Because they actually shown it working in the Mustang Java build.
No, they have not.
Yes, they have. You will find parts of it already working in the current Mustang beta.
Case in point. You made a specific claim that Swing was faster on Linux than SWT and cite this to back it up. It's not, and your quote is irrelevant. SWT is slower on Linux than it is on Windows, but SWT is a hell of a lot faster than Swing.
No, I said: "The latest implementations of Swing in Java 5.0 are often faster.". I made no claim for general better performance. My link showed that there were serious complains about SWT performance on Linux. There are no complains about NetBeans performance on Linux (which uses Swing).
If developers are complaining so much about SWT performance on Linux that it is down as a bug, but are not complaining about NetBeans/Swing on Linux (indeed, it wins an award), that backs my point.
I don't think you realise just how bad Swing is -- particularly on Linux. Like the originaI poster said, you live in your own little world of Sun marketing.
Wrong. I develop Swing applications which are deployed on Linux and I used Swing applications on Linux, so I know.
Swing used to be a real problem on Linux - I would have agreed that it was terrible, but that was years ago. With later Java 1.4.x releases, and now with Java 1.5.x, it is crisp and fast (or at least that is the impression I get and my users get).
First of all, you don't compile your java code into a class file, you "compile" it. In Computer Science compilation produces machine code. javac does not.
Yes it does. It produces machine code for the Java Virtual Machine. There are some processors that can run this code directly - it is their machine code.
Which brings me to what I'm wondering about: You say the JVM compiles the byte code into machine code. I seriously doubt that that's true.
It is true.
Does the JVM really take your byte code and build an executable and spawn a process for it? Until I hear otherwise, I'm under the assumption that it does not, that rather the JVM is compiled, and that your byte code never is, but is interpreted (and cached) by the JVM.
Just because an executable is not built an run as a separate process does not mean that byte code is not compiled. The byte code is translated into sections of machine code which are then jumped into by the interpreter (during which time it is not interpreting).
You take one sentence out of context and ignore everything else. Just how much of a liar are you?
The sentence stood alone. Let's look at another sentence from that post:
"Sun's entire Java package for Linux sucks..."
Nothing specific about desktop java there. Quite the opposite.
Bullshit. Sun *sold* Linux systems.
Why post this when a simple check on Sun's website proves you wrong?
Sun ships Linux *now*.
What's the next version of JDS going to be based on?
From Sun's website:
"Initially provided with a Linux OS, Java Desktop System is now also integrated with the Solaris 10 Operating System."
Also, not instead of. They are broading the range of OSes on which you can get JDS, not changing it.
The JDS Q & A:
"Future versions will extend platform support to the Solaris SPARC and x86 platforms." Linux is about as low-priority as you can get at Sun, and still be considered as "supported".
Nonsense. The JVM on Linux is kept just as up-to that on other platforms. Sun also provides Star Office for Linux, their app server for Linux, their Enterprise System for Linux...
(c) Sun Marketing 1999 (with "Longhorn" replaced by the various versions of Windows). Sun has been promising that the next version of Java will sort out all the problems and make everything right ever since they superseded AWT. It's never happened... and they've always proved to be full of shit. Why should anyone believe them now?
Because they actually shown it working in the Mustang Java build.
Lie. There are lots of niggles with SWT. Slower than Swing under Linux isn't one of them... indeed slower than Swing under Linux would require the use of some type of time machine.
"There is a noticable UI performance and responsiveness difference between Eclipse running on Windows and Eclipse running on Linux GTK, Linux Motif, or QNX Photon, all on the same hardware, with Windows clearly outperforming the others."
Eclipse uses SWT.
My impression of Swing is that it's not used much.
That's not much of an argument against open sourcing Java.
It is. The argument being put forward was that open sourceing was necessary so that additional features could be added into the standard distribution. If the standard distribution is to be cut back with lots of features being optional and separately downloaded modules, then there is nothing to stop open source extras being downloaded as such modules.
Maybe it's time for Id Software to start making their games with Java then. I think you know what I mean:)
The games industry has always been rather conservative about development languages. Assembler is still much used, even those C and C++ offer high speed.
Java should be fine for games, as there are options to use DirectX and OpenGL graphics acceleration.
Did you read the message? I've just done it and it specifically talked about "DESKTOP APPS."
No it didn't. Let me quote:
"Java is a corporate quagmire and on Linux it is seriously shite."
I whole heartedly concur with the post to which you replied: java sucks for desktop work. Swing blows -- particularly under Linux -- Sun just doesn't give a shit about Linux, doubly so these days with "Open"Solaris.
Nonsense. Sun sells Linux systems. They have major development teams producting software for it (such as the JVM). A very strange way of 'not giving a shit'!
As for Swing, it is now one of the standard ways to develop on MacOS/X, and a Swing-based development tool - NetBeans - won the 'Open Source developer tool 2005' award from developer.com - a site that deals with far more than Java. Sure looks like the 'Swing blows' statement might be mistaken?
While IBM can ship this sort of modification with a JVM, even they are restricted and most potential contributors could not because, again, it is not open and Sun goes to great lengths to keep it closed.
