Linux seems to be taking market share from commercial Unix. I don't see many small and medium size businesses migrating away from Windows to Linux.
It's the exact opposite. Commercial Unix has been traditionally used for enterprise-scale servers. Linux has had significant penetration at the low end - sneaking in as replacement for workgroup servers (replacing NT/Win2000). Only recently has Linux been replacing commercial Unixes at the 'enterprise' level. It's the substantial migration of low-range servers to Linux (largely as a result of the quality of Samba) that has been worrying Microsoft in the past few years.
Sure, someday Linux might eventually have enough market penetration to make it profitable to develop SMB software on Linux,
First, have you looked at the market penetration figures? Secondly, SMB software is very well developed already on Linux! This is why Linux is competing so well as a Windows server replacement.
I do agree that we will see more 'clueless Linux admins' - I have already met many!
The theory can't make any predictions yet. Right now they've basically been able to show that with more work this theory has the potential to be the TOE, but it's not there yet. It's not a failing though.
I know this is going to be a controversial opinion, but I feel that String Theory isn't even a possible candidate for the TOE. It is too complex, and contains too many assumptions. Any model of the fundamental entities in the universe which includes properties such as length, ends, vibration and tension can hardly be a true representation of the building blocks of matter.
I'm expressing this more from a philosopher's point of view than an expert in maths or particle physics, and remain open to being convinced otherwise!
I always wonder why people assume that "windows admins" are "clueless admins".
I guess because we see so many of them. But that is not the point. The point is that Windows encourages the clueless to think they can be admins. This is not to say that there aren't skilled Windows admins.
The Linux/Unix community needs to come down out of their ivory towers if they are to EVER take serious marketshare from Microsoft.
Of course, in the server market (which is what we are talking about), they already have.
Sorry I'm having troubles actually locating these 'features' in open office 1.1.3, could you be more specific?
First, you will need to set up a data source, (Tools/Data Sources), then the data navigator is available under the 'Data Sources' button (or View/Data Sources). Forms and Reports can be designed using the File/AutoPilot option.
I also don't see anything giving me the ability to import old ms access files.
That is a problem for any application! There are two quick ways to do this: Either export the Access tables as CSV files (Open Office can handle these directly as tables), or link to a data source on Access and copy the tables over.
"those features" in "a description" and the guy gets 4, Interesting? What are those features?
Inheritance. Visual Basic up to and including version 6.0 did not allow one of the most basic features of Object Orientation - inheritance. VB.Net is a different language in many respects, but has inheritance and other features widely used in the IT industry for decades.
The web and javascript and a page state and wasn't even around 40 years ago.
What have these to do with Object Orientation?
Come on now, make them earn the moderation at least. They've got to provide evidence.
Done.
However, I'm not sure this was the point. I was illustrating Microsoft's Orwellian re-definitition of language through the misuse of the term 'Innovation'.
What opensource solution do you reccommend to replace Microsoft Access?
Open Office 1.1.3 has most of the features of Access for the common user: forms, reports, and an SQL/QBE query designer. This works on a variety of external databases.
Open Office 2.0 has a direct Access replacement, 'Base', which includes an embedded SQL database.
You're marked funny because you suggest someone look at dselