How has your life changed since you won a Pullet Surprise?
That's Pulitzer, moron.
[/quote]
You know what's ironic? You post a message demonstrating a complete lack of understanding, and you title your post Idiocy prevails.
Re:Languages for the Java VM...
on
The Future of Java?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
So where are the processors that Sun promissed that would run Java bytecode natively?
There was a lot of talk about this in the various Java newsgroups in the mid-to-late '90s (here is a typical thread on the subject). From what I remember, Sun originally thought that specialized Java processors, or even coprocessors on a daughterboard, might be a good idea. But, because the Java VM is a stack-based machine, implementing it in silicon turned out to be harder than expected, for less benefit than was hoped. I think they ultimately decided that it would be more cost effective to improve the JIT than to develop a Java CPU.
I don't have any hard data or links to back any of this up, it's just what I remember.
I think it's still crappy that manufacturers won't cater to Linux, but how does complaining about it change reality?
As Anixamander pointed out, this is Slashdot. There is a higher ratio of non-windows users here. The fact that a piece of software only works in Windows is a relevant and important piece of information for this audience.
...and stifling innovation. (i.e. HOW long has Mozilla had tabbed browsing and ad-suppression? *When* might IE?)
Let me see if I have this right; Microsoft is stifling innovation because it chooses not to implement the same features as Mozilla and yet remains popular?
Nice troll. IE remains popular because of Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop, not because it is in any way better than Mozilla. If OEMs had been required to preinstall Mozilla and Opera for the last 4 years, then your argument might have merit.
Re:Show the full respect of Struts...
on
Struts Kick Start
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I haven't gotten into it a lot, but it seems to take me a whole lot longer to get a project done with struts than if I just used scriplet code.
Well of course it's going to be faster and easier (for you) to just put all of the code in scriptlets. But I sure wouldn't want to have to maintain your code. You don't separate your business logic from your display code because it's faster to develop it; you separate your code to make it easier to maintain, and more robust. Writing maintainable code is always going to be a bit more work in the short term, but it pays off over the long term.
At least with proprietary software, with enough money you can FORCE a company that you bought software from to fix it.
Maybe. But with Free software, you can hire the original developer, or any competent programmer, to fix it. If you've got the money to throw around, you can hire the best programmer in that particular domain. With proprietary software, you are always at the original developer's mercy.
If there's no contract, there's nothing to fall back on when things go wrong (and things *always* go wrong).
As opposed to the contract you have with proprietary software that indemnifies the publisher from any and all responsibility when things go wrong? Forgive me, but I am so tired of this argument. How much responsibility did Microsoft claim over Code Red?
Would you rather spend a little extra and get a car with a warranty, or a car "as is"?
This analogy is not even remotely accurate. A better analogy would be that the car without the "warranty" has a number of mechanics who like to work on the car, and many of them are perfectly happy to come to your house at any time of day and fix it for you, free of charge, or maybe for a beer or two. But if you get the car with the "warranty", when something goes wrong you first have to tow it to the dealer, then you have to demonstrate to the dealer that it's broken, then you have to prove that the problem is covered by the warranty (that's not a bug, it's a feature!). And even then, the dealer might decide that he doesn't want to fix it, and there's nothing you can do about it (unless, of course, you can get some grunt at IBM to lean on him).
Not at all, if you wanted to have compatibility you just clicked a box and you got a warning about any extension use.
Be reasonable. This box was not (initially) clicked by default, meaning that out of the box you were producing non-java-compliant J++ code that would only run on Windows. How many developers are going to click that box? How many developers click the "Conform to ANSI-C" box in their C++ IDEs?
What Sun objected to was the very idea that you might want to use native Windows features in place of the crap they supplied.
I disagree with this point. Sun provided for ways to extend Java, but MS did it in such a way as to render the bytecode incompatible. Although, IIRC, it wasn't the windowing toolkit that Sun objected to, but MS's inclusion of the @com and @dll tags, and their substitution of RNI for JNI. All of which would make your code only work with windows. I won't dispute that AWT is crap, I don't think anybody would.
Given that Sun is the party that is squeaking with rage after the settlement it does not appear to me that Sun really won the dispute.
Hehe, I'd have to agree here.
It does not appear to me that Microsoft ever intended to do anything more than promote Java as an open industry standard.
I really don't know how to respond to this. Microsoft has never shown any emotion towards Java other than scared absolutely shitless. They certainly didn't want it to become an open standard; they wanted to embrace and extend it, then kill anything left that was still cross-platform. As others have said, the only reason they included Java at all was because Netscape had a huge browser share at the time, and Netscape included a JVM. Microsoft could not have competed with Netscape without supplying a JVM. But they were scared that Java would make Windows irrelevant. Bill Gates himself has said this. So they did everything they could to pollute Java and tie it to windows.