SWT is nothing to do with the open-ness of Java. SWT is not a mondification. It is a set of open source Java classes and C code that provides link to the underlying API. There is no restriction on them shipping this along with JREs, and there is no restriction on anyone else shipping additional libraries.
Or they'll forego bloated commercial app servers and EJB and go with a lightweight open-source framework [spring].
Spring does not remove the need for app servers. It helps make applications that run on app servers a lot simpler to write by removing a lot of the complexity. In fact, Spring even includes APIs to simplify the use of EJBs!
For what kind of applications? If you are talking about pure speed, java is certainly not even 75% as fast as C...
Yes it is.
If you want to compete with some algorithm let me know - I'll do the C implementation and you'll do the java implementation, and then we'll see the difference...
This page includes results for a well-established benchmark for math processing - Linpack.
Face the facts, dnoyeb: Java is slower than C++, for the simple reason that interpretation of bytecode is a huge overhead, even with a JIT recompiler. Java development is faster and safer than C++, but the products so developed run slower. This is a fact. It is true.
It is not a fact. It is false. Modern Java VMs do a LOT more than just JIT recompiling. They profile the code and produce very optimised machine code for the specific processor. This run-time optimisation can potentially produce better machine code than the ahead-of-time optimising used by C++ compilers, as it is based on actual performance, not predicted. Because the VMs only optimise slow areas of code they can do this very aggressively, with inlining, loop unrolling etc. This optimisation process is getting better, and there is no reason why Java should not overtake C++ speed in future.
No one else could type that and control their laughing long enough to click "submit".
Nothing like reasoned argument is there?
Java's portability is a plain fact. Major complex applications such as JBoss run on Windows, Linux, MacOS.. and all other J2SE platforms with no changes. The quality of the Linux implementations is demonstrated by it's use on that platform by high-performance sites such as E-Bay.
So given the choice between the opinions of one AC and the opinions of developers in major financial institutions and in some of the most successful websites, I know which I would listen to.
Did you miss the part where the AC was talking about binary license and doesn't even care about source code? If Sun would make their Java JRE/JDK binary license more flexible, it would help them and people wanting to use Java more than anything. And this would be an easy fix.
I did miss it. I still think that these matters are more complicated that people think.
Oh hahahaha... yes, if your app doesn't look completely native it's the developers fault. Fuck me, I have to wonder what planet you live on.
This one. Your average user won't notice much difference between Swing and native on Windows, and will not see any difference at all on MacOS/X.
Speaking as someone who has tried Swing under Linux and Windows, I have come to the following conclusions... and this is based on actual usage, not theoretical bullshit and Sun marketing (like your reply):
Actually, I am a Java developer, who has had substantial practical experience of it since it started. It has been my main development language for about 5 years.
1. Swing sucks balls under Linux. It's very very slow (and believe me, looking slow compared to GTK is quite an achievement) and ugly... even with the gtk plaf it stands out like a builder wearing a pink tutu to work.
Swing works fine under Linux. It is fast and very user-friendly (I find novice users have no problems with it at all).
2. Swing sucks balls under Windows... even though Sun have put a huge amount of effort into speeding it up by using all kinds of directX acceleration to hide just how slow it is.
On the contrary, Swing is pretty good under Windows. It has good desktop integration and is very fast. The DirectX application means it is at least as fast as native apps.
3. Sun's entire Java package for Linux sucks... and it's only going to get worse. Sun's Linux support is grudging and half-assed at best.
Sun's package for Linux is first-rate. Not only have they directly supported it for years, they now ship Linux with Java installed as a product.
Why do you think so many people hate Java on slashdot? It's partly a license thing... and partly that Java is a corporate quagmire and on Linux it is seriously shite.
On the contrary, its a combination 'not invented here', geek culture not liking 'safe' languages where you can't hack everything and a dislike of everything that isn't open source.
Linux is one of the main deployment platforms for server-side Java, and Java is very widelyused this way for high-performance critical applications.
So I am afraid the evidence is strongly against your 'seriously shite' claim!
The fact that you can claim Java is in *any* way a serious system for cross-platform desktop development betrays a complete and total break with reality. You might try using it in the real world.
I do, and have for years. It's cross-platform ability is superb. I have written substantial (hundreds of thousands of lines) Swing and Web applications and these have ported between Windows and Linux with no changes.
Java is being held back in the absence of something like Harmony,
How is it being held back? It is the most in-demand language in the job market, and the de-facto standard language for major server-side development.
and that's just absolutely rediculous when the problem would be so easy to fix.
It is not easy to fix. There can be major licensing and patent problems to overcome in open-sourcing a huge project like Java. This is why it has taken them so long to open source Solaris.
I get the feeling that the core of Java has been allowed to stagnate at Sun, and they've mostly been concentrating on their web applications for Java. Maybe once the open source community get their hands on it, they can start improving the VM and actually have it start performing at acceptable speeds.
The real situation has been the exact opposite. The latest version of Java (5.0) was a major upgrade of core features, with significant new language extensions. The VM is now very fast, with an improved start-up time for applications, and the ability to approach C/C++ speed even for numerical work.
how the HELL do you expect an end user to run JavaApp123, when all they download is a.class file?
