense. What purpose would it have served to release any version of Wine yet if you knew that the design goal of recreating the Windows API wasn't achieved? We're not talking about bugs, but about fundamentals. It would be like releasing a word processor that can't handle the full alphabet.
But Wine has been released because it has met its minimal goal of running specific Windows applications and it does that fairly successfully. The driving function for future development is the discovery of problems in running these applications or in adding new ones. The driving function isn't a list of API calls that haven't yet been implemented which would be the logical choice if implementing the API was the goal.
"Yah, because everybody knows how accurate and complete the Win32 documentation is, just ask the Wine team!"
Actually, the Wine team may not be the ones to ask since their goal isn't to recreate Win32. Their effort is application-driven not API-driven.
What sort of "standard" was Java at the time MS created J++. There wasn't even the toothless JCP at that time. The Java "standard" was entirely controlled by Sun.
And here's the number of platforms any individual needs to run Eclipse on for their project: 1
"The only way to ensure that all developers had exactly what they wanted, regardless of languages or platforms, was to make everything from the editor frontends to the compiler backends as modular as possible."
If you think that Eclipse ensures that "all developers had exactly what they wanted, regardless of languages or platforms", you've never used it for C++. I'd say developing for C++ using Eclipse is quite competitive with other circa 1992 IDE's.
"I thought the problem was that Microsoft was already judged to be a monopoly, and to have abused their monopoly. See, if Microsoft has a monopoly on the O/S, and they use that O/S monopoly to harm competitors in other markets (office software, search software, media players, etc.) then the government is supposed to step in and protect competition to protect the consumers."
I think if you looked at past US antitrust actions, you won't find much evidence of the level of ongoing scrutiny of monopolies that you wish the current government would exercise with respect to MS. The DOJ has had it's day in court and won. Now it's ready to move on.
Actually, the 1991 action was instigated by the FTC, not the DOJ. So, should we conclude that you're trying to change history simply because you didn't get all the details perfect?
I was referring to the most significant case, United States v. Microsoft. Clearly the companies I mentioned were deeply involved in the case and received millions of dollars in money from MS due to the outcome.
Now the states who have companies that compete with MS want to leave the option open to easily extort more money from MS for the companies that do business in those states.
Well, they've already made a comedy-club version of "Spock's Brain" that is incredibly funny even though it doesn't change a single line of the script. They also add some Shatner songs and commercials.
"Zonk's point is not that iTunes is his only alternative but rather that it is the only convenient one. "
As another poster pointed out, you could use Amazon Ubox to watch and enjoy the added advantage of having the sound and video in sync (which isn't always the case with iTunes).
You're absolutely right. Video from Amazon Unbox is of far better quality than what you can get from iTunes.
"Judge Kollar-Kotelly needs to view any DOJ testimony with skepticism."
Given the involvement of companies like Sun and Netscape in the original DOJ action against MS, perhaps judges should have been skeptical of the DOJ throughout the entire process, not just today.
"*One* way to do so would be to GPL your code, but another would be to withdraw it and replace the GPL portion with your own code or other code whose license you comply with."
I don't see how removing the GPL'd code makes the GPL any less (or more) viral. Obviously if you remove the offending code, the GPL is irrelevent. That doesn't change it's nature, however.
Yes, I think that the definition of "distribution" is problematic for the GPL. Can you sell membership to a GPL-breaker organization where you provide GPL derived applications without source since it is all for "internal" use? And why does distributed code "want to be free", but non-distributed code doesn't care? Perhaps RMS isn't quite the fanatic we think he is.
The fact that the terms of the GPL are triggered by copyright doesn't magically mean that it can't be viewed as a contract by a court.
Actually, at the time Java was introduced, Sun's workstation and server sales were doing great. The mistake they made was trying to beat pseudocompetitor MS, instead of thinking about the real competition arising from Linux running on PCs.
Sure. Try telling your landlord that you going to pay him in "reciprocal commitments".
"What is more difficult and expensive? Reading, understanding and adhering to any of a number of open-source licenses and keeping track of what you're using and what practices you need to follow to use them for free -- or investing a lot of R&D and development and Q&A time for your own proprietary stuff?"
It depends, but I think the proprietary option is better more often than you might imagine. It seems a lot of software patterns are used to enable globbing a lot of inappropriate software together into an application that is 90% unused bloat and 10% core functionality.
"Much of the rest of the software developing world needs to cross platform portability"
Really? I'd say that vast majority of in-house applications only need to run on a single platform and that even the biggest commercial apps usually only target Windows, Mac, and UNIX derivatives.
".NET is a direct Java clone."
.NET is a direct clone of Java, it must be possible. How do you go about it?
Hey, great. I always wanted to use delegates in Java and since
Java is a marketable skill, but not so much unless you have J2EE experience and/or the relevant web skills.
The problem with Oak and the set-top boxes was that Sun had no experience in embedded systems and I've never read anything to suggest that Gosling et al knew anything about them either. I suspect that the set-top boxes were far too expensive to be competitive.
Eventually most embedded systems could afford to include massive amounts of memory, so even bloated platforms (by traditional embedded standards) like Java ME or Windows CE could run on them.
What is this new market you are referring to? I'd be very surprised to find that Java accounts for more than 10-25% of their revenues. Am I wrong?
When they go out of business and people ask "why", they can just refer you to the ticker symbol.
This not a dig at Java as a language or platform, but rather as a business strategy.
I get the joke, but actually the idea that there's widespread incompetence among experienced people in the computer industry is a myth propagated primarily by those who want to build up their own ego by tearing down others. The daily WTF mentality is a far greater threat to the profession than any true incompetence.
I think charging people for service and support is evil even if you provide the source code. Actually, I don't really believe that, but I tire of the strange argument that charging a fee for service on software you didn't write is OK (profit!) but selling your application and keeping the source private is a sin.