I program in J++ and I chose J++ for the following reasons:
1. It's an object-oriented language which is better for writing visual user interfaces. 2. Java does not have segmentation faults and bus errors which can bring a Win95 machine to it's knees (No comment on MS's crappy VM that crashes...but anyway) 3. I knew Java. 4. I THOUGHT that J++ was going to be _almost_ platform independent implementation of Java. I read many articles on J++ and did not understand that all of the generated code contained these STUPID function pointers...I mean delegates that MS demanded. None of the articles that I read pointed out how the generated forms (like Java Frames) work. 5. The Windoze window manager and ODBC (i.e. WFC) is called directly as opposed to being called through an additional layer, thus it (should be) is faster than going through java.awt.* AND there may also be a MS JIT compiler.
What I've realized since I've first started using it is that:
1. It would be almost impossible for me to port my applications anywhere, even with the many precautions that I've taken to keep MS specific code segregated in classes from platform independent Java only classes. 2. Because of the unnecessary inclusion by MS of their delegate class, all of the generated code for forms is completely unusable save a conversion utility (which does not exist) that could turn delegates into inner classes. 3. Programs run pretty fast after being compiled as compared to normal Windows apps. 4. If I had to port any of these programs to Pure Java, I would have to rewrite the lowest level database class and all of the user interface classes (what MS calls forms).
Why not C++?
C++ programs cannot be developed as quickly and take much more care. They run faster, but that is not what I needed--I needed rapid development.
Why not Visual Basic? Gimme a break! You call that a language?
The point of J++ and any other Windows dependent Java clone is to make the cost of moving from Windows too great for people to switch to another OS.
Funny, the aurthor of that article said that he uses Windows at work and Linux at home:) but he's probably a techie.
I want to get BeOS, but I want to run professional MIDI/Audio Apps and these are only in the development stages. After they come out, I'll be first in line to get it and replace my Mac.
I think that the Littleton tragedy has immortalized the perpertrators of the crime and has given them a almost fantisy status. They have taken their virtual reality games and have acted them out in reality.
The problem here, and what WB also is aware of, is that many people have trouble separating fantasy from reality. For example, Dungens and Dragons, a game that I have played many times, encourages people to take on roles that they usually would not be in. Some people have gotten so much into the roles, that they actually killed their fellow games.
High school students who are under pressure because they are different often create or withdraw into fantasy worlds. I personally withdrew into video games--and had a lot of fun and got rid of a lot of frustration doing so. I never thought of going into my high school with a broadsword and hacking people to death, something that a chaotic neutral character may do in D&D or something I might do if I were playing some game on my computer--just because I felt like it, and because it got rid of frustration.
WB probably is trying to stop or at least not encourage American students who have been taking guns into schools and getting arrested every few days for the past couple of months...or at least thinking about it...from going to their graduation and killing someone. The US is in an almost surealistic state since this Littleton fiasco, and I don't think that those persecuted high schoolers with mental imbalances understand that the surealism of the situation is not a reality...that their fantasy of killing the ass holes that are giving them shit every day cannot become reality.
The Albanians suppressed the the Serbians for many years. Why do you think they are killing them? Because they are happy neighbors? The Serbians don't think that they are wrong. Guess what? The world has just bombed them to the stone age...but kids who bring guns to school, like the Serbians, think that they are not wrong. And they will be arrested, persecuted, and harrassed even more for doing so.
Now, if someone was going to the theater and saw the title "Crackers," I think that even true Hackers would think twice about seeing this. Heck, it could be a good Spike Lee movie title;)
I've always considered the term "hacking" or "a hack" to refer to a somewhat unelegant solution to a problem. i.e. "This solution is a hack until I have more time to make a more elegant solution."
>like MacOS, Linux, *BSD, OS/2, etc. Every one of >them is arguably superior on the technical front > to Windows today.
Don't get me wrong, I love my MacOS, but I don't find it technologically superior to Windows NT. In fact, it's not better (at least in stability) than Win 95/98.
Don't get me wrong, I'd use MacOS >=7.5.5 before Windoze 95/98 any day because its easier to use and I know how to deal with it when it gets moody (and it doesn't have a registry or DLLs to get screwed up...just freakin' extensions).
My point is, 7.5.5 = MacOS 1. No (or very little) memory protection. I love when I see my pixels scrambled on my screen (because screen RAM on my machine is normal memory). I also love when my mouse pointer freezes and I have to press option+cmd+power.
2. You can't print and do anything at the same time. Even with the print queue on.
3. No command line (even though you don't need one).
4. Using ResEdit to change file types.
etc.
MacOS is faster and still is the easiest OS to use and troubleshoot. Windoze is impossible to troubleshoot, even for an experienced user (even for me as a programmer) usually because of it's so very useful error messages. Of course, I'm trying to port all of my documents to Linux/AfterStep, later KDE or Gnome (no comments please, I'll judge for myself) from my Mac...Just too busy with other stuff (gota hate that).
It is ironic to see the old monopoly-IBM-be replaced by the new one-Micro$oft. Had a friend that worked for IBM. He said that they used whatever OS the user wanted on products--usually Windoze 95 or NT.
Micro$ost is now moving into more and more IBM territory with their terminal server. They are trying to replace IBMs business systems--the AS/400 line. They are touting NT as a workstation OS to challenge AIX (along with Solaris, Linux, IRIX, etc.) Now, Win2000 Pro is supposed to do everything (except games)? (We all know that this is the perception by a lot of business people.)
It's no wonder IBM is forgetting about development of low end products and is focusing on its high tech technologies--quantum computers, cognition, and AI user interfaces.
MS won't be able to touch mainframes, though (not that they need to). Judging from NT, their systems are too bloated, complicated, and feature-ridden in the name of user frindliness and power to ever support hundreds of users at once.
I'm sick of people saying that Linux has this problem or that problem 'cause it's SOOO hard to use, SOOO hard to configure, etc.
The real troble with Linux is:
IT IS A HOBBIEST'S OS
...and now it is going Commercial.
The point of this is that people wrote Linux because they enjoyed writing it. This is the same reason that people work in their garden, build model railroads, rebuild old cars, or build model railroads. They never had to, nor should they have, business uses for it. Who cares!
The real trouble is that Linux...the Hobbiest's OS...blows away so-called real-OS's on the lowest levels. The reason: OpenSource licensing, of course.
Why is Win95/98 such a joke in comparison after spending so much effort on them? How about $100M going for advertising of the release of Win95 (aka MacOS '84 + multitasking...a mid-60's technology)!
Why does the MacOS crash so much compared to Linux? Because Apple has to keep their API the same so that old apps still run (but it (8.0+) still crashes a lot less than Win95/98).
The point is that Linux is not made to "compete" with anything, and MS attempts to throw FUD at it will not do much.
I think the next home computers will be made by IBM with the advanced UI technology that they are working on...voice interaction, movement recognition, advanced AI, etc. and MS will be way behind. IBM will have so many patents on their technology that MS would have to buy them if they want it. Linux would be irrevelant in that market.
The problem is that M$ and Apple OS's are founded on ancient technology...and so is Linux. (i.e. they all suck, but Linux sucks the least;-)
This must have been written by one of those on the M$ Kill Linux campaign.
When I needed to to mission critical work (i.e. my Thesis), I counted on Linux/LaTeX/GhostScript and Solaris to never fail, never crash every time I sneezed, and run at a decent speed on a normal processor. I use NT 4.0 everyday at work, and it is bloated and slow. It's so-called superior UI is crap compared to the Mac and isn't much more friendly than CDE on Solaris (Still need to check out Gnome or KDE--I use AfterStep).