Users almost never download class files. They download JAR files. JAR files can have a Main-Class property which means that with a JRE installed the user need only double-click the JAR to run it.
Why in GODS NAME does Java NOT USE Native Widgets?
Because native widgets can a wide range of capabilities on different platforms. The Java widgets are usually a superset of these capabilities, allowing a rich interface to be cross-platform.
I mean, I can spot a Java application light years away.
That is the developer's fault, not Java's. Java ships with the option to use widgets that have a very close match to the native OS widgets on platforms such as XP and MacOS/X (on the latter, they are indistinguishable). Sun is working to ensure that Java apps are completely visually compatible with Windows apps on the next version of Windows.
It doesn't integrate cleanly in ANY regard.
Yes it does. There is an API called JDIC (Java Desktop Integration Components) that allows very good integration with the GUI of a system, from using the 'systray' to opening native browsers and so on.
And has that been deemed illegal? I don't think so. 'Tying' is not illegal, if you don't know it. Only if users are not allowed to use any other alternatives that 'tying' will become illegal.
I never said that tying in itself was illegal. Tying is a potentially problematic matter when a company is a monopoly. A particular case of tying may be deemed illegal.
But how did you know that most Windows users haven't heard about Winamp?
Fair point. I don't. I can only base this on my experience with Windows users and by observing the mention of media players on popular websites.
I have been asking you all along, WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE MICROSOFT WILL GET IF THEY BUNDLE WMP ONTO ALL WINDOWS INSTALLATIONS? Please answer this question, and I will be glad to refute any answer you will give me (time permitting). Are you saying that users of Windows will be locked onto WMP and doesn't want to download anything else? Nope, that's not correct. It is not that Microsoft will prevent you from downloading any other alternatives.
There are clear advantages. Microsoft wants to position the PC as the hub of home entertainment. Bundling WMP is part of this strategy. It also allows Microsoft to promote their preferred formats, technology and partners.
Yeah, and please tell me why EU doesn't declare WMP bundling onto Windows is illegal? Tell me, I want to know. If you can't, well you know what to do.
As far as I can tell, they did. Here is a press release from the EU from March 2004:
"The European Commission has concluded, after a five-year investigation, that Microsoft Corporation broke European Union competition law by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems (OS) onto the markets for work group server operating systems(1) and for media players(2). Because the illegal behaviour is still ongoing.."
(My bolding)
I believe that Winamp is just as famous as WMP, if not better.
There is good evidence you are wrong. Most major sites that provide media generally mention RealPlayer, WMP and QuickTime.
Hey, Microsoft is a publicly traded company. Their accounts is out there in the open.
I am not implying that Microsoft has done anything wrong, but anyone who understands accounting would know that the reports presented by publically traded companies are only broad statistical summaries.
What you have been saying all along is that novice users doesn't want to switch unless the programs ARE LIGHT YEARS BETTER than Microsoft's bundled ones. Ths is what you have said. Read your own posts again.
You are playing with words. I simply said that competing products have to be substantially better in order to compete - better than they would have to be if Microsoft did not bundle things.
There should be a 'level playing field'. With bundling, there isn't.
No. The application is the software that processes it. RSS versions have DTDs, so they are dialects of XML.
This is also incorrect. XML is not magically backward compatible. The correct thing to say is that XML sometimes makes it possible to design an XML-based data format that is backward compatible.
This is incorrect. If you use either a DTD or Schema then you can force backward compatibility.
Years? The whole 5 years of which the internet was only slightly popular and the only users were people who knew how to set up Trumpet Winsock in Windows 3.1, or a figure out linux?
You are concentrating on IE here. There are countless other products that have been shipped along with windows (scanner software, camera software) but have not been bundled.
One way or another someone is going to make the money by being bundled. Why shouldn't it be Microsoft -- it's their Operating System.
Because they are a monopoly.
Just because you dislike Microsoft and that they are making money doesn't mean that you can arbitrarily decide that they should advertise for other companies and bundle their software to let them capitalize on MS's popularity.
It is not arbitrary. It is because they are a monopoly.
Why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to include whatever they want with THEIR operating system?
Because they are in a monopoly position.
You don't HAVE to use Windows.
If you want to use most workstation software and PC games, you do. Most PCs are shipped with Windows pre-installed.
The only difference if Real were to have a deal with Dell to bundle RealPlayer would be that Real now makes money off forcing Dell users to use RealPlayer, instead of MS making money forcing Dell users to use WMP. It's the same situation, who says that it's more "Right" for Real to make the money instead?
National and internation laws governing business monopolies say that it is more 'right'.
This is just a cash grab for people who are too jealous, or not good enough to compete with Windows and looking for an easy way in.
And Microsoft bundling products with Windows isn't?
Microsoft has more going for it than just bundling things with their OS. The fact that they support all their products from one centralized location. Another thing customers want, aside from everything to be set up and working, is to only have to call ONE place when something breaks.
That single point of support should be the computer supplier - the 'reseller'. This is the way it works for all other goods.
is definitely not something Microsoft should be punished for -- they are a business, let us not forget.
It is not about punishment. It is about law.
You can't solve this problem by locking the unknowing consumers into someone else's product that you've forced Microsoft to include in their operating system.
I never mentioned any locking. If you ship alternatives then the consumer has a choice.
It is not Microsoft that includes these with their OS. It is the computer manufacturer or reseller.
People want All-In-One solutions and Microsoft is giving it to them. No hidden barriers, no magic, just results.
No... some people want all-in-one solutions. Others don't. People should be allowed choice.
Anyway, why should the all-in-one solution have to include WMP? If I buy 'complete workstation' package, from, say, Dell, I get computer, software, printer, webcam etc. Dell ship this, pre-install software, support it etc. But it is not all made by Dell.
If that player does something that WMP doesn't, and the consumer wants that functionality, then odds are they are advanced enough to make that decision, and determined enough to take the 1/2 hour to download it.
Why should they have to do that?
But to say that MS should be forced to bundle 3rd party software just because YOU don't like WMP is ridiculous. This is the retailer's job. This is the advertising dept.'s job for the third party software.
Exactly. I never said Microsoft should be forced to bundle anything. My view of WMP is irrelevant (I actually like it, personally). The retailer should provide the media player (or alternatives), not Microsoft.
The moment you say that you never heard of Ulead (who makes Video Studio, Photoimpact etc) and Winamp, is the moment your credibilty goes out of the window.
Most windows users are not interested in such applications. You have detailed knowledge of media players and systems. That is a minority use for Windows. Most Windows use is for dull office applications. And, I am afraid that insults don't help an argument.
The fact that WMP9 for Apple (shocked, don't you?) is free and that Windows price doesn't increase means that Microsoft are not passing the cost to the prtice of other software like Office or Windows.
No, that doesn't shock me. Apple is a very small market for them and they can deal with the loss (after all, they make a loss on every Xbox sold). I'd be interested to know how you have detailed knowledge of Microsoft accounts and now that they aren't passing on the cost.
Any people who has used Windows computers at least have heard about Winamp, or used it. I will bet 90%> of/. readers
I think that where your understanding of this is flawed (or so I politely suggest). Windows users are not typically Slashdot users. Saying that 'any people who have used Windows will at least have heard about Winamp' is incorrect.
Hey, you did speak something sensible here. At least it is different than your previous answer of wanting WMP removed and other software bundled in.
You keep misunderstanding me. I don't care or not about what software is bundled with Windows. The problem is always having WMP bundled in all copies of Windows. This means that it has an unfair advantage, even if other products are also bundled on some proportions of Windows installations.
Last time I checked, neither Adobe or Ulead has any plans to sue Microsoft for bundling WIndows Movie Maker into Windows XP
Whether or not they are sueing is irrelevant to the rights or wrongs of the case. The issue of media players is considered far more significant legally because of the phenomenal amount of money involved in media. Microsoft would have the ability to turn Windows into a 'home entertainment centre', giving Microsoft an unfair advantage in that area, and potentially the ability to limit and control distribution of media.
You can't, so please stop spouting BS, saying that Microsoft is doing something illegal when they do not.
I am not saying that they are doing anything illegal. I am saying that WMP is not free because the cost is covered by sales of other MS products. Where do you think the profit comes from to fund 'operating expenditure'?
So, you are actually not for alternatives either huh? Suprising to hear from you, considering how you are against Microsoft bundling software onto it, while condoning bundling other non-Microsoft software onto Windows. So, do you condone bundling or not?
Of course I am for alternatives. The problem is not bundling in general, it is Microsoft bundling their product on their monopoly-position OS. It is called 'tying'.
For the 3rd time, in case you didn't get it, IT IS LEGAL TO BUNDLE ADDITIONAL SOFTWARE ONTO WINDOWS. You know, the way most Linux distro does?
And yet again, this not about bundling software as such, it is about the manufacturer of Windows bundling their own software, so taking advantage of the established monopoly of their OS.
Do not tell me that if Microsoft does it, it is bad, but if others does it, it is not
That is exactly what I will tell you, for the simple reason that Microsoft is in a monopoly position. This is not about 'good' or 'bad', but the legal duties imposed on monopolies.
Using Linux distros is a poor example to back your case, as they almost always bundle many alternatives for software.
And I wonder the millions of downloas of Firefox must have been done by expert computer users only. C'mon!
Slashdot Mirror
Would you want to be interrupted in the middle of your game by the garbage collector? If you have used java programs you know what I mean...
The garbage collection in Java can be set not to interrupt. This is why Java is now being used in real time systems.
Because they actually shown it working in the Mustang Java build.
No, they have not.
Yes, they have. You will find parts of it already working in the current Mustang beta.
Case in point. You made a specific claim that Swing was faster on Linux than SWT and cite this to back it up. It's not, and your quote is irrelevant. SWT is slower on Linux than it is on Windows, but SWT is a hell of a lot faster than Swing.
No, I said: "The latest implementations of Swing in Java 5.0 are often faster.". I made no claim for general better performance. My link showed that there were serious complains about SWT performance on Linux. There are no complains about NetBeans performance on Linux (which uses Swing).