I much prefered the MS version. This argument is kind of like the argument over French vs English.
I wasn't aware that there was a great debate over French vs English. But anyway, your analogy is flawed: Microsoft licensed Java Technology from Sun, and they violated that license.
Sun crippled Java so that it would only work within the area that suited their business objective. Microsoft removed the restriction.
Hardly. Sun worked (and continues to work) very hard to make Java cross platform. They did not get it perfect, but Microsoft's VM and dev tools completely destroyed any chance of having your "Java" code run on any platform but Windows. I won't debate whether Microsoft's J++ was a superior environment for writing Windows code; all accounts I have heard say that it is. However, MS used Java technology to produce J++, in violation of their license.
The only reason why Java was taken out of the browser was the legal action by Sun. If that killed java then sun killed java.
The "java" that was taken out of the browser was not a compliant version. It did not pass all the tests in the JCK; as such it was not, in fact, Java. Again, this was in violation of Microsoft's license with Sun.
So tell me, how does it follow that Microsoft must now include a compliant version rather than no version at all?
Because when Microsoft licensed Java technology from Sun, they agreed to ship a certified JVM with Windows for a certain amount of time (5 years I think). Instead they started shipping their own slightly incompatible version, which was clearly an attempt to pollute Java and destroy the market. The remedy for their attempt to pollute Java was to remove their JVM from Windows, as you say. But that still does not release them from their original agreement.
Have you verified that it indeed works? I have tried to mimic exactly the format necessary but haven't been able to get the actual Outlook client to recognize it.
Yes, I tested this with a fried who was using Outlook/Windows2K. First I scheduled a meeting and included him as a recipient. He got the meeting request, and said that it looked just like any other meeting request he'd got before. He accepted the meeting, which marked it on his calendar, but I did not get the RSVP. I then asked him to schedule a meeting with me, and he did. I got the meeting request (which does not look like a normal email message, btw, it's similar to the meeting requests in Outlook), and clicked accept. It updated my local calendar, and sent him the RSVP.
For me, this is Good Enough. I don't schedule meetings that often, so it's not that big a deal. If you really want the shared calendar/scheduling, though, Connector is definitely worth the price.
Do you use Evolution? Can you connect to the Exchange server via IMAP? If so, you should receive be able to get meeting requests; just accept them and they will go in your local calendar.
To schedule meetings, just open your local calendar, select new appointment, then click Actions->Schedule Meeting. Pick your recipients and a time, then save & close. It will send an iCalendar meeting request to the recipients, which looks just like a meeting request generated by Outlook.
One note though; if you're not using the Exchange Connector, you won't get RSVP notifications (I don't, anyway).
I've used Ximian Connector at work. It does work really well, but there are a few issues with it (and Evolution):
First and foremost (for me, anyway): It's not available for Debian Woody. I've tried using alien to install the RPMs, but that doesn't work.
You can access the Global Address List, if you have one, but you can't use it for auto-completion when composing email messages.
You can use an LDAP directory for auto-completion, but only by hacking evolution's xml config file.
Also, Ximian Connector really doesn't add that much functionality. You can read your email on the Exchange server using IMAP. You can also send and receive meeting requests. If your co-worker uses Outlook to schedule a meeting, and includes you, you will get the request, and you can even accept or reject it, and your co-worker's calendar will get updated appropriately. This doesn't take free/busy time into account, however; you won't be able to see co-workers' schedules, and they won't be able to see yours. You do need Connector for that.
If I make a DVD player I can design it to not play a single DVD if I so choose. I can make a painted carboard shell that looks like a DVD player and sell it to you. As long as I don't misrepresent it, it's perfectly legal.
Nobody is claiming otherwise. Of course it's legal for you to sell me a cardboard shell that looks like a DVD player. But if I add circuitry to it so that it does in fact play DVDs, and then you try to claim it's illegal for me to do that, then your analogy becomes more accurate.
It's not the making or selling of the region-encoded DVD players that I object to, it's the fact that Hollywood, Fritz, et al say it's illegal for me to modify my own DVD player after I've bought it.
Open source software sucks. It's never better than commercial software
Careful, never is a mighty strong word. As a counterpoint, many people agree that gaim is better than many commercial offerings. You might want to check the recently posted Forbes article as well.
This isn't FUD. These are facts.
No, these are highly subjective opinions filled with inaccuracies. Or a troll, take your pick.
I have been playing with win32 apache for some time now and have no problems serving pages on 80.
Really? I haven't been able to get to port 80 on my box since the code red fiasco a while back. Have you tried accessing it from outside your own network?
I guarantee you that if you turn off the TV and force yourself to use the web for work-related research only, you'll be amazed at how much you can squeeze out of a day.
