These fees are being sold as a fee on the carrier, but that fee will be applied as a new surcharge on everyone's phone bill. The interesting thing about fees is that they do not operate as the progressive tax that Democrats typically favor. They operate as a fair tax -- applied uniformly based on consumption. The only way they get away with it is that people don't think it through, so they think someone else is getting the tax.
I agree with the point of the article that applying huge fees to the wireless spectrum will create a huge barrier to entry for startups that don't have that kind of money. For the U.S. to remain competitive, we need to create an environment that nurtures the small inventor who might have a big idea but lack the funds to bring it to market.
Java is available on a myriad array of desktop, server, and mobile operating systems, such as Windows, Solaris, HP-UX, Mac OS X, AIX, UnixWare, Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD (build from source), OS/2, z/OS, IBM i, OpenVMS, Tru64, Reliant Unix, Windows CE, Windows Mobile, Symbian, Palm OS, QNX, Haiku, and so on. These are compliant Java implementations that pass the relevent TCK.
...and like most legends, it's in the past. Most Java implementations are moving towards OGSi, which can reload all libraries (even multiple versions) on the fly. There's also a Java Module System under development, but it's being greeted as a largely unnecessary reinvention of the wheel.
Java isn't going to cut it for a managed code environment in the future.
You've already demonstrated an outdated understanding of Java, both the language and the runtime. This kind of statement requires substantiation.
Hell, it even supports Java via J#
If you actually believe this tripe, it explains all of your other mis-statements and beliefs about Java. If all you had to base an opinion on was Java 1.1 (many years out of date now), I can understand how you come to form your beliefs.
As far as the GPL goes, that's true. They only embraced the GPL when McNeely stepped down. However, they've been a friend to open source for a LONG time. Apache Tomcat is an example of a Sun work that was open sourced quite a few years ago, as is OpenOffice.org.
Yes, the project was started as such. Calling it a "copy" is inaccurate.
No, it isn't..Net was started because Microsoft couldn't build on Java due to Sun v. Microsoft.
Java aims for Java-the-language penetration above all; Jython and JRuby are tolerated, but aren't anything close to first-class citizens.
You're drinking the anti-Java kool-aid a little too much. The Java Virtual Machine has always been cross-language capable. It was cool in the early days of Java for language developers to target Java bytecode with their compilers.
Jython and JRuby are more than tolerated. Their development is primarily funded by Sun, and the NetBeans IDE has garnered a lot of attention for being one of the best Ruby on Rails IDEs out there.
That being said, it is a fair criticism that the bytecode is Java-centric. Sun is working on changing that (the effort being led by one of the JRuby guys).
The CLR's specific goal is to get a lot of mutually interoperable languages on the same platform.
No, the goal was to create a VM similar to the Java VM that could host multiple languages. This is a subtle but important difference.
Java attempts to contain everything in managed code.
No, it doesn't. Java provides robust interfaces for calling out to native code. The fact that Microsoft refused to support the JNI doesn't change the fact that it exists.
The CLR is smarter than that and provides very powerful and very flexible ways to handle managed/native interop (in a reasonably cross-platform manner, too).
Actually, the CLR is dumber because it makes it too easy to go into native code. There are very few legitimate reasons to go into native code.
Microsoft only released Rotor and made an ECMA standard because they want it all on Windows. Right.
Removing your sarcasm, that's completely accurate. For one thing, Rotor is no longer supported. It's now the Shared Source Common Language Interface (SSCLI), and is licensed so as to not permit commercial use. If Microsoft wanted productive usage of.Net on other platforms, they would not have created such a limiting field of use restriction.
IIRC, Microsoft went and talked to Novell about the Mono project as part of their agreements, but I could be wrong.
The Mono project lived for a good deal before it became part of Novell. Microsoft said that it approached Linux distributions that it believed were infringing their IP. Novell was a particularly interesting target because the Mono project lives there, and necessarily infringes on several Microsoft patents.
I guess we'll see. Personally, I win either way. I use Windows as my primary OS. If Mono gets good, I get the lazy man's porting of applications to other OSes. If it ends up blowing up--well, my primary OS is still fine.
All this being said, I'm not anti-Mono. It just grates on my nerves when half-truths or "used to be" truths are bandied about as facts. Java has addressed quite a few of its shortcomings in the past few releases, and I don't think it's productive to deride Java based on things that just aren't true anymore.
Miguels comments about not wanting to write in js really betray the agenda don't they?
I think Miguel just wants to write everything in.Net. He couches his language in neutral-sounding terms, but he's a.Net zealot. Everything but.Net has problems, to listen to his arguments.
JavaScript is a capable language, and it is definitely possible to write clean code in JavaScript. However, it's also easy to write monstrously bad code, too.
Yahoo was an extremely odd fit for Microsoft (different software platform, different development philosophy, extremely different corporate culture). Had the takeover gone through, they would have been stuck either a) supporting two different software environments or b) migrating Yahoo properties to MSN. Either course would be a distraction.
