The fact is that it would cost Sun _real money_ to support FreeBSD. That is because they have to _pay_ their employees to do the work. I'm sure if you agreed to _pay_ Sun's employees for better FreeBSD support, you could have a better FreeBSD experience too.
So, how much are you willing to pay? Zero dollars, you say? Well, what a coincidence, that's how much Sun wants to pay too!
Why not use all zero dollars to create your own J2SE/J2EE platform implementation and give it away for free? When you are done, somewhat will complain that you don't have it running on GeoWorks on Commodore-64; what will you say to them?
I think the real issue will be whether or not JBoss will "qualify" for the free TCK. JBoss is free but the JBoss founders are making cash through consulting and other means.
Also, even if JBoss passes the test, they won't be able to use the J2EE brand, because testing is not the only requirement to be J2EE branded, I believe.
Nobody's saying that Windows is _cheaper_ than Linux, or that linux is _expensive_. The statement is just saying that linux is _not_ free since it takes time to set up and learn. Windows takes time to set up and learn too. Thus, if your time is worth anything, then neither is free. With Windows, you also have an additional (fixed) cost at the onset.
"Play on Words" naming is very common in the porn industry. For example, there is "Shaving Private Ryan" which is obviously a play on "Saving Private Ryan". Therefore, I would expect precedent for Lindows vs. Windows to be found in legal battles over the naming of porn movies.
For a very short list of such movie titles, see: http://www.teamnattyice.com/shame_pornnames. html
On the other hand, I expect that the pornographers' defense is based on the fact that their movies are parodies of the original, non-porn movies. I say this because otherwise the porn movies are obviously infringing because they also copy storylines and everything else from the original movie.
I don't think such a parody defense would be relavent for Lindows in its current form. But, if Lindows had a substantial amount of political/humorous content then such a defense would probably hold up, no?
The new arrangement is the same one that they are already using with NetBeans, as far as I can tell.
Sun will support a "commercial" version of OpenOffice called "StarOffice". The purchasers of StarOffice will get benefits (support, additional features, etc) that the users of the free OpenOffice version won't get. That seems fair and it provides an incentive for customers to help support OpenOffice financially.
Some people might be cynical, but I think that the NetBeans/Forte arrangement has worked out pretty well. The Sun developers working on NetBeans work hard to make NetBeans great. They have to work on the Forte-only features but I think that the development of the Forte-only features benefits NetBeans as well (any architectural improvements in Forte must get pushed down to NetBean in order to keep them interoperable). I think things will work the same way with StarOffice and OpenOffice.
As far as C# vs.Java. I am really impressed with the CLR/CLI stuff. Right now, as it stands, Java is a proprietary language. Unless we see SUN Open Source Java (or push it through a standards committee), we *may* see a JDK 1.5... but no one will use it.
I agreed with your whole post except for this statement. It is just FUD (perhaps unintentional). The fact is that CLR/CLI isn't going to kill off Java in the next 16 months, which is when I expect to see JDK 1.5 delivered. Also, there is nothing stopping open-source clean-room implementations of anything in J2SE, AFAICT. You just can't call your product "Java" and you won't be able to get your runtime certified by Sun. Similarly, I doubt that Microsoft will let somewhat create a clean-room CLR/CLI and call it "The.NET Framework", and they don't even have a process in place for certifying compatible implementations.
Kodac got these patents when it bought Wise. I read on JavaLobby.com's discussion of the lawsuit that Wise sued Microsoft three years ago over these three patents. I don't know the outcome of the alleged lawsuit.
Also, a few people on JavaLobby are of the opinion that Kodac just patented three fundemental object-oriented programming techniques. If that is the case, these patents would never hold up in court as almost any SmallTalk program written before 1990 would be prior art.
> No court would hold you liable if the FBI came
> in with a warrant - in fact, you probably
> couldn't get it into court.
So, you agree with me that it is better to make it clear in the terms of use that the user cannot sue when SourceForge is forced to hand over information.
> If they are liquidated, and whoever the owning
> entity is, if they voliate the terms of the
> contract, they should get sued.
That is the exact same argument that I gave: they don't want to worry about lawsuits if they have to sell off information upon going bankrupt (a situation "beyond their control"), so they changed the terms.