If developers are complaining so much about SWT performance on Linux that it is down as a bug, but are not complaining about NetBeans/Swing on Linux (indeed, it wins an award), that backs my point.
I don't think you realise just how bad Swing is -- particularly on Linux. Like the originaI poster said, you live in your own little world of Sun marketing.
Wrong. I develop Swing applications which are deployed on Linux and I used Swing applications on Linux, so I know.
Swing used to be a real problem on Linux - I would have agreed that it was terrible, but that was years ago. With later Java 1.4.x releases, and now with Java 1.5.x, it is crisp and fast (or at least that is the impression I get and my users get).
First of all, you don't compile your java code into a class file, you "compile" it. In Computer Science compilation produces machine code. javac does not.
Yes it does. It produces machine code for the Java Virtual Machine. There are some processors that can run this code directly - it is their machine code.
Which brings me to what I'm wondering about: You say the JVM compiles the byte code into machine code. I seriously doubt that that's true.
It is true.
Does the JVM really take your byte code and build an executable and spawn a process for it? Until I hear otherwise, I'm under the assumption that it does not, that rather the JVM is compiled, and that your byte code never is, but is interpreted (and cached) by the JVM.
Just because an executable is not built an run as a separate process does not mean that byte code is not compiled. The byte code is translated into sections of machine code which are then jumped into by the interpreter (during which time it is not interpreting).
I couldn't give a flying crap about bought awards.
It wasn't a bought award. I assume you have evidence to back up this accusation?
Could you perhaps name some prominent Mac OSX apps that are developed with Swing? No sneaky listing Sun dev tools or obscure shareware apps either.
NeoOffice/J for Mac - just released.
You take one sentence out of context and ignore everything else. Just how much of a liar are you?
...
The sentence stood alone. Let's look at another sentence from that post:
"Sun's entire Java package for Linux sucks..."
Nothing specific about desktop java there. Quite the opposite.
Bullshit. Sun *sold* Linux systems.
Why post this when a simple check on Sun's website proves you wrong?
Sun ships Linux *now*.
What's the next version of JDS going to be based on?
From Sun's website:
"Initially provided with a Linux OS, Java Desktop System is now also integrated with the Solaris 10 Operating System."
Also, not instead of. They are broading the range of OSes on which you can get JDS, not changing it.
The JDS Q & A:
"Future versions will extend platform support to the Solaris SPARC and x86 platforms."
Linux is about as low-priority as you can get at Sun, and still be considered as "supported".
Nonsense. The JVM on Linux is kept just as up-to that on other platforms. Sun also provides Star Office for Linux, their app server for Linux, their Enterprise System for Linux
(c) Sun Marketing 1999 (with "Longhorn" replaced by the various versions of Windows). Sun has been promising that the next version of Java will sort out all the problems and make everything right ever since they superseded AWT. It's never happened... and they've always proved to be full of shit. Why should anyone believe them now?
Because they actually shown it working in the Mustang Java build.
Lie. There are lots of niggles with SWT. Slower than Swing under Linux isn't one of them... indeed slower than Swing under Linux would require the use of some type of time machine.
Why do posters have to be so abusive?
This speed issue is well established:
Eclipse bug 37683: "Address platform-specific UI performance problems."
"There is a noticable UI performance and responsiveness difference between Eclipse running on Windows and Eclipse running on Linux GTK, Linux Motif, or QNX Photon, all on the same hardware, with Windows clearly outperforming the others."
Eclipse uses SWT.
My impression of Swing is that it's not used much.
Your impression is wrong. Just check job sites.
Not everyone wants Swing.
That's not much of an argument against open sourcing Java.
It is. The argument being put forward was that open sourceing was necessary so that additional features could be added into the standard distribution. If the standard distribution is to be cut back with lots of features being optional and separately downloaded modules, then there is nothing to stop open source extras being downloaded as such modules.
The idea that you can emulate toolkit is just plain stupid.
Neither Sun or Microsoft agree. On Longhorn, Swing will look exactly like native Windows.
The Eclipse SWT toolkit does a much better job.
The default Windows distribution of SWT does a far worse job, and doesn't use the XP style.
It's more responsive,
There have been recent complaints about SWT performance, especially on Linux. The latest implementations of Swing in Java 5.0 are often faster.
and more and more apps are written for it,
My impression is that SWT is not that much used (as you can tell by the lack of XP support).
If Java were open source, SWT could be incorperated, and become a standard API supported on every platform that Java runs on.
This could be a negative step. Not everyone wants SWT. There is increasing pressure for the JRE to be reduced in size and made more modular.
Maybe it's time for Id Software to start making their games with Java then. I think you know what I mean :)
The games industry has always been rather conservative about development languages. Assembler is still much used, even those C and C++ offer high speed.
Java should be fine for games, as there are options to use DirectX and OpenGL graphics acceleration.
Did you read the message? I've just done it and it specifically talked about "DESKTOP APPS."
No it didn't. Let me quote:
"Java is a corporate quagmire and on Linux it is seriously shite."
I whole heartedly concur with the post to which you replied: java sucks for desktop work. Swing blows -- particularly under Linux -- Sun just doesn't give a shit about Linux, doubly so these days with "Open"Solaris.
