The problem with this definition is that it leads to the idea that the concepts themselves which are illustrated by GPL'd code are protected by copyright, and they are not.
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method
of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the
form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied
in such work.
The limitation of "derivative work", in the case of the GPL, can only work so long as the code still contains *SOME* number of lines of code that were originally GPL'd by some other author.
I am not familiar with the intracacies of this, but I doubt that your interpretation is valid. I surely wouldn't depend on this conclusion without strong assurances from a lawyer.
As an addendum to my last comment: it is possible that in the situation you described, the million line program would not be considered a derivative work of the GPL program. But it would be based on interpretation of copyright law, not any weakness of the GPL. If the million line program is not a derivative work, then its authors can disregard the GPL entirely.
The GPL doesn't need to rigorously define what it means to form a "work based on the program," because this is covered by Copyright law in its definition of "derivative work."
According to copyright law, creating derivative works is an exlusive right of the copyright holder. The law defines "derivative work" in 17 USC Section 101. Without the GPL, creating a work that is falls under the definition of "derivative work" is illegal unless you are the copyright holder or you have permission from the copyright holder. The GPL grants you the right to create derivative works ("works based on the Program"), but only if you agree to its terms. If you do not, everything reverts back to normal copyright law and creating derivative works is illegal.
One of the most interesting new features is an XML-based graphics system, where any picture for any part of the WM can be a simple chunk of XML, which can do transformations, scaling, gradients and some other nice graphics mods.
Oh, you mean like SVG?
I guess this could be justified if it were significantly lighter-weight than SVG. Otherwise, why not reuse?
I was not meaning to be at all disrespectful or condescending. It was an honest answer to an honest question.
I have $1000 in student loans.
I envy you. I have many times that (but maybe this was just an example:).
So I set up a liability account (to measure the loan) and a cash account (to measure the money given to me by the Feds). But I spent the cash on tuition, so now I have to set up an education expense account and transfer my cash to that.
You could skip the "cash account" step (I assume you are referring to an asset account) and transfer straight from the liability account to the expense account. But you have the general idea.
Compare this to Quicken, where I essentially say "I owe the Feds $1000." If I just want to set up a budget, and begin to figure out what the hell is happening with my money, and oh by the way I'm a writer so the idea of accounting is scary to me (note that I didn't say impossible to understand), and it's clear which I will be more likely to use.
By all means use what you are most comfortable with. The structure of GnuCash is more appealing to me, so I use it. If people ask questions about it, I will answer them if I can, though I am a double-entry novice myself.
Most/.ers have been among those opposing such rules, by the way, in shrinkwrap contracts, and contracts on web sites that say that by using the web site you are bound to its terms.
That's because most of the time, they attempt to impose conditions on actions that are already legal to perform. The GPL grants rights to perform actions that would otherwise be illegal, but these grants are conditional on obeying the terms of the license.
Those remedies are: [...]
I think "injunctive" is what matters most. It is the right to demand compliance. What company wants to ship a product that they will have to recall/re-engineer if someone discovers the truth? What will happen to that company's reputation when someone does?
The main barrier is the cost of litigation. But in all cases so far, bad PR was enough to convince the companies that it is in their best interest to comply.
Boy was I wrong. I figured out the take-out-of-one-account-to-credit-another system, but I couldn't figure out how to put money into the system.
Transfer money from an income account.
Money leaves the system when you transfer it to an expense account.
This is nice because it shows you where your money comes from and where it goes, instead of stipulating that it appears and disappears in your asset accounts (savings, checking, etc). I can tell you exactly how much money I've spent on automobile-related expenses since I started using GNU-cash. Or how much money I've made from my second job. Or how much money I've paid in FICA tax.
"Although most, if not all, of the UNIX technology that SCO purports to own is generally known, available without restriction to the general public or rapidly ascertainable by proper means, SCO undertook to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the marketplace in regard to SCO's rights in and to that technology."
Objection oriented languages are most often put at the same levels.
That makes no sense. If you really think C++ and Python are on the same level because they both have classes and inheritance, you need to think about this more (and use the languages in question).
How is it higher than Java? What further levels of abstraction does Python offer that Java doesn't?
Python is a far more dynamic environment than Java. In Python, classes, methods, objects, and functions are just data that can be modified at will.