> That doesn't mean they're going to violate your
> privacy, but they want no reprocussions when
> they do.
In addition, I think this clause is to prevent them from being sued in the event that they are liquidated. During liquidation, user information will be sold to the highest bidder. I know precedents for this have made slashdot in the past.
Also, a police organization (e.g. FBI) can force them to hand over information about their users.
I'm sure that when all our bosses bought us these computers, they weren't intending for us to post comments to Slashdot all day long, but that is exactly what a lot of us are using them for.
I assume that he would _read_ the email first. Otherwise, how will he screen the PGP-signed "Cum_To_My_WebSite.diff" messages that are likely already flooding his inbox?
Oracle has its own SCM system where all the information is stored in an Oracle Database. It is 6,000+the cost of the database, if I remember right (approximately $46,000 total for a dual-CPU Windows system the last time I checked).
How much does it cost to power a computer?
on
Voltage Frugal PCs?
·
· Score: 1
Does anybody have any (verifiable) figures about how much money it costs to keep an "average" desktop computer running for 365 days? I have seen a lot of figures and the numbers vary greatly (from fairly insignificant to not-so-insignificant).
I seriously doubt you will get anybody in Clear Lake to say "clit." That small town is filled with insurance salesmen, bankers, and lawyers. I wouldn't expect to hear "clit" from any of the people in these professions. Although, it would be pretty cool if Johnny Cochran were to defend a client using the line "If the clit doesn't fit, you must aquit."
By the way, Clear Lake (the lake) is pretty dirty, despite its name. But, it is maybe the only place in Iowa where you can operate a sailboat (thus the reason there are a lot of lawyers, bankers, and insurance salesmen). That is why, if you ever go to Clear Lake, you will see that every building in the town has at least one sailboat painted on it; you would think the town invented the fucking things.
For instance, you can make some accounts/groups only able to login between certain hours of the day - and this will be true for everything that uses the LDAP authentication - be it Windows client, firewall, unix workstation - whatever.
I understand using LDAP for authorization, but how would it work for authentication?
I don't understand your point. Java and CORBA are great technologies, and everybody would be calling Oracle stupid if they didn't commit to them. Since they are both cross-platform technologies, Oracle can easily provide Java and CORBA services on all its supported platforms.
.NET is coming down the pike, as you say, but Oracle does not want to support it because it will only work on Windows (the very operating system that they are trying to move people away from).
Bounds checking _must_ happen in the JVM. The compiler cannot reduce this workload at all. The reason: for security reasons, the JVM cannot trust the code that is generated by the compiler, because it cannot trust the compiler. This is the old argument that states that you cannot trust your own software any more than you trust the software that you use to create it.
Now, the JVM can hoist the checking out of the loop in the bytecode->native code (JIT) processing, since it trusts itself.
I think it's getting to be evident that the traditional UNIX RISC workstation vendors are having a hard time keeping their CPUs not only on the price/performance curve, but on the performance curve itself.
The Unix vendors are keeping their own chips because they have more control over them than if they were to rely on Intel. Take Sun for example. Sun has focused more on QA and managability issues with the UltraSparc series than Intel has with the Pentium line.
They also know exactly what the production schedule is for their chip. When the schedule on USIII slipped, Sun knew right away (well before anybody else). However, if Sun had switched to Itanium at that time, they would have no idea about how many "slips" in the Itanium production there would be until too late, and they wouldn't have the inside scoop on the (disappointing) compatibility performance. The companies that depended on Itanium really got burned on these things (and still nobody is using Itanium).
Finally, if these companies were to switch from their homegrown processors to Intel/AMD, that would be the perfect moment for their customers to switch to a different manufaturer (since they won't have to advantage of support for legacy applications).
Power4 is a different architecture than PowerPC. When Power and PowerPC first came out, a book was published about both that provided some insight into the original similarities and differences. Since then, Power and PowerPC have gone their own ways so much that they aren't even really comparable any more.
That is what everybody says about Borland's compilers. They even had the monikers "Turbo C++" and "Turbo Pascal" for a while; presumably because Turbo Pascal could compile at an amazing speed compared to other compilers.