Breaking up M$ will probably improve the stability of M$ products. The first time you install Access 97 on Win 98, it won't run. Why? As an article in Byte (MS Is Not Done) shows how M$ changes its API to thwart competition because it controls the API. M$ probably changed something about the API or the registery from 95 to 98, and forgot to send the memo to the Access developers. Breaking up M$ will give them less incentive to change the API if the branch that controls the API only develops the OS. M$ needs to follow their own advise. If you haven't read Code Complete, you should just to see how some of their developers know how to do stuff right, but probably don't because of marketing pressure. (3 of 10^8 reasons that open source projects are better than commercial projects.)
I've had trouble installing Linux. The first time I had trouble, my motherboard was at fault (still don't know what was wrong). I was never able to get X to work with an old VGA video card and a monochrome monitor (I'd just telnet from my MKLinux box and use it's display, keyboard, and mouse. Of course, I didn't have the specs for the monitor.) I upgraded. My MKLinux/RedHat installer did not recognize my entire SCSI hard drive on my MAC and I had to install from a ZIP drive.
I've never been able to get netatalk to work with RH5.0 or 5.2--it won't compile! Also, the GIMP is broken in that I can't open/save anything but it's native format even though I have the appropriate libraries. I've recompiled it and GTK about 5 times and still have the same problems. (etc., etc.) Yes, I've read the README's, web pages, man pages, and searched the web for answers until I felt like doing something else.
So, my point is that Linux/X is not the easiest thing in the world to use and everything doesn't always automatically work, even if you read the README, the web page, and the manuals.
The problem with the user interface part of Linux is that, as I learned in a user interface design class, we are programmers and we know how the computer works. Users don't. It is nearly impossible to separate our knowledge of the underlying computer software technology from our user interface design. We can't be subjective about the user interface. A good user interface needs to be designed for an average user by a team that includes usually a programmer, an artist or someone who understands asthetics, and someone who understands the psychology of the average user.
Slashdot Mirror
I program in J++ and I chose J++ for the following reasons:
1. It's an object-oriented language which is better for writing visual user interfaces.
2. Java does not have segmentation faults and bus errors which can bring a Win95 machine to it's knees (No comment on MS's crappy VM that crashes...but anyway)
3. I knew Java.
4. I THOUGHT that J++ was going to be _almost_ platform independent implementation of Java. I read many articles on J++ and did not understand that all of the generated code contained these STUPID function pointers...I mean delegates that MS demanded. None of the articles that I read pointed out how the generated forms (like Java Frames) work.
5. The Windoze window manager and ODBC (i.e. WFC) is called directly as opposed to being called through an additional layer, thus it (should be) is faster than going through java.awt.* AND there may also be a MS JIT compiler.
What I've realized since I've first started using it is that:
1. It would be almost impossible for me to port my applications anywhere, even with the many precautions that I've taken to keep MS specific code segregated in classes from platform independent Java only classes.
2. Because of the unnecessary inclusion by MS of their delegate class, all of the generated code for forms is completely unusable save a conversion utility (which does not exist) that could turn delegates into inner classes.
3. Programs run pretty fast after being compiled as compared to normal Windows apps.
4. If I had to port any of these programs to Pure Java, I would have to rewrite the lowest level database class and all of the user interface classes (what MS calls forms).
Why not C++?
C++ programs cannot be developed as quickly and take much more care. They run faster, but that is not what I needed--I needed rapid development.
Why not Visual Basic? Gimme a break! You call that a language?
The point of J++ and any other Windows dependent Java clone is to make the cost of moving from Windows too great for people to switch to another OS.
Funny, the aurthor of that article said that he uses Windows at work and Linux at home:) but he's probably a techie.
I want to get BeOS, but I want to run professional MIDI/Audio Apps and these are only in the development stages. After they come out, I'll be first in line to get it and replace my Mac.
(It still doesn't boot as fast as a C64;)
I think that the Littleton tragedy has immortalized the perpertrators of the crime and has given them a almost fantisy status. They have taken their virtual reality games and have acted them out in reality.
The problem here, and what WB also is aware of, is that many people have trouble separating fantasy from reality. For example, Dungens and Dragons, a game that I have played many times, encourages people to take on roles that they usually would not be in. Some people have gotten so much into the roles, that they actually killed their fellow games.
High school students who are under pressure because they are different often create or withdraw into fantasy worlds. I personally withdrew into video games--and had a lot of fun and got rid of a lot of frustration doing so. I never thought of going into my high school with a broadsword and hacking people to death, something that a chaotic neutral character may do in D&D or something I might do if I were playing some game on my computer--just because I felt like it, and because it got rid of frustration.
WB probably is trying to stop or at least not encourage American students who have been taking guns into schools and getting arrested every few days for the past couple of months...or at least thinking about it...from going to their graduation and killing someone. The US is in an almost surealistic state since this Littleton fiasco, and I don't think that those persecuted high schoolers with mental imbalances understand that the surealism of the situation is not a reality...that their fantasy of killing the ass holes that are giving them shit every day cannot become reality.
The Albanians suppressed the the Serbians for many years. Why do you think they are killing them? Because they are happy neighbors? The Serbians don't think that they are wrong. Guess what? The world has just bombed them to the stone age...but kids who bring guns to school, like the Serbians, think that they are not wrong. And they will be arrested, persecuted, and harrassed even more for doing so.
Now, if someone was going to the theater and saw the title "Crackers," I think that even true Hackers would think twice about seeing this. Heck, it could be a good Spike Lee movie title;)
I've always considered the term "hacking" or "a hack" to refer to a somewhat unelegant solution to a problem. i.e. "This solution is a hack until I have more time to make a more elegant solution."
>like MacOS, Linux, *BSD, OS/2, etc. Every one of >them is arguably superior on the technical front
> to Windows today.
Don't get me wrong, I love my MacOS, but I don't find it technologically superior to Windows NT. In fact, it's not better (at least in stability) than Win 95/98.
Don't get me wrong, I'd use MacOS >=7.5.5 before Windoze 95/98 any day because its easier to use and I know how to deal with it when it gets moody (and it doesn't have a registry or DLLs to get screwed up...just freakin' extensions).
My point is, 7.5.5 = MacOS
1. No (or very little) memory protection. I love when I see my pixels scrambled on my screen (because screen RAM on my machine is normal memory). I also love when my mouse pointer freezes and I have to press option+cmd+power.
2. You can't print and do anything at the same time. Even with the print queue on.
3. No command line (even though you don't need one).
4. Using ResEdit to change file types.
etc.
MacOS is faster and still is the easiest OS to use and troubleshoot. Windoze is impossible to troubleshoot, even for an experienced user (even for me as a programmer) usually because of it's so very useful error messages. Of course, I'm trying to port all of my documents to Linux/AfterStep, later KDE or Gnome (no comments please, I'll judge for myself) from my Mac...Just too busy with other stuff (gota hate that).
It is ironic to see the old monopoly-IBM-be replaced by the new one-Micro$oft. Had a friend that worked for IBM. He said that they used whatever OS the user wanted on products--usually Windoze 95 or NT.
Micro$ost is now moving into more and more IBM territory with their terminal server. They are trying to replace IBMs business systems--the AS/400 line. They are touting NT as a workstation OS to challenge AIX (along with Solaris, Linux, IRIX, etc.) Now, Win2000 Pro is supposed to do everything (except games)? (We all know that this is the perception by a lot of business people.)
It's no wonder IBM is forgetting about development of low end products and is focusing on its high tech technologies--quantum computers, cognition, and AI user interfaces.
MS won't be able to touch mainframes, though (not that they need to). Judging from NT, their systems are too bloated, complicated, and feature-ridden in the name of user frindliness and power to ever support hundreds of users at once.
I'm sick of people saying that Linux has this problem or that problem 'cause it's SOOO hard to use, SOOO hard to configure, etc.
The real troble with Linux is:
IT IS A HOBBIEST'S OS
...and now it is going Commercial.
The point of this is that people wrote Linux because they enjoyed writing it. This is the same reason that people work in their garden, build model railroads, rebuild old cars, or build model railroads. They never had to, nor should they have, business uses for it. Who cares!
The real trouble is that Linux...the Hobbiest's OS...blows away so-called real-OS's on the lowest levels. The reason: OpenSource licensing, of course.
Why is Win95/98 such a joke in comparison after spending so much effort on them? How about $100M going for advertising of the release of Win95 (aka MacOS '84 + multitasking...a mid-60's technology)!
Why does the MacOS crash so much compared to Linux? Because Apple has to keep their API the same so that old apps still run (but it (8.0+) still crashes a lot less than Win95/98).
The point is that Linux is not made to "compete" with anything, and MS attempts to throw FUD at it will not do much.
I think the next home computers will be made by IBM with the advanced UI technology that they are working on...voice interaction, movement recognition, advanced AI, etc. and MS will be way behind. IBM will have so many patents on their technology that MS would have to buy them if they want it. Linux would be irrevelant in that market.
The problem is that M$ and Apple OS's are founded on ancient technology...and so is Linux. (i.e. they all suck, but Linux sucks the least;-)
This must have been written by one of those on the M$ Kill Linux campaign.
When I needed to to mission critical work (i.e. my Thesis), I counted on Linux/LaTeX/GhostScript and Solaris to never fail, never crash every time I sneezed, and run at a decent speed on a normal processor. I use NT 4.0 everyday at work, and it is bloated and slow. It's so-called superior UI is crap compared to the Mac and isn't much more friendly than CDE on Solaris (Still need to check out Gnome or KDE--I use AfterStep).
Breaking up M$ will probably improve the stability of M$ products. The first time you install Access 97 on Win 98, it won't run. Why? As an article in Byte (MS Is Not Done) shows how M$ changes its API to thwart competition because it controls the API. M$ probably changed something about the API or the registery from 95 to 98, and forgot to send the memo to the Access developers. Breaking up M$ will give them less incentive to change the API if the branch that controls the API only develops the OS. M$ needs to follow their own advise. If you haven't read Code Complete, you should just to see how some of their developers know how to do stuff right, but probably don't because of marketing pressure. (3 of 10^8 reasons that open source projects are better than commercial projects.)
I've had trouble installing Linux. The first time I had trouble, my motherboard was at fault (still don't know what was wrong). I was never able to get X to work with an old VGA video card and a monochrome monitor (I'd just telnet from my MKLinux box and use it's display, keyboard, and mouse. Of course, I didn't have the specs for the monitor.) I upgraded. My MKLinux/RedHat installer did not recognize my entire SCSI hard drive on my MAC and I had to install from a ZIP drive.
I've never been able to get netatalk to work with RH5.0 or 5.2--it won't compile! Also, the GIMP is broken in that I can't open/save anything but it's native format even though I have the appropriate libraries. I've recompiled it and GTK about 5 times and still have the same problems. (etc., etc.) Yes, I've read the README's, web pages, man pages, and searched the web for answers until I felt like doing something else.
So, my point is that Linux/X is not the easiest thing in the world to use and everything doesn't always automatically work, even if you read the README, the web page, and the manuals.
The problem with the user interface part of Linux is that, as I learned in a user interface design class, we are programmers and we know how the computer works. Users don't. It is nearly impossible to separate our knowledge of the underlying computer software technology from our user interface design. We can't be subjective about the user interface. A good user interface needs to be designed for an average user by a team that includes usually a programmer, an artist or someone who understands asthetics, and someone who understands the psychology of the average user.