Nonsense. Sun sells Linux systems. They have major development teams producting software for it (such as the JVM). A very strange way of 'not giving a shit'!
As for Swing, it is now one of the standard ways to develop on MacOS/X, and a Swing-based development tool - NetBeans - won the 'Open Source developer tool 2005' award from developer.com - a site that deals with far more than Java. Sure looks like the 'Swing blows' statement might be mistaken?
While IBM can ship this sort of modification with a JVM, even they are restricted and most potential contributors could not because, again, it is not open and Sun goes to great lengths to keep it closed.
SWT is nothing to do with the open-ness of Java. SWT is not a mondification. It is a set of open source Java classes and C code that provides link to the underlying API. There is no restriction on them shipping this along with JREs, and there is no restriction on anyone else shipping additional libraries.
Or they'll forego bloated commercial app servers and EJB and go with a lightweight open-source framework [spring].
Spring does not remove the need for app servers. It helps make applications that run on app servers a lot simpler to write by removing a lot of the complexity. In fact, Spring even includes APIs to simplify the use of EJBs!
For what kind of applications? If you are talking about pure speed, java is certainly not even 75% as fast as C...
Yes it is.
If you want to compete with some algorithm let me know - I'll do the C implementation and you'll do the java implementation, and then we'll see the difference...
This page includes results for a well-established benchmark for math processing - Linpack.
http://www.shudo.net/jit/perf/
It shows Sun's JDK 5.0 being more than 90% of the speed of C/C++.
Face the facts, dnoyeb: Java is slower than C++, for the simple reason that interpretation of bytecode is a huge overhead, even with a JIT recompiler. Java development is faster and safer than C++, but the products so developed run slower. This is a fact. It is true.
It is not a fact. It is false. Modern Java VMs do a LOT more than just JIT recompiling. They profile the code and produce very optimised machine code for the specific processor. This run-time optimisation can potentially produce better machine code than the ahead-of-time optimising used by C++ compilers, as it is based on actual performance, not predicted. Because the VMs only optimise slow areas of code they can do this very aggressively, with inlining, loop unrolling etc. This optimisation process is getting better, and there is no reason why Java should not overtake C++ speed in future.
No one else could type that and control their laughing long enough to click "submit".
Nothing like reasoned argument is there?
Java's portability is a plain fact. Major complex applications such as JBoss run on Windows, Linux, MacOS.. and all other J2SE platforms with no changes. The quality of the Linux implementations is demonstrated by it's use on that platform by high-performance sites such as E-Bay.
So given the choice between the opinions of one AC and the opinions of developers in major financial institutions and in some of the most successful websites, I know which I would listen to.
Did you miss the part where the AC was talking about binary license and doesn't even care about source code? If Sun would make their Java JRE/JDK binary license more flexible, it would help them and people wanting to use Java more than anything. And this would be an easy fix.
I did miss it. I still think that these matters are more complicated that people think.
Oh hahahaha... yes, if your app doesn't look completely native it's the developers fault. Fuck me, I have to wonder what planet you live on.
This one. Your average user won't notice much difference between Swing and native on Windows, and will not see any difference at all on MacOS/X.
Speaking as someone who has tried Swing under Linux and Windows, I have come to the following conclusions... and this is based on actual usage, not theoretical bullshit and Sun marketing (like your reply):
Actually, I am a Java developer, who has had substantial practical experience of it since it started. It has been my main development language for about 5 years.
1. Swing sucks balls under Linux. It's very very slow (and believe me, looking slow compared to GTK is quite an achievement) and ugly... even with the gtk plaf it stands out like a builder wearing a pink tutu to work.
Swing works fine under Linux. It is fast and very user-friendly (I find novice users have no problems with it at all).
2. Swing sucks balls under Windows... even though Sun have put a huge amount of effort into speeding it up by using all kinds of directX acceleration to hide just how slow it is.
On the contrary, Swing is pretty good under Windows. It has good desktop integration and is very fast. The DirectX application means it is at least as fast as native apps.
3. Sun's entire Java package for Linux sucks... and it's only going to get worse. Sun's Linux support is grudging and half-assed at best.
Sun's package for Linux is first-rate. Not only have they directly supported it for years, they now ship Linux with Java installed as a product.
Why do you think so many people hate Java on slashdot? It's partly a license thing... and partly that Java is a corporate quagmire and on Linux it is seriously shite.
On the contrary, its a combination 'not invented here', geek culture not liking 'safe' languages where you can't hack everything and a dislike of everything that isn't open source.
Linux is one of the main deployment platforms for server-side Java, and Java is very widelyused this way for high-performance critical applications.
So I am afraid the evidence is strongly against your 'seriously shite' claim!
The fact that you can claim Java is in *any* way a serious system for cross-platform desktop development betrays a complete and total break with reality. You might try using it in the real world.
I do, and have for years. It's cross-platform ability is superb. I have written substantial (hundreds of thousands of lines) Swing and Web applications and these have ported between Windows and Linux with no changes.
