"But that will start to look to the OSS community like Microsoft and.NET. I don't think that's going to go over well eventually."
If Harmony achieves its goal, the OSS community will be responsible for Sun's loss of control. If that were to happen, I can't see why Sun would care what the OSS community thinks. Unless they want to put a sign on their back that says "Kick me again".
It seems to me, however, that announcing your intent to form a group, that is supposed to eventually develop a software product to replace the market leader's product is the ultimate in FUD and vaporware.
"At the same time I don't see how it would harm Sun's power over it."
How could it not? If the license puts any restrictions or requires any additional actions on or by Sun with respect to Java, it lessens Sun's power over it.
As Spock once said in a Star Trek novel "A difference that makes no difference is no difference".
There's really little value in opening Java unless you need to change it in some significant way that the current process doesn't allow.
To the extent that an open Java is useful to others, it hurts Sun's power over it. To the extent it doesn't hurt Sun's power over it, it is not useful to others.
McNealy's earlier position on MS was simply based on his ego, not because he really believed MS was evil.
Now that his company is in trouble, he finally realized he's never going to Bill Gates so he's finally grown up and decided to put his company's survival as his first priority.
Anyone who ever thought Sun was ethically superior to MS was snookered by McNealy's slick manipulation of anti-MS sentiments.
"Since Harmony will open source Java - or force Sun to do so - that's not really relevant."
I love how a project that has been barely anounced is already projected to achieve OSS zealots' wildest dreams.
If Harmony is actually fully developed (and that's a big if) and is actually successful at competing with Java (another big if), Sun will still have little to gain in opening Java.
I've also written code to run on 4-bit microcontrollers with 512 bytes of ROM and 32 nibbles (4-bit) or RAM. It just depends on the application.
In the case of the Atari 2600, all video registers are only a single scan line "high", so your software has to reload new data into each video register every scan line (and for certain tricks, multiple times per scan line). You'd be surprised how quickly 4K can be used up in a "busy" screen.
"Have you ever written enough assembly code yourself to eat up 4K?"
Yes, including a bank-switched game on the Atari.
"Comparing such a machine to one running a multitasking OS is apples/oranges."
I was responding to the claim that Linux could run on a wristwatch. That claim was supposed to prove how tiny Linux could be so I compared it to a well-known embedded system.
The bottom line is that Linux (like other wokrstation derived multitasking OS's) require considerable resources to run and aren't appropriate for resource constrainted embedded use.
"And it runs on everything from a wristwatch to a mainframe."
Is this the watch from Spy Kids II that has so much functionality it can do everything but tell time?
Seriously, I'm sure your point was that Linux can run with minimal resources, but a wristwatch that just tells time needs an OS about as much as toilet paper does.
As a point of comparison, the Atari 2600 had 128 bytes of RAM, no ROM, no interrupts and game cartridges that could be 4K max (unless there was bank-switching hardware in the cartridge). When Linux can run with those kind of resources, I'll be impressed.
Another company like IBM that supports just enough OSS to give them credibility with the OSS lobby while continuing to reap enormous profits from their proprietary products.
I'm not an OSS fan, but if you believe that OSS is the future, why delay the transition by propping up the old guard because they throw you a few crumbs?
I think the mess that IBM got into with MS is pretty much unique to IBM.
As for the rest of the world, I don't see much leadership coming from IBM.
Open source and closed source products are out there for the world to choose from. Why would anyone need to check with IBM to figure out what they want to do?
"The point in my post (which you seemed not to understand) is that there is no equivalent of the "cheap windows admin" (a button pusher) on unix because of that."
There can't be a button pusher if there's no buttons to push, but it's quite possible to have a Unix admin that has memorized Unix commands but is incapable of understanding the big picture.
The user interface doesn't dictate the abilities of the admin.
"Linux developers and administrators tend to be more expensive because they are usually better trained because the environment (no wizard, easy to do IDE) forces them to know their system."
Translation: A Linux system is harder to maintain due to its non-user-friendly interface than Windows, so you have to pay people extra since it requires more memorization of obscure commands to be effective.
"Ultimately, Microsoft is going to have to try to make money competing face-to-face with GNOME/KDE, OO.org, and Mozilla on desktops from all the major systems providers."
Talk about the tail wagging the dog! Let's at least wait until the alternative desktops reach 10% market share before we annoint them as worthy competitors.
It's quite possible that the next big desktop environment hasn't even been conceived of yet.
What I love about the whole blog thing is the way it legitimizes what is essentially vanity publishing which has been around forever. Perhaps they should call them wanity's and wanitors instead of blogs and bloggers.
"All those clones then ultimately ran Microsoft's OS because its aggressive marketing techniques drove out all other competitors."