However, it makes me wonder how the generated code could be too bad, since I assume that Borland is compiling its own tools with its own compiler? In other words, I think the speed at which Borland's compilers execute is evidence that they can generate fast code.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact is that it would cost Sun _real money_ to support FreeBSD. That is because they have to _pay_ their employees to do the work. I'm sure if you agreed to _pay_ Sun's employees for better FreeBSD support, you could have a better FreeBSD experience too.
So, how much are you willing to pay? Zero dollars, you say? Well, what a coincidence, that's how much Sun wants to pay too!
Why not use all zero dollars to create your own J2SE/J2EE platform implementation and give it away for free? When you are done, somewhat will complain that you don't have it running on GeoWorks on Commodore-64; what will you say to them?
I think the real issue will be whether or not JBoss will "qualify" for the free TCK. JBoss is free but the JBoss founders are making cash through consulting and other means.
Also, even if JBoss passes the test, they won't be able to use the J2EE brand, because testing is not the only requirement to be J2EE branded, I believe.
Nobody's saying that Windows is _cheaper_ than Linux, or that linux is _expensive_. The statement is just saying that linux is _not_ free since it takes time to set up and learn. Windows takes time to set up and learn too. Thus, if your time is worth anything, then neither is free. With Windows, you also have an additional (fixed) cost at the onset.
"Play on Words" naming is very common in the porn industry. For example, there is "Shaving Private Ryan" which is obviously a play on "Saving Private Ryan". Therefore, I would expect precedent for Lindows vs. Windows to be found in legal battles over the naming of porn movies.
. html
For a very short list of such movie titles, see:
http://www.teamnattyice.com/shame_pornnames
On the other hand, I expect that the pornographers' defense is based on the fact that their movies are parodies of the original, non-porn movies. I say this because otherwise the porn movies are obviously infringing because they also copy storylines and everything else from the original movie.
I don't think such a parody defense would be relavent for Lindows in its current form. But, if Lindows had a substantial amount of political/humorous content then such a defense would probably hold up, no?
I really hope somebody comes up with something witty regarding my "Lust" typo.
The new arrangement is the same one that they are already using with NetBeans, as far as I can tell.
Sun will support a "commercial" version of OpenOffice called "StarOffice". The purchasers of StarOffice will get benefits (support, additional features, etc) that the users of the free OpenOffice version won't get. That seems fair and it provides an incentive for customers to help support OpenOffice financially.
Some people might be cynical, but I think that the NetBeans/Forte arrangement has worked out pretty well. The Sun developers working on NetBeans work hard to make NetBeans great. They have to work on the Forte-only features but I think that the development of the Forte-only features benefits NetBeans as well (any architectural improvements in Forte must get pushed down to NetBean in order to keep them interoperable). I think things will work the same way with StarOffice and OpenOffice.
That is basically what Model-View-Controller is, and MVC was the foundation of most Smalltalk UI implementations.
My bad...it is Wang.
I agreed with your whole post except for this statement. It is just FUD (perhaps unintentional). The fact is that CLR/CLI isn't going to kill off Java in the next 16 months, which is when I expect to see JDK 1.5 delivered. Also, there is nothing stopping open-source clean-room implementations of anything in J2SE, AFAICT. You just can't call your product "Java" and you won't be able to get your runtime certified by Sun. Similarly, I doubt that Microsoft will let somewhat create a clean-room CLR/CLI and call it "The
Kodac got these patents when it bought Wise. I read on JavaLobby.com's discussion of the lawsuit that Wise sued Microsoft three years ago over these three patents. I don't know the outcome of the alleged lawsuit.
Also, a few people on JavaLobby are of the opinion that Kodac just patented three fundemental object-oriented programming techniques. If that is the case, these patents would never hold up in court as almost any SmallTalk program written before 1990 would be prior art.
> No court would hold you liable if the FBI came
> in with a warrant - in fact, you probably
> couldn't get it into court.
So, you agree with me that it is better to make it clear in the terms of use that the user cannot sue when SourceForge is forced to hand over information.
> If they are liquidated, and whoever the owning
> entity is, if they voliate the terms of the
> contract, they should get sued.
That is the exact same argument that I gave: they don't want to worry about lawsuits if they have to sell off information upon going bankrupt (a situation "beyond their control"), so they changed the terms.