You can, at runtime, do any of the following in Python (I started typing code to illustrate these, but it's too much of a pain to format):
Add a method to an already existing class. All existing and not-yet-created instances of that class will have the new method available to them.
Swap out one implementation of a method for another. All existing and not-yet-created instances of that class will show the new behavior.
Change the class of an existing instance. It will retain all of the instance data, but take on all the new methods and class data in place of the old class.
Modify the behavior of basic syntactic constructs in the language like "object.attribute". This will call object.__getattr__("attribute"), a method you can define to do anythin you want.
The fact that so much of the language is accessible and modifiable from within the language is a very strong reason to call it higher-level.
Furthermore, Python is more syntactically similar to Java than any other language (maybe perl).
Python syntactically similar to Java? Python syntactically similar to Perl?? What are you on?
That's because analogies are retarded and unneccessary. If you actually had a valid argument, you wouldn't need to use an analogy.
If you had a valid counterargument, you could explain what makes the analogy invalid.
Since you don't like analogies, here is a general statement that embodies the same principle: parties who are in possession of a copyrighted work cannot possibly be liable for copyright infringement for basic use of that work, because making use of a copyrighted work is not an exclusive right granted to copyright holders under copyright law.
The GPL is a license. It is the declarations of actions an individual is allowed to do with the software.
More accurately, it is an agreement that anyone in possession of the software can choose to enter with the copyright holders of that software, the acceptance of which grants that person rights they would not otherwise have.
A person in possession of the software can choose not to accept the agreement, and thus ignore its terms completely. The GPL excplicitly recognizes this option:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
If the user opts to ignore the GPL, copyright law prohibits modification or distribution of the software, but does not govern use.
Calling the GPL a EULA is misleading. EULA's are generally understood to be click-through agreements that limit the rights of the user beyond the exclusive rights already provided by copyright. Companies that distribute software with EULA's attempt to force users to accept the agreement before they can use the software.
Classifying distribution and reproduction under "use" is also misleading. "Use" is understood to mean "running the program." End-users are understood to be parties who use the software but do not distribute it; hence "end" as in "terminal to the distribution process."
I wish I could read the article to see if there is any more substantial analysis. Blakeslee seems to be implying that authorization of the copyright holder is necessary to use an already obtained program. However, use of copyrighted works is not regulated by copyright law; the exclusive rights (in the case of software) are the right to reproduce copyrighted works and the right to create derived works. End users are doing neither by simply using the copyrighted work.
I don't doubt that advertisement is how music gets heard... now. Speaking as a music-lover and musician, though, I am not interested in being exposed to music through advertisement and I am not aware of any music that I have bought as a result of adversisement.
What I want is recommendations from people who have similar taste to me, even if I don't know them. I hope to see websites spring up where people can circulate opinions and word-of-mouth recommendations about what bands are interesting. These kinds of forums could also be integrated into existing distributors like CD Baby.
Why? A compiler is only a translator. How is the ability to translate an arbitrary C program into assembly going to aid an attacker? The attacker could just as easily precompile the program themselves.
Such an electronic communication does not constitute an actionable trespass to personal property
NOSIAL (Nobody on Slashdot is a lawyer) but in my reading this only applies to charges of tresspassing. I doubt anti-spam laws fall under tresspassing.
Use the envelope tool; it's the one that looks like an arrow pointing at a control point. You can then use the mouse to create control points in the main track display area.
Can I use MIDI events (a MIDI mixer, or the knobs on my MIDI synth) to control envelopes?
No, currently there is little to no MIDI support. There are plans for MIDI functionality in the next development branch, but it's a ways off.
Is there any way to have VST effects be applied during playback, as opposed to being a processing phase? (For interactive editing)
No, real time effects are not supported yet. This will likely be part of the next development branch also.
Can I use envelopes to control the parameters of VST effects?
No. This is an interesting idea, and something that we could investigate once we added realtime effects.
Do you support mixing for more than two channels?
No, for playback everything mixes to stereo. Out of curiosity, what do you use this for? I'd like to have a use case in my head. I always see these multichannel cards with multiple outputs and wonder what multiple outputs are used for. My Roland VS-880EX, a hardware DAW, has 8 ins but only 1 stereo out plus 1 aux out (the latter is for external effects I believe, I've never used it).