Java is being held back in the absence of something like Harmony,
How is it being held back? It is the most in-demand language in the job market, and the de-facto standard language for major server-side development.
and that's just absolutely rediculous when the problem would be so easy to fix.
It is not easy to fix. There can be major licensing and patent problems to overcome in open-sourcing a huge project like Java. This is why it has taken them so long to open source Solaris.
I get the feeling that the core of Java has been allowed to stagnate at Sun, and they've mostly been concentrating on their web applications for Java.
Maybe once the open source community get their hands on it, they can start improving the VM and actually have it start performing at acceptable speeds.
The real situation has been the exact opposite. The latest version of Java (5.0) was a major upgrade of core features, with significant new language extensions. The VM is now very fast, with an improved start-up time for applications, and the ability to approach C/C++ speed even for numerical work.
how the HELL do you expect an end user to run JavaApp123, when all they download is a .class file?
Users almost never download class files. They download JAR files. JAR files can have a Main-Class property which means that with a JRE installed the user need only double-click the JAR to run it.
Why in GODS NAME does Java NOT USE Native Widgets?
Because native widgets can a wide range of capabilities on different platforms. The Java widgets are usually a superset of these capabilities, allowing a rich interface to be cross-platform.
I mean, I can spot a Java application light years away.
That is the developer's fault, not Java's. Java ships with the option to use widgets that have a very close match to the native OS widgets on platforms such as XP and MacOS/X (on the latter, they are indistinguishable). Sun is working to ensure that Java apps are completely visually compatible with Windows apps on the next version of Windows.
It doesn't integrate cleanly in ANY regard.
Yes it does. There is an API called JDIC (Java Desktop Integration Components) that allows very good integration with the GUI of a system, from using the 'systray' to opening native browsers and so on.
And has that been deemed illegal? I don't think so. 'Tying' is not illegal, if you don't know it. Only if users are not allowed to use any other alternatives that 'tying' will become illegal.
I never said that tying in itself was illegal. Tying is a potentially problematic matter when a company is a monopoly. A particular case of tying may be deemed illegal.
But how did you know that most Windows users haven't heard about Winamp?
Fair point. I don't. I can only base this on my experience with Windows users and by observing the mention of media players on popular websites.
I have been asking you all along, WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE MICROSOFT WILL GET IF THEY BUNDLE WMP ONTO ALL WINDOWS INSTALLATIONS? Please answer this question, and I will be glad to refute any answer you will give me (time permitting). Are you saying that users of Windows will be locked onto WMP and doesn't want to download anything else? Nope, that's not correct. It is not that Microsoft will prevent you from downloading any other alternatives.
There are clear advantages. Microsoft wants to position the PC as the hub of home entertainment. Bundling WMP is part of this strategy. It also allows Microsoft to promote their preferred formats, technology and partners.
Yeah, and please tell me why EU doesn't declare WMP bundling onto Windows is illegal? Tell me, I want to know. If you can't, well you know what to do.
As far as I can tell, they did. Here is a press release from the EU from March 2004:
"The European Commission has concluded, after a five-year investigation, that Microsoft Corporation broke European Union competition law by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems (OS) onto the markets for work group server operating systems(1) and for media players(2). Because the illegal behaviour is still ongoing.."
(My bolding)
I believe that Winamp is just as famous as WMP, if not better.
There is good evidence you are wrong. Most major sites that provide media generally mention RealPlayer, WMP and QuickTime.
Hey, Microsoft is a publicly traded company. Their accounts is out there in the open.
I am not implying that Microsoft has done anything wrong, but anyone who understands accounting would know that the reports presented by publically traded companies are only broad statistical summaries.
What you have been saying all along is that novice users doesn't want to switch unless the programs ARE LIGHT YEARS BETTER than Microsoft's bundled ones. Ths is what you have said. Read your own posts again.
You are playing with words. I simply said that competing products have to be substantially better in order to compete - better than they would have to be if Microsoft did not bundle things.
There should be a 'level playing field'. With bundling, there isn't.
This is incorrect. RSS is an application of XML.
No. The application is the software that processes it. RSS versions have DTDs, so they are dialects of XML.
This is also incorrect. XML is not magically backward compatible. The correct thing to say is that XML sometimes makes it possible to design an XML-based data format that is backward compatible.
This is incorrect. If you use either a DTD or Schema then you can force backward compatibility.
Years? The whole 5 years of which the internet was only slightly popular and the only users were people who knew how to set up Trumpet Winsock in Windows 3.1, or a figure out linux?
.
You are concentrating on IE here. There are countless other products that have been shipped along with windows (scanner software, camera software) but have not been bundled.
One way or another someone is going to make the money by being bundled. Why shouldn't it be Microsoft -- it's their Operating System.
Because they are a monopoly.
Just because you dislike Microsoft and that they are making money doesn't mean that you can arbitrarily decide that they should advertise for other companies and bundle their software to let them capitalize on MS's popularity.
It is not arbitrary. It is because they are a monopoly.
Why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to include whatever they want with THEIR operating system?
Because they are in a monopoly position.
You don't HAVE to use Windows.
If you want to use most workstation software and PC games, you do. Most PCs are shipped with Windows pre-installed.