> That doesn't mean they're going to violate your
> privacy, but they want no reprocussions when
> they do.
s/when/if
In addition, I think this clause is to prevent them from being sued in the event that they are liquidated. During liquidation, user information will be sold to the highest bidder. I know precedents for this have made slashdot in the past.
Also, a police organization (e.g. FBI) can force them to hand over information about their users.
How do you know this? (I'm Just curious where you got your figures from.)
I'm sure that when all our bosses bought us these computers, they weren't intending for us to post comments to Slashdot all day long, but that is exactly what a lot of us are using them for.
I assume that he would _read_ the email first. Otherwise, how will he screen the PGP-signed "Cum_To_My_WebSite.diff" messages that are likely already flooding his inbox?
Oracle has its own SCM system where all the information is stored in an Oracle Database. It is 6,000+the cost of the database, if I remember right (approximately $46,000 total for a dual-CPU Windows system the last time I checked).
Does anybody have any (verifiable) figures about how much money it costs to keep an "average" desktop computer running for 365 days? I have seen a lot of figures and the numbers vary greatly (from fairly insignificant to not-so-insignificant).
What a fucking idiot! everybody knows that it is "acquit" not "aquit." Mod the above post down!!!
I seriously doubt you will get anybody in Clear Lake to say "clit." That small town is filled with insurance salesmen, bankers, and lawyers. I wouldn't expect to hear "clit" from any of the people in these professions. Although, it would be pretty cool if Johnny Cochran were to defend a client using the line "If the clit doesn't fit, you must aquit."
By the way, Clear Lake (the lake) is pretty dirty, despite its name. But, it is maybe the only place in Iowa where you can operate a sailboat (thus the reason there are a lot of lawyers, bankers, and insurance salesmen). That is why, if you ever go to Clear Lake, you will see that every building in the town has at least one sailboat painted on it; you would think the town invented the fucking things.
For instance, you can make some accounts/groups only able to login between certain hours of the day - and this will be true for everything that uses the LDAP authentication - be it Windows client, firewall, unix workstation - whatever. I understand using LDAP for authorization, but how would it work for authentication?
I don't understand your point. Java and CORBA are great technologies, and everybody would be calling Oracle stupid if they didn't commit to them. Since they are both cross-platform technologies, Oracle can easily provide Java and CORBA services on all its supported platforms.
.NET is coming down the pike, as you say, but Oracle does not want to support it because it will only work on Windows (the very operating system that they are trying to move people away from).
Bounds checking _must_ happen in the JVM. The compiler cannot reduce this workload at all. The reason: for security reasons, the JVM cannot trust the code that is generated by the compiler, because it cannot trust the compiler. This is the old argument that states that you cannot trust your own software any more than you trust the software that you use to create it.
Now, the JVM can hoist the checking out of the loop in the bytecode->native code (JIT) processing, since it trusts itself.
The Unix vendors are keeping their own chips because they have more control over them than if they were to rely on Intel. Take Sun for example. Sun has focused more on QA and managability issues with the UltraSparc series than Intel has with the Pentium line.
They also know exactly what the production schedule is for their chip. When the schedule on USIII slipped, Sun knew right away (well before anybody else). However, if Sun had switched to Itanium at that time, they would have no idea about how many "slips" in the Itanium production there would be until too late, and they wouldn't have the inside scoop on the (disappointing) compatibility performance. The companies that depended on Itanium really got burned on these things (and still nobody is using Itanium).
Finally, if these companies were to switch from their homegrown processors to Intel/AMD, that would be the perfect moment for their customers to switch to a different manufaturer (since they won't have to advantage of support for legacy applications).
Power4 is a different architecture than PowerPC. When Power and PowerPC first came out, a book was published about both that provided some insight into the original similarities and differences. Since then, Power and PowerPC have gone their own ways so much that they aren't even really comparable any more.
That is what everybody says about Borland's compilers. They even had the monikers "Turbo C++" and "Turbo Pascal" for a while; presumably because Turbo Pascal could compile at an amazing speed compared to other compilers.
However, it makes me wonder how the generated code could be too bad, since I assume that Borland is compiling its own tools with its own compiler? In other words, I think the speed at which Borland's compilers execute is evidence that they can generate fast code.