It's looking better than the last release I tried, but I still can't shake the feeling that everything I do is "offline." If I could find a way to have more interactive access to the controls, I think I'd find it to be a more engaging experience.
That's probably an accurate assessment. Audacity is constantly evolving, and hopefully you will find that it suits your needs at some point in the future.
I would use audacity every day if it supported the LADSPA API.
That day is not far away! The unstable branch has had LADSPA support for a long time (1.1.3 has it), and there will be a 1.2 before too long where this feature is in a stable branch.
Ardour is like Shrek.. it has layers. Audacity is like Doneky.. it doesn't have layers.
If you're referring to tracks, Audacity has had basic multitrack capabilities since 1.0. The unstable branch, which will be 1.2 before long, has even better multitrack support with mute/solo/pan/volume controls on every track.
Speaking as an author of Audacity, my opinion is that Ardour is a more powerful program, but with a much narrower appeal. Ardour is designed for use with pro-level, multichannel cards in a studio setting. If you're in a room surrounded by expensive audio gear, Ardour is probably for you. Otherwise, Audacity is probably a better choice, and the Ardour community would probably approve of me saying that because fewer people will approach them with questions like "how do I open an mp3?":)
More specifically: Audacity supports more formats including lossy formats like mp3 and Vorbis. Audacity runs on more platforms. Audacity is much easier to use. Audacity has a more diverse set of features in general, such as the ability to extend it with the lisp-like language Nyquist and "time tracks" that allow you to continuously vary the speed/pitch of the project.
Ardour has much more evolved multichannel capabilities (that is, sending or capturing more than stereo from the soundcard itself, Audacity can mix multiple tracks to stereo output just fine). Ardour has support for MMC and real-time effects.
Give us a little credit. Audacity has multitrack working quite nicely in our unstable branch, which will be 1.2 before long. We have a built-in envelope editor which gives the same effect as volume automation. We have time tracks that let you continuously vary the speed/pitch of the entire project (I'm pretty sure no other audio editor has this; chalk one up for innovation in the open source community). We have mute/solo/volume/pan controls for each track.
Yes, it's a completely different program than Ardour with different goals, but I don't think it's a simple matter of toy vs. tool. Audacity has a lot of features that Ardour doesn't because of Ardour's more narrow intended use.
You really think that my post had the sole purpose of making people angry?
Pretty much, yeah.
Then you're categorically wrong. I am the only one who can authoritatively assess my motives, and unless you are going to accuse me of lying also, my defense of not being intentionally inflammatory stands.
I've expressed exactly the same opinion to friends in person. Do you think I am trying to make them mad also?
I do consider my post effective since I got several reasonable replies explaining to me exactly what circumstances make Java a good choice.
But thank you for putting a face on the faceless masses of shitty moderators who moderate any controversial post colloquially stated as "troll." I am glad to know you can't tell the difference between "Java is complete shit, and the people who use it are wankers" and "I just don't get why so many people decide that Java is the solution for them."
And thanks to the guy who modded me down as "overrated" because he was too chicken to get meta-moderated.
Somehow it's hard to feel sympathetic when you're so willing to dish out unreasonable moderation. Perhaps the people you mod "troll" feel similarly slighted.
I'm glad that I included the first sentence then, since you would have apparently otherwise assumed that I was, in fact, a troll. For more about why I feel I can truthfully say it was not a troll, see this post and this post.
You're assuming that desktop applications is the only applications being developed. You are incorrect.
You are assuming that one prong of my critique is representative of the whole. You are incorrect.
Specifically I will refer you another part of my post:
Can you think of a single problem domain where Java offers greater portability than the competition?
I believe server-side development can handily qualify as a "problem domain."
Now that we're done with pedantic snottiness, I can see why a server-side component framework is a useful thing to have, and this justifies Java-the-platform. It still remains that Java-the-language and Java-the-VM are a big pain. At the very least Java implementations could do a better job of being convienent to use and develop for.
Consequently I wish the MusicXML link in your sig were up, I'm really interested in MusicXML and its potential.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this definition is that it leads to the idea that the concepts themselves which are illustrated by GPL'd code are protected by copyright, and they are not.
Indeed. This is all spelled out in the law. From 17 USC Section 102(b)
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method
of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the
form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied
in such work.
The limitation of "derivative work", in the case of the GPL, can only work so long as the code still contains *SOME* number of lines of code that were originally GPL'd by some other author.
I am not familiar with the intracacies of this, but I doubt that your interpretation is valid. I surely wouldn't depend on this conclusion without strong assurances from a lawyer.
As an addendum to my last comment: it is possible that in the situation you described, the million line program would not be considered a derivative work of the GPL program. But it would be based on interpretation of copyright law, not any weakness of the GPL. If the million line program is not a derivative work, then its authors can disregard the GPL entirely.
The GPL doesn't need to rigorously define what it means to form a "work based on the program," because this is covered by Copyright law in its definition of "derivative work."
According to copyright law, creating derivative works is an exlusive right of the copyright holder. The law defines "derivative work" in 17 USC Section 101. Without the GPL, creating a work that is falls under the definition of "derivative work" is illegal unless you are the copyright holder or you have permission from the copyright holder. The GPL grants you the right to create derivative works ("works based on the Program"), but only if you agree to its terms. If you do not, everything reverts back to normal copyright law and creating derivative works is illegal.
One of the most interesting new features is an XML-based graphics system, where any picture for any part of the WM can be a simple chunk of XML, which can do transformations, scaling, gradients and some other nice graphics mods.
Oh, you mean like SVG?
I guess this could be justified if it were significantly lighter-weight than SVG. Otherwise, why not reuse?
Ok smartass, consider this.
:).
I was not meaning to be at all disrespectful or condescending. It was an honest answer to an honest question.
I have $1000 in student loans.
I envy you. I have many times that (but maybe this was just an example
So I set up a liability account (to measure the loan) and a cash account (to measure the money given to me by the Feds). But I spent the cash on tuition, so now I have to set up an education expense account and transfer my cash to that.
You could skip the "cash account" step (I assume you are referring to an asset account) and transfer straight from the liability account to the expense account. But you have the general idea.
Compare this to Quicken, where I essentially say "I owe the Feds $1000." If I just want to set up a budget, and begin to figure out what the hell is happening with my money, and oh by the way I'm a writer so the idea of accounting is scary to me (note that I didn't say impossible to understand), and it's clear which I will be more likely to use.
By all means use what you are most comfortable with. The structure of GnuCash is more appealing to me, so I use it. If people ask questions about it, I will answer them if I can, though I am a double-entry novice myself.
Most /.ers have been among those opposing such rules, by the way, in shrinkwrap contracts, and contracts on web sites that say that by using the web site you are bound to its terms.
That's because most of the time, they attempt to impose conditions on actions that are already legal to perform. The GPL grants rights to perform actions that would otherwise be illegal, but these grants are conditional on obeying the terms of the license.
Those remedies are: [...]
I think "injunctive" is what matters most. It is the right to demand compliance. What company wants to ship a product that they will have to recall/re-engineer if someone discovers the truth? What will happen to that company's reputation when someone does?
The main barrier is the cost of litigation. But in all cases so far, bad PR was enough to convince the companies that it is in their best interest to comply.
Boy was I wrong. I figured out the take-out-of-one-account-to-credit-another system, but I couldn't figure out how to put money into the system.
Transfer money from an income account.
Money leaves the system when you transfer it to an expense account.
This is nice because it shows you where your money comes from and where it goes, instead of stipulating that it appears and disappears in your asset accounts (savings, checking, etc). I can tell you exactly how much money I've spent on automobile-related expenses since I started using GNU-cash. Or how much money I've made from my second job. Or how much money I've paid in FICA tax.
From paragraph 22 of IBM's counterclaims:
"Although most, if not all, of the UNIX technology that SCO purports to own is generally known, available without restriction to the general public or rapidly ascertainable by proper means, SCO undertook to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the marketplace in regard to SCO's rights in and to that technology."
Oh, one other thing.
Objection oriented languages are most often put at the same levels.
That makes no sense. If you really think C++ and Python are on the same level because they both have classes and inheritance, you need to think about this more (and use the languages in question).
Python is a far more dynamic environment than Java. In Python, classes, methods, objects, and functions are just data that can be modified at will.