No. People were not interested in BIOS compatability, they were interested in PC compatability. That meant that the OS had to be compatible as well.
The fact that MS made a deal with IBM that gave them the legal right to sell their own version of DOS, meant at a minimum, that clones were available many years earlier than they would have been otherwise. For example DR-DOS was written 7 years after the PC was released.
It's rather obvious that Microsoft has competed very effectively without low salaries. It's not about competing, it's about maximizing profits. If Microsoft ever goes out of business, it will have little to do with overpaying engineers.
Obviously you haven't. Please provide me with a quote where I said that 9/11 was all Bush's fault.
"The Bush admin did not correct all the flaws as well as they could have."
I'm glad to see that you are no longer blaming 9/11 entirely on Clinton, but it's too late. Changing your story after you got caught bending the truth doesn't change anything.
"On the other hand, attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan was the appropriate response and it was taken immediately under the Bush admin."
I have nothing against Bush fighting the Taliban, I just wished he finished the job. The Taliban are on the rise, but at least president Karzai will be safe as long as he stays in Kabul.
"There's plenty of blame to go around, but morons like you who say WTC was Bush's fault are just swallowing the press' bias whole hog. Watch out for the bones if you use that little of your brain in rational thought."
Insults are the last refuge of those who can't win on the merit of their arguments.
On the other hand, if you wish to distort what I said it would have been more effective to site the Oklahoma bombing which was a much more serious terrorist attack than the first WTC attack.
I don't think average elementary (or even secondary) school children are going to be taught computer theory (what you described is more OS theory).
Even in college I think the general principles of computer theory or OS theory are taught first without reference to any particular computer or OS. Only after the basics have been taught are concrete examples brought in as case-studies.
Case-studies are helpful to understand how the general theory can be applied in a practical manner, but don't reveal much about the general principles themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
"But that will start to look to the OSS community like Microsoft and .NET. I don't think that's going to go over well eventually."
If Harmony achieves its goal, the OSS community will be responsible for Sun's loss of control. If that were to happen, I can't see why Sun would care what the OSS community thinks. Unless they want to put a sign on their back that says "Kick me again".
It seems to me, however, that announcing your intent to form a group, that is supposed to eventually develop a software product to replace the market leader's product is the ultimate in FUD and vaporware.
In particular when you are doing paired programming.
"At the same time I don't see how it would harm Sun's power over it."
How could it not? If the license puts any restrictions or requires any additional actions on or by Sun with respect to Java, it lessens Sun's power over it.
You and Bloater missed my point. The post I was responding to was discussing the issue from Sun's point of view, not users and developers.
To paraphrase an old Woody Allen joke about sex and relate it to OSS:
Q: Does OSS reduce the power of proprietary companies?
A: Yes, if you're doing right.
As Spock once said in a Star Trek novel "A difference that makes no difference is no difference".
There's really little value in opening Java unless you need to change it in some significant way that the current process doesn't allow.
To the extent that an open Java is useful to others, it hurts Sun's power over it. To the extent it doesn't hurt Sun's power over it, it is not useful to others.
McNealy's earlier position on MS was simply based on his ego, not because he really believed MS was evil.
Now that his company is in trouble, he finally realized he's never going to Bill Gates so he's finally grown up and decided to put his company's survival as his first priority.
Anyone who ever thought Sun was ethically superior to MS was snookered by McNealy's slick manipulation of anti-MS sentiments.
"Since Harmony will open source Java - or force Sun to do so - that's not really relevant."
I love how a project that has been barely anounced is already projected to achieve OSS zealots' wildest dreams.
If Harmony is actually fully developed (and that's a big if) and is actually successful at competing with Java (another big if), Sun will still have little to gain in opening Java.
I've also written code to run on 4-bit microcontrollers with 512 bytes of ROM and 32 nibbles (4-bit) or RAM. It just depends on the application.
In the case of the Atari 2600, all video registers are only a single scan line "high", so your software has to reload new data into each video register every scan line (and for certain tricks, multiple times per scan line). You'd be surprised how quickly 4K can be used up in a "busy" screen.
"Have you ever written enough assembly code yourself to eat up 4K?"
Yes, including a bank-switched game on the Atari.
"Comparing such a machine to one running a multitasking OS is apples/oranges."
I was responding to the claim that Linux could run on a wristwatch. That claim was supposed to prove how tiny Linux could be so I compared it to a well-known embedded system.
The bottom line is that Linux (like other wokrstation derived multitasking OS's) require considerable resources to run and aren't appropriate for resource constrainted embedded use.
"And it runs on everything from a wristwatch to a mainframe."
Is this the watch from Spy Kids II that has so much functionality it can do everything but tell time?