The only difference if Real were to have a deal with Dell to bundle RealPlayer would be that Real now makes money off forcing Dell users to use RealPlayer, instead of MS making money forcing Dell users to use WMP. It's the same situation, who says that it's more "Right" for Real to make the money instead?
National and internation laws governing business monopolies say that it is more 'right'.
This is just a cash grab for people who are too jealous, or not good enough to compete with Windows and looking for an easy way in.
And Microsoft bundling products with Windows isn't?
Microsoft has more going for it than just bundling things with their OS. The fact that they support all their products from one centralized location. Another thing customers want, aside from everything to be set up and working, is to only have to call ONE place when something breaks.
That single point of support should be the computer supplier - the 'reseller'. This is the way it works for all other goods.
is definitely not something Microsoft should be punished for -- they are a business, let us not forget.
It is not about punishment. It is about law.
You can't solve this problem by locking the unknowing consumers into someone else's product that you've forced Microsoft to include in their operating system
I never mentioned any locking. If you ship alternatives then the consumer has a choice.
It is not Microsoft that includes these with their OS. It is the computer manufacturer or reseller.
People want All-In-One solutions and Microsoft is giving it to them. No hidden barriers, no magic, just results.
No... some people want all-in-one solutions. Others don't. People should be allowed choice.
Anyway, why should the all-in-one solution have to include WMP? If I buy 'complete workstation' package, from, say, Dell, I get computer, software, printer, webcam etc. Dell ship this, pre-install software, support it etc. But it is not all made by Dell.
If that player does something that WMP doesn't, and the consumer wants that functionality, then odds are they are advanced enough to make that decision, and determined enough to take the 1/2 hour to download it.
Why should they have to do that?
But to say that MS should be forced to bundle 3rd party software just because YOU don't like WMP is ridiculous. This is the retailer's job. This is the advertising dept.'s job for the third party software.
Exactly. I never said Microsoft should be forced to bundle anything. My view of WMP is irrelevant (I actually like it, personally). The retailer should provide the media player (or alternatives), not Microsoft.
Including an
The moment you say that you never heard of Ulead (who makes Video Studio, Photoimpact etc) and Winamp, is the moment your credibilty goes out of the window.
/. readers
Most windows users are not interested in such applications. You have detailed knowledge of media players and systems. That is a minority use for Windows. Most Windows use is for dull office applications. And, I am afraid that insults don't help an argument.
The fact that WMP9 for Apple (shocked, don't you?) is free and that Windows price doesn't increase means that Microsoft are not passing the cost to the prtice of other software like Office or Windows.
No, that doesn't shock me. Apple is a very small market for them and they can deal with the loss (after all, they make a loss on every Xbox sold). I'd be interested to know how you have detailed knowledge of Microsoft accounts and now that they aren't passing on the cost.
Any people who has used Windows computers at least have heard about Winamp, or used it. I will bet 90%> of
I think that where your understanding of this is flawed (or so I politely suggest). Windows users are not typically Slashdot users. Saying that 'any people who have used Windows will at least have heard about Winamp' is incorrect.
Hey, you did speak something sensible here. At least it is different than your previous answer of wanting WMP removed and other software bundled in.
You keep misunderstanding me. I don't care or not about what software is bundled with Windows. The problem is always having WMP bundled in all copies of Windows. This means that it has an unfair advantage, even if other products are also bundled on some proportions of Windows installations.
Last time I checked, neither Adobe or Ulead has any plans to sue Microsoft for bundling WIndows Movie Maker into Windows XP
Whether or not they are sueing is irrelevant to the rights or wrongs of the case. The issue of media players is considered far more significant legally because of the phenomenal amount of money involved in media. Microsoft would have the ability to turn Windows into a 'home entertainment centre', giving Microsoft an unfair advantage in that area, and potentially the ability to limit and control distribution of media.
You can't, so please stop spouting BS, saying that Microsoft is doing something illegal when they do not.
I am not saying that they are doing anything illegal. I am saying that WMP is not free because the cost is covered by sales of other MS products. Where do you think the profit comes from to fund 'operating expenditure'?
So, you are actually not for alternatives either huh? Suprising to hear from you, considering how you are against Microsoft bundling software onto it, while condoning bundling other non-Microsoft software onto Windows. So, do you condone bundling or not?
Of course I am for alternatives. The problem is not bundling in general, it is Microsoft bundling their product on their monopoly-position OS. It is called 'tying'.
For the 3rd time, in case you didn't get it, IT IS LEGAL TO BUNDLE ADDITIONAL SOFTWARE ONTO WINDOWS. You know, the way most Linux distro does?
And yet again, this not about bundling software as such, it is about the manufacturer of Windows bundling their own software, so taking advantage of the established monopoly of their OS.
Do not tell me that if Microsoft does it, it is bad, but if others does it, it is not
That is exactly what I will tell you, for the simple reason that Microsoft is in a monopoly position. This is not about 'good' or 'bad', but the legal duties imposed on monopolies.
Using Linux distros is a poor example to back your case, as they almost always bundle many alternatives for software.
And I wonder the millions of downloas of Firefox must have been done by expert computer users only. C'mon!