You can, at runtime, do any of the following in Python (I started typing code to illustrate these, but it's too much of a pain to format):
- Add a method to an already existing class. All existing and not-yet-created instances of that class will have the new method available to them.
- Swap out one implementation of a method for another. All existing and not-yet-created instances of that class will show the new behavior.
- Change the class of an existing instance. It will retain all of the instance data, but take on all the new methods and class data in place of the old class.
- Modify the behavior of basic syntactic constructs in the language like "object.attribute". This will call object.__getattr__("attribute"), a method you can define to do anythin you want.
The fact that so much of the language is accessible and modifiable from within the language is a very strong reason to call it higher-level.Furthermore, Python is more syntactically similar to Java than any other language (maybe perl).
Python syntactically similar to Java? Python syntactically similar to Perl?? What are you on?
That's because analogies are retarded and unneccessary. If you actually had a valid argument, you wouldn't need to use an analogy.
If you had a valid counterargument, you could explain what makes the analogy invalid.
Since you don't like analogies, here is a general statement that embodies the same principle: parties who are in possession of a copyrighted work cannot possibly be liable for copyright infringement for basic use of that work, because making use of a copyrighted work is not an exclusive right granted to copyright holders under copyright law.
The GPL is a license. It is the declarations of actions an individual is allowed to do with the software.
More accurately, it is an agreement that anyone in possession of the software can choose to enter with the copyright holders of that software, the acceptance of which grants that person rights they would not otherwise have.
A person in possession of the software can choose not to accept the agreement, and thus ignore its terms completely. The GPL excplicitly recognizes this option:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
If the user opts to ignore the GPL, copyright law prohibits modification or distribution of the software, but does not govern use.
Calling the GPL a EULA is misleading. EULA's are generally understood to be click-through agreements that limit the rights of the user beyond the exclusive rights already provided by copyright. Companies that distribute software with EULA's attempt to force users to accept the agreement before they can use the software.
Classifying distribution and reproduction under "use" is also misleading. "Use" is understood to mean "running the program." End-users are understood to be parties who use the software but do not distribute it; hence "end" as in "terminal to the distribution process."
I wish I could read the article to see if there is any more substantial analysis. Blakeslee seems to be implying that authorization of the copyright holder is necessary to use an already obtained program. However, use of copyrighted works is not regulated by copyright law; the exclusive rights (in the case of software) are the right to reproduce copyrighted works and the right to create derived works. End users are doing neither by simply using the copyrighted work.
I don't doubt that advertisement is how music gets heard... now. Speaking as a music-lover and musician, though, I am not interested in being exposed to music through advertisement and I am not aware of any music that I have bought as a result of adversisement.
What I want is recommendations from people who have similar taste to me, even if I don't know them. I hope to see websites spring up where people can circulate opinions and word-of-mouth recommendations about what bands are interesting. These kinds of forums could also be integrated into existing distributors like CD Baby.
Why? A compiler is only a translator. How is the ability to translate an arbitrary C program into assembly going to aid an attacker? The attacker could just as easily precompile the program themselves.
Such an electronic communication does not constitute an actionable trespass to personal property
NOSIAL (Nobody on Slashdot is a lawyer) but in my reading this only applies to charges of tresspassing. I doubt anti-spam laws fall under tresspassing.
Thanks for giving Audacity a try!
How do I access the envelope editor?
Use the envelope tool; it's the one that looks like an arrow pointing at a control point. You can then use the mouse to create control points in the main track display area.
Can I use MIDI events (a MIDI mixer, or the knobs on my MIDI synth) to control envelopes?
No, currently there is little to no MIDI support. There are plans for MIDI functionality in the next development branch, but it's a ways off.
Is there any way to have VST effects be applied during playback, as opposed to being a processing phase? (For interactive editing)
No, real time effects are not supported yet. This will likely be part of the next development branch also.
Can I use envelopes to control the parameters of VST effects?
No. This is an interesting idea, and something that we could investigate once we added realtime effects.
Do you support mixing for more than two channels?
No, for playback everything mixes to stereo. Out of curiosity, what do you use this for? I'd like to have a use case in my head. I always see these multichannel cards with multiple outputs and wonder what multiple outputs are used for. My Roland VS-880EX, a hardware DAW, has 8 ins but only 1 stereo out plus 1 aux out (the latter is for external effects I believe, I've never used it).
