The article actually states this. The abstract above was wrong, not the article—you get licenses of 2 virtual instances of Windows Server per every Standard edition license. Also, there's a standalone version of Hyper-V Server that's a free download.
I'm not sure I can take anybody who calls an attempt to make IT and Development more aware of each other a cult, seriously..
Actually, the people who were espousing devops were the ones who called it the "cult of devops". I'm not hating, just wondering if it's just relabeling.
Um, no. They can take Java open-source, and still retain the rights to the BRAND Java. What's more likely is that they'll open-source parts of Java, but retain J2ME as commercially-licensed because that's where they see the real revenue coming from down the line.
Gee, and here I thought it was Dave Winer who did that.:-)
No, really, there was a major stink in the web community over smart tags before Mossberg even heard of them. I really doubt he had anything to do with their demise.
It all boils down to this, basically:.NET includes a Java-like language called C#. It's another C++ - derived language, with automated garbage collection; one of its main claims to superiority is that it has an XML-based auto-documentation feature. It also offers some other XML manipulation features built-in.
But.NET is also a complete reworking of the Windows development platform. At its heart is a common language runtime (CLR)-- essentially a virtual machine, just like Java. The difference here is that.NET will allow you to write objects in different languages -- C++. C#, Visual Basic.NET, COBOL, Eiffel, etc. -- and mix and match them in the same project. You can have procedures in C#, VB and COBOL in the same application. Everything compiles down to the same CLR bytecode.
Microsoft also just announced a Java porting strategy called Java User Migration Path (JUMP) which will allow Java code to be compiled to run on the CLR.
So, what's Java got going for it? Well, Microsoft is only going to produce a CLR for Windows (though they are working on a reference implementation of the CLR and C# -- and, according to Tony Goodhew, a MS product manager, that implementation, which will be of everything they've submitted to ECMA as a standard, will be on Linux.) The Java VM is already running on multiple OS's and OS-less hardware platforms. Also, most of the advantages of the.NET platform design can be easily incorporated into Java through existing XML API's like the Apache Group Xerces. Xalan, and other SML oriented projects (look here). In the end, it all comes down to marketing and developer religious preferences.
I recall that a lot of Soviet computer technology in the late 80's and early '90s was based on a clone of the VAX or microVAX processor from Digital. Apparently, the Soviets had reverse-engineered the chip or had obtained technical specs on it through industrial espionage. These systems ran a Unix-like/ VMS-like OS.
Slashdot Mirror
The article actually states this. The abstract above was wrong, not the article—you get licenses of 2 virtual instances of Windows Server per every Standard edition license. Also, there's a standalone version of Hyper-V Server that's a free download.
I'm not sure I can take anybody who calls an attempt to make IT and Development more aware of each other a cult, seriously. .
Actually, the people who were espousing devops were the ones who called it the "cult of devops". I'm not hating, just wondering if it's just relabeling.
Um, no. They can take Java open-source, and still retain the rights to the BRAND Java. What's more likely is that they'll open-source parts of Java, but retain J2ME as commercially-licensed because that's where they see the real revenue coming from down the line.
Gee, and here I thought it was Dave Winer who did that. :-)
No, really, there was a major stink in the web community over smart tags before Mossberg even heard of them. I really doubt he had anything to do with their demise.
1) Qualcomm is based near his home district in southern California.
2) Qualcomm's PAC was the sixth largest campaign contributor to his last election campaign.
3)He served on the board of Directed Electronics, a company that makes automobile telematics based on CDMA; the products were originally a project for Wingcast, Ford and Qualcomm's now-defunct joint venture.
Gee, I wonder if he'll make any money off this deal.
It all boils down to this, basically: .NET includes a Java-like language called C#. It's another C++ - derived language, with automated garbage collection; one of its main claims to superiority is that it has an XML-based auto-documentation feature. It also offers some other XML manipulation features built-in.
But .NET is also a complete reworking of the Windows development platform. At its heart is a common language runtime (CLR)-- essentially a virtual machine, just like Java. The difference here is that .NET will allow you to write objects in different languages -- C++. C#, Visual Basic.NET, COBOL, Eiffel, etc. -- and mix and match them in the same project. You can have procedures in C#, VB and COBOL in the same application. Everything compiles down to the same CLR bytecode.
Microsoft also just announced a Java porting strategy called Java User Migration Path (JUMP) which will allow Java code to be compiled to run on the CLR.
So, what's Java got going for it? Well, Microsoft is only going to produce a CLR for Windows (though they are working on a reference implementation of the CLR and C# -- and, according to Tony Goodhew, a MS product manager, that implementation, which will be of everything they've submitted to ECMA as a standard, will be on Linux.) The Java VM is already running on multiple OS's and OS-less hardware platforms. Also, most of the advantages of the .NET platform design can be easily incorporated into Java through existing XML API's like the Apache Group Xerces. Xalan, and other SML oriented projects (look here). In the end, it all comes down to marketing and developer religious preferences.
I recall that a lot of Soviet computer technology in the late 80's and early '90s was based on a clone of the VAX or microVAX processor from Digital. Apparently, the Soviets had reverse-engineered the chip or had obtained technical specs on it through industrial espionage. These systems ran a Unix-like/ VMS-like OS.