I think someone finally talked some sense into Ballmer & Co. about why Microsoft is better on its own than trying to get "Web 2.0" sense via acquisition.
Wow that's an excellent comeback. Too bad it's missing the entire point by injecting an orthogonal concern and a value judgment where none existed before.
I'm not going to make a value judgment on the rest of the post, but there is one thing that needs to be cleared up:
The top two languages, according to a casual Google search, are PHP and ASP, in that order. So Java is at best third, unless we can find some actual statistics to pin it on. The only sites I ever notice a JSP page on are various corporate websites which are basically HTML brochures. The only site I actually use that I know is running Java is Gmail.
That's a deeply flawed methodology, unless what you're after is "The top languages that are used by websites that expose their implementation technology to the end user". ASP and PHP seem to be more discoverable because their programming models encourage the use of.php and.asp/.aspx extensions. It doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong, just that you can't use this as a legitimate basis for reaching that conclusion.
Actually the JVM was multi-language before Microsoft ever released the CLR. The fact that the CLR had multi-language flexibility as a selling point doesn't change this fact.
I think their (lack of) capability to successfully integrate Yahoo! is what makes them incapable of screwing with Yahoo! this way. The only thing screwing with Yahoo! does is strengthen Google.
Honestly, I don't know if they're capable of it. "Web 2.0" is characterized by disruptive innovations, and Microsoft's bureaucracy acts against the agility needed to accomplish that.
If you look at their recent product releases, you'll see a lot of reinventing wheels. Disruptive innovation is characterized by new inventions or new combinations of ideas. They don't have that.
They'd have to focus on integrating the two company's offerings before they could turn their full attention to R&D. They may be able to push their respective platforms forward faster by staying separate, rather than having to devote resources to an integration nightmare.
Saying something to the effect of "This transaction is an example of the great results for everyone that can be attained when the shareholder activist works closely with management."
I think the other stakeholders (employees, customers) will take a wait-and-see approach.
Slashdot Mirror
These fees are being sold as a fee on the carrier, but that fee will be applied as a new surcharge on everyone's phone bill. The interesting thing about fees is that they do not operate as the progressive tax that Democrats typically favor. They operate as a fair tax -- applied uniformly based on consumption. The only way they get away with it is that people don't think it through, so they think someone else is getting the tax.
I agree with the point of the article that applying huge fees to the wireless spectrum will create a huge barrier to entry for startups that don't have that kind of money. For the U.S. to remain competitive, we need to create an environment that nurtures the small inventor who might have a big idea but lack the funds to bring it to market.
based on their campaign promises or the fact that they're far more well-elocuted that their predecessors.
For people to give that trust to a politician -- any politician -- is a recipe for disappointment.
The JVM is not an emulator. It would be more realistic to think of it as a runtime compiler.
Sun's list barely scratches the surface.
Java is available on a myriad array of desktop, server, and mobile operating systems, such as Windows, Solaris, HP-UX, Mac OS X, AIX, UnixWare, Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD (build from source), OS/2, z/OS, IBM i, OpenVMS, Tru64, Reliant Unix, Windows CE, Windows Mobile, Symbian, Palm OS, QNX, Haiku, and so on. These are compliant Java implementations that pass the relevent TCK.
Java is available on far more operating platforms, and unless you purposefully do something OS specific, is genuinely build once, run anywhere.
its ClassLoader issues are the stuff of legend.
...and like most legends, it's in the past. Most Java implementations are moving towards OGSi, which can reload all libraries (even multiple versions) on the fly. There's also a Java Module System under development, but it's being greeted as a largely unnecessary reinvention of the wheel.
Again, your knowledge must be based on the Microsoft implementation of Java.
Java has no problems with running native code libraries.
The Wikipedia citation is not nearly complete.
The better citation is http://www.is-research.de/info/vmlanguages/
Java isn't going to cut it for a managed code environment in the future.
You've already demonstrated an outdated understanding of Java, both the language and the runtime. This kind of statement requires substantiation.
Hell, it even supports Java via J#
If you actually believe this tripe, it explains all of your other mis-statements and beliefs about Java. If all you had to base an opinion on was Java 1.1 (many years out of date now), I can understand how you come to form your beliefs.
As far as the GPL goes, that's true. They only embraced the GPL when McNeely stepped down. However, they've been a friend to open source for a LONG time. Apache Tomcat is an example of a Sun work that was open sourced quite a few years ago, as is OpenOffice.org.
Yes, the project was started as such. Calling it a "copy" is inaccurate.
No, it isn't. .Net was started because Microsoft couldn't build on Java due to Sun v. Microsoft.
Java aims for Java-the-language penetration above all; Jython and JRuby are tolerated, but aren't anything close to first-class citizens.
You're drinking the anti-Java kool-aid a little too much. The Java Virtual Machine has always been cross-language capable. It was cool in the early days of Java for language developers to target Java bytecode with their compilers.