It's looking better than the last release I tried, but I still can't shake the feeling that everything I do is "offline." If I could find a way to have more interactive access to the controls, I think I'd find it to be a more engaging experience.
That's probably an accurate assessment. Audacity is constantly evolving, and hopefully you will find that it suits your needs at some point in the future.
Why should Microsoft allow running Linux on their Xbox?
Once I purchase it, it is my Xbox. Your rhetoric betrays you, and answers your own question.
I would use audacity every day if it supported the LADSPA API.
That day is not far away! The unstable branch has had LADSPA support for a long time (1.1.3 has it), and there will be a 1.2 before too long where this feature is in a stable branch.
Ardour is like Shrek .. it has layers. .. it doesn't have layers.
Audacity is like Doneky
If you're referring to tracks, Audacity has had basic multitrack capabilities since 1.0. The unstable branch, which will be 1.2 before long, has even better multitrack support with mute/solo/pan/volume controls on every track.
Speaking as an author of Audacity, my opinion is that Ardour is a more powerful program, but with a much narrower appeal. Ardour is designed for use with pro-level, multichannel cards in a studio setting. If you're in a room surrounded by expensive audio gear, Ardour is probably for you. Otherwise, Audacity is probably a better choice, and the Ardour community would probably approve of me saying that because fewer people will approach them with questions like "how do I open an mp3?" :)
More specifically: Audacity supports more formats including lossy formats like mp3 and Vorbis. Audacity runs on more platforms. Audacity is much easier to use. Audacity has a more diverse set of features in general, such as the ability to extend it with the lisp-like language Nyquist and "time tracks" that allow you to continuously vary the speed/pitch of the project.
Ardour has much more evolved multichannel capabilities (that is, sending or capturing more than stereo from the soundcard itself, Audacity can mix multiple tracks to stereo output just fine). Ardour has support for MMC and real-time effects.
Give us a little credit. Audacity has multitrack working quite nicely in our unstable branch, which will be 1.2 before long. We have a built-in envelope editor which gives the same effect as volume automation. We have time tracks that let you continuously vary the speed/pitch of the entire project (I'm pretty sure no other audio editor has this; chalk one up for innovation in the open source community). We have mute/solo/volume/pan controls for each track.
Yes, it's a completely different program than Ardour with different goals, but I don't think it's a simple matter of toy vs. tool. Audacity has a lot of features that Ardour doesn't because of Ardour's more narrow intended use.
You really think that my post had the sole purpose of making people angry?
Pretty much, yeah.
Then you're categorically wrong. I am the only one who can authoritatively assess my motives, and unless you are going to accuse me of lying also, my defense of not being intentionally inflammatory stands.
I've expressed exactly the same opinion to friends in person. Do you think I am trying to make them mad also?
I do consider my post effective since I got several reasonable replies explaining to me exactly what circumstances make Java a good choice.
But thank you for putting a face on the faceless masses of shitty moderators who moderate any controversial post colloquially stated as "troll." I am glad to know you can't tell the difference between "Java is complete shit, and the people who use it are wankers" and "I just don't get why so many people decide that Java is the solution for them."
And thanks to the guy who modded me down as "overrated" because he was too chicken to get meta-moderated.
Somehow it's hard to feel sympathetic when you're so willing to dish out unreasonable moderation. Perhaps the people you mod "troll" feel similarly slighted.
I'm glad that I included the first sentence then, since you would have apparently otherwise assumed that I was, in fact, a troll. For more about why I feel I can truthfully say it was not a troll, see this post and this post.
You're assuming that desktop applications is the only applications being developed. You are incorrect.
You are assuming that one prong of my critique is representative of the whole. You are incorrect.
Specifically I will refer you another part of my post:
Can you think of a single problem domain where Java offers greater portability than the competition?
I believe server-side development can handily qualify as a "problem domain."
Now that we're done with pedantic snottiness, I can see why a server-side component framework is a useful thing to have, and this justifies Java-the-platform. It still remains that Java-the-language and Java-the-VM are a big pain. At the very least Java implementations could do a better job of being convienent to use and develop for.
Consequently I wish the MusicXML link in your sig were up, I'm really interested in MusicXML and its potential.