If the states are able to create a modular version of Windows from what's already available, why hasn't someone already done this and distributed it on the web?
The UCITA cannot be used as justification for prior restraint. Even the most wacko, most retarded, most far off in the [left/right] wing bozo judge would rule that way.
Sure, but you have to go to trial to get a judge to rule. And going to trial costs money. MS can afford to spend millions on frivolous lawsuits, but not many individuals can afford to spend the thousands to go to trial to defend themselves, even if it's obvious the lawsuit is frivolous. For example, Blizzard v. bnetd.
How does allowing satellite providers to carry local programming equate with forcing the programming on viewers?
It's not, as long as you don't want to watch network TV. But if you want to watch a network show, like The X-Files, you have to get the feed from your local affilliate. So if you want to watch any network programming, the local programming is forced on you as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you talking about me, or the original poster?
How has your life changed since you won a Pullet Surprise?
That's Pulitzer, moron.
[/quote]
You know what's ironic? You post a message demonstrating a complete lack of understanding, and you title your post Idiocy prevails.
There was a lot of talk about this in the various Java newsgroups in the mid-to-late '90s (here is a typical thread on the subject). From what I remember, Sun originally thought that specialized Java processors, or even coprocessors on a daughterboard, might be a good idea. But, because the Java VM is a stack-based machine, implementing it in silicon turned out to be harder than expected, for less benefit than was hoped. I think they ultimately decided that it would be more cost effective to improve the JIT than to develop a Java CPU.
I don't have any hard data or links to back any of this up, it's just what I remember.
As Anixamander pointed out, this is Slashdot. There is a higher ratio of non-windows users here. The fact that a piece of software only works in Windows is a relevant and important piece of information for this audience.
Nice troll. IE remains popular because of Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop, not because it is in any way better than Mozilla. If OEMs had been required to preinstall Mozilla and Opera for the last 4 years, then your argument might have merit.
Well of course it's going to be faster and easier (for you) to just put all of the code in scriptlets. But I sure wouldn't want to have to maintain your code. You don't separate your business logic from your display code because it's faster to develop it; you separate your code to make it easier to maintain, and more robust. Writing maintainable code is always going to be a bit more work in the short term, but it pays off over the long term.
Maybe. But with Free software, you can hire the original developer, or any competent programmer, to fix it. If you've got the money to throw around, you can hire the best programmer in that particular domain. With proprietary software, you are always at the original developer's mercy.
If there's no contract, there's nothing to fall back on when things go wrong (and things *always* go wrong).
As opposed to the contract you have with proprietary software that indemnifies the publisher from any and all responsibility when things go wrong? Forgive me, but I am so tired of this argument. How much responsibility did Microsoft claim over Code Red?
Would you rather spend a little extra and get a car with a warranty, or a car "as is"?
This analogy is not even remotely accurate. A better analogy would be that the car without the "warranty" has a number of mechanics who like to work on the car, and many of them are perfectly happy to come to your house at any time of day and fix it for you, free of charge, or maybe for a beer or two. But if you get the car with the "warranty", when something goes wrong you first have to tow it to the dealer, then you have to demonstrate to the dealer that it's broken, then you have to prove that the problem is covered by the warranty (that's not a bug, it's a feature!). And even then, the dealer might decide that he doesn't want to fix it, and there's nothing you can do about it (unless, of course, you can get some grunt at IBM to lean on him).
Be reasonable. This box was not (initially) clicked by default, meaning that out of the box you were producing non-java-compliant J++ code that would only run on Windows. How many developers are going to click that box? How many developers click the "Conform to ANSI-C" box in their C++ IDEs?
What Sun objected to was the very idea that you might want to use native Windows features in place of the crap they supplied.
I disagree with this point. Sun provided for ways to extend Java, but MS did it in such a way as to render the bytecode incompatible. Although, IIRC, it wasn't the windowing toolkit that Sun objected to, but MS's inclusion of the @com and @dll tags, and their substitution of RNI for JNI. All of which would make your code only work with windows. I won't dispute that AWT is crap, I don't think anybody would.
Given that Sun is the party that is squeaking with rage after the settlement it does not appear to me that Sun really won the dispute.
Hehe, I'd have to agree here.
It does not appear to me that Microsoft ever intended to do anything more than promote Java as an open industry standard.
I really don't know how to respond to this. Microsoft has never shown any emotion towards Java other than scared absolutely shitless. They certainly didn't want it to become an open standard; they wanted to embrace and extend it, then kill anything left that was still cross-platform. As others have said, the only reason they included Java at all was because Netscape had a huge browser share at the time, and Netscape included a JVM. Microsoft could not have competed with Netscape without supplying a JVM. But they were scared that Java would make Windows irrelevant. Bill Gates himself has said this. So they did everything they could to pollute Java and tie it to windows.