Jython and JRuby are more than tolerated. Their development is primarily funded by Sun, and the NetBeans IDE has garnered a lot of attention for being one of the best Ruby on Rails IDEs out there.
That being said, it is a fair criticism that the bytecode is Java-centric. Sun is working on changing that (the effort being led by one of the JRuby guys).
The CLR's specific goal is to get a lot of mutually interoperable languages on the same platform.
No, the goal was to create a VM similar to the Java VM that could host multiple languages. This is a subtle but important difference.
Java attempts to contain everything in managed code.
No, it doesn't. Java provides robust interfaces for calling out to native code. The fact that Microsoft refused to support the JNI doesn't change the fact that it exists.
The CLR is smarter than that and provides very powerful and very flexible ways to handle managed/native interop (in a reasonably cross-platform manner, too).
Actually, the CLR is dumber because it makes it too easy to go into native code. There are very few legitimate reasons to go into native code.
Microsoft only released Rotor and made an ECMA standard because they want it all on Windows. Right.
Removing your sarcasm, that's completely accurate. For one thing, Rotor is no longer supported. It's now the Shared Source Common Language Interface (SSCLI), and is licensed so as to not permit commercial use. If Microsoft wanted productive usage of .Net on other platforms, they would not have created such a limiting field of use restriction.
IIRC, Microsoft went and talked to Novell about the Mono project as part of their agreements, but I could be wrong.
The Mono project lived for a good deal before it became part of Novell. Microsoft said that it approached Linux distributions that it believed were infringing their IP. Novell was a particularly interesting target because the Mono project lives there, and necessarily infringes on several Microsoft patents.
I guess we'll see. Personally, I win either way. I use Windows as my primary OS. If Mono gets good, I get the lazy man's porting of applications to other OSes. If it ends up blowing up--well, my primary OS is still fine.
All this being said, I'm not anti-Mono. It just grates on my nerves when half-truths or "used to be" truths are bandied about as facts. Java has addressed quite a few of its shortcomings in the past few releases, and I don't think it's productive to deride Java based on things that just aren't true anymore.
Miguels comments about not wanting to write in js really betray the agenda don't they?
I think Miguel just wants to write everything in .Net. He couches his language in neutral-sounding terms, but he's a .Net zealot. Everything but .Net has problems, to listen to his arguments.
JavaScript is a capable language, and it is definitely possible to write clean code in JavaScript. However, it's also easy to write monstrously bad code, too.
Steve Jobs has every right to keep his medical condition secret.
The only thing the investors have a right to know is the succession plan that Apple has in place should Jobs have to step down.
Yahoo was an extremely odd fit for Microsoft (different software platform, different development philosophy, extremely different corporate culture). Had the takeover gone through, they would have been stuck either a) supporting two different software environments or b) migrating Yahoo properties to MSN. Either course would be a distraction.
I think someone finally talked some sense into Ballmer & Co. about why Microsoft is better on its own than trying to get "Web 2.0" sense via acquisition.
Wow that's an excellent comeback. Too bad it's missing the entire point by injecting an orthogonal concern and a value judgment where none existed before.
Since Ozone is a greenhouse gas, being stripped of the ozone layer would seem to act as a brake on global warming.
The top two languages, according to a casual Google search, are PHP and ASP, in that order. So Java is at best third, unless we can find some actual statistics to pin it on. The only sites I ever notice a JSP page on are various corporate websites which are basically HTML brochures. The only site I actually use that I know is running Java is Gmail.
That's a deeply flawed methodology, unless what you're after is "The top languages that are used by websites that expose their implementation technology to the end user". ASP and PHP seem to be more discoverable because their programming models encourage the use of .php and .asp/.aspx extensions. It doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong, just that you can't use this as a legitimate basis for reaching that conclusion.
Actually the JVM was multi-language before Microsoft ever released the CLR. The fact that the CLR had multi-language flexibility as a selling point doesn't change this fact.
And for Zend, it opens up shops that are exclusively IIS and might have banned PHP in the past for performance reasons.
I think their (lack of) capability to successfully integrate Yahoo! is what makes them incapable of screwing with Yahoo! this way. The only thing screwing with Yahoo! does is strengthen Google.
Honestly, I don't know if they're capable of it. "Web 2.0" is characterized by disruptive innovations, and Microsoft's bureaucracy acts against the agility needed to accomplish that.
If you look at their recent product releases, you'll see a lot of reinventing wheels. Disruptive innovation is characterized by new inventions or new combinations of ideas. They don't have that.
Don't all jump at once.
They'd have to focus on integrating the two company's offerings before they could turn their full attention to R&D. They may be able to push their respective platforms forward faster by staying separate, rather than having to devote resources to an integration nightmare.
IBM's dW website always goes down Saturday evening for maintenance. I think it goes down a little early, but it's always down for at least some time.
Saying something to the effect of "This transaction is an example of the great results for everyone that can be attained when the shareholder activist works closely with management."
I think the other stakeholders (employees, customers) will take a wait-and-see approach.