Seriously, I'm sure your point was that Linux can run with minimal resources, but a wristwatch that just tells time needs an OS about as much as toilet paper does.
As a point of comparison, the Atari 2600 had 128 bytes of RAM, no ROM, no interrupts and game cartridges that could be 4K max (unless there was bank-switching hardware in the cartridge). When Linux can run with those kind of resources, I'll be impressed.
Another company like IBM that supports just enough OSS to give them credibility with the OSS lobby while continuing to reap enormous profits from their proprietary products.
I'm not an OSS fan, but if you believe that OSS is the future, why delay the transition by propping up the old guard because they throw you a few crumbs?
Linux is essentially Unix which predates DOS, so I don't see any technical ideas flowing backward in time.
"How do you expect corporations to adopt Linux if it is not taught in our schools?"
It's simple. Educators don't expect or care if corporations adopt Linux so they have no reason to teach it.
I think the mess that IBM got into with MS is pretty much unique to IBM.
As for the rest of the world, I don't see much leadership coming from IBM.
Open source and closed source products are out there for the world to choose from. Why would anyone need to check with IBM to figure out what they want to do?
"The point in my post (which you seemed not to understand) is that there is no equivalent of the "cheap windows admin" (a button pusher) on unix because of that."
There can't be a button pusher if there's no buttons to push, but it's quite possible to have a Unix admin that has memorized Unix commands but is incapable of understanding the big picture.
The user interface doesn't dictate the abilities of the admin.
"Linux developers and administrators tend to be more expensive because they are usually better trained because the environment (no wizard, easy to do IDE) forces them to know their system."
Translation: A Linux system is harder to maintain due to its non-user-friendly interface than Windows, so you have to pay people extra since it requires more memorization of obscure commands to be effective.
"Ultimately, Microsoft is going to have to try to make money competing face-to-face with GNOME/KDE, OO.org, and Mozilla on desktops from all the major systems providers."
Talk about the tail wagging the dog! Let's at least wait until the alternative desktops reach 10% market share before we annoint them as worthy competitors.
It's quite possible that the next big desktop environment hasn't even been conceived of yet.
"Microsoft can't compete with the zero price point for adoption for anyone with hardware sitting around."
But that hardware "sitting around" already has Windows on it, so going forward it's already at zero price point.
On the other hand, if you install Linux on it, you have to retrain your staff at a cost much higher than you paid for the hardware in the first place.
What I love about the whole blog thing is the way it legitimizes what is essentially vanity publishing which has been around forever. Perhaps they should call them wanity's and wanitors instead of blogs and bloggers.
"Considering Steve Jobs affinity for things that "don't suck".."
like the original Mac that overheated due to the lack of a fan.
"All those clones then ultimately ran Microsoft's OS because its aggressive marketing techniques drove out all other competitors."
No. People were not interested in BIOS compatability, they were interested in PC compatability. That meant that the OS had to be compatible as well.
The fact that MS made a deal with IBM that gave them the legal right to sell their own version of DOS, meant at a minimum, that clones were available many years earlier than they would have been otherwise. For example DR-DOS was written 7 years after the PC was released.
It's rather obvious that Microsoft has competed very effectively without low salaries. It's not about competing, it's about maximizing profits. If Microsoft ever goes out of business, it will have little to do with overpaying engineers.
"Have you even read your posts?"
Obviously you haven't. Please provide me with a quote where I said that 9/11 was all Bush's fault.
"The Bush admin did not correct all the flaws as well as they could have."
I'm glad to see that you are no longer blaming 9/11 entirely on Clinton, but it's too late. Changing your story after you got caught bending the truth doesn't change anything.
"On the other hand, attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan was the appropriate response and it was taken immediately under the Bush admin."
I have nothing against Bush fighting the Taliban, I just wished he finished the job. The Taliban are on the rise, but at least president Karzai will be safe as long as he stays in Kabul.
"There's plenty of blame to go around, but morons like you who say WTC was Bush's fault are just swallowing the press' bias whole hog. Watch out for the bones if you use that little of your brain in rational thought."
Insults are the last refuge of those who can't win on the merit of their arguments.
Even when you write it in all caps full != some.
On the other hand, if you wish to distort what I said it would have been more effective to site the Oklahoma bombing which was a much more serious terrorist attack than the first WTC attack.
I don't think average elementary (or even secondary) school children are going to be taught computer theory (what you described is more OS theory).
Even in college I think the general principles of computer theory or OS theory are taught first without reference to any particular computer or OS. Only after the basics have been taught are concrete examples brought in as case-studies.
Case-studies are helpful to understand how the general theory can be applied in a practical manner, but don't reveal much about the general principles themselves.