I wasn't aware that there was a great debate over French vs English. But anyway, your analogy is flawed: Microsoft licensed Java Technology from Sun, and they violated that license.
Sun crippled Java so that it would only work within the area that suited their business objective. Microsoft removed the restriction.
Hardly. Sun worked (and continues to work) very hard to make Java cross platform. They did not get it perfect, but Microsoft's VM and dev tools completely destroyed any chance of having your "Java" code run on any platform but Windows. I won't debate whether Microsoft's J++ was a superior environment for writing Windows code; all accounts I have heard say that it is. However, MS used Java technology to produce J++, in violation of their license.
The only reason why Java was taken out of the browser was the legal action by Sun. If that killed java then sun killed java.
The "java" that was taken out of the browser was not a compliant version. It did not pass all the tests in the JCK; as such it was not, in fact, Java. Again, this was in violation of Microsoft's license with Sun.
Because when Microsoft licensed Java technology from Sun, they agreed to ship a certified JVM with Windows for a certain amount of time (5 years I think). Instead they started shipping their own slightly incompatible version, which was clearly an attempt to pollute Java and destroy the market. The remedy for their attempt to pollute Java was to remove their JVM from Windows, as you say. But that still does not release them from their original agreement.
Yes, I tested this with a fried who was using Outlook/Windows2K. First I scheduled a meeting and included him as a recipient. He got the meeting request, and said that it looked just like any other meeting request he'd got before. He accepted the meeting, which marked it on his calendar, but I did not get the RSVP. I then asked him to schedule a meeting with me, and he did. I got the meeting request (which does not look like a normal email message, btw, it's similar to the meeting requests in Outlook), and clicked accept. It updated my local calendar, and sent him the RSVP.
For me, this is Good Enough. I don't schedule meetings that often, so it's not that big a deal. If you really want the shared calendar/scheduling, though, Connector is definitely worth the price.
To schedule meetings, just open your local calendar, select new appointment, then click Actions->Schedule Meeting. Pick your recipients and a time, then save & close. It will send an iCalendar meeting request to the recipients, which looks just like a meeting request generated by Outlook.
One note though; if you're not using the Exchange Connector, you won't get RSVP notifications (I don't, anyway).
- First and foremost (for me, anyway): It's not available for Debian Woody. I've tried using alien to install the RPMs, but that doesn't work.
- You can access the Global Address List, if you have one, but you can't use it for auto-completion when composing email messages.
- You can use an LDAP directory for auto-completion, but only by hacking evolution's xml config file.
Also, Ximian Connector really doesn't add that much functionality. You can read your email on the Exchange server using IMAP. You can also send and receive meeting requests. If your co-worker uses Outlook to schedule a meeting, and includes you, you will get the request, and you can even accept or reject it, and your co-worker's calendar will get updated appropriately. This doesn't take free/busy time into account, however; you won't be able to see co-workers' schedules, and they won't be able to see yours. You do need Connector for that.Nobody is claiming otherwise. Of course it's legal for you to sell me a cardboard shell that looks like a DVD player. But if I add circuitry to it so that it does in fact play DVDs, and then you try to claim it's illegal for me to do that, then your analogy becomes more accurate.
It's not the making or selling of the region-encoded DVD players that I object to, it's the fact that Hollywood, Fritz, et al say it's illegal for me to modify my own DVD player after I've bought it.
Careful, never is a mighty strong word. As a counterpoint, many people agree that gaim is better than many commercial offerings. You might want to check the recently posted Forbes article as well.
This isn't FUD. These are facts.
No, these are highly subjective opinions filled with inaccuracies. Or a troll, take your pick.
The press release has many GIF images on it. I wonder if they paid UniSys any royalties?
Actually, RPM stands for RPM Package Manager. I forgot where I first saw this referenced, but here is a google cache of a mailing about the name.
Really? I haven't been able to get to port 80 on my box since the code red fiasco a while back. Have you tried accessing it from outside your own network?
AT&T's TOS also prohibits you from using any servers (httpd, sshd, etc) at all. And they even block port 80 at their routers (incoming).
And they want to charge you a fee for each additional computer on your network.
*snort*
You don't have kids, do you?
Someone has
Sure, but you have to go to trial to get a judge to rule. And going to trial costs money. MS can afford to spend millions on frivolous lawsuits, but not many individuals can afford to spend the thousands to go to trial to defend themselves, even if it's obvious the lawsuit is frivolous. For example, Blizzard v. bnetd.
And I never wear leisure suits.
It's not, as long as you don't want to watch network TV. But if you want to watch a network show, like The X-Files, you have to get the feed from your local affilliate. So if you want to watch any network programming, the local programming is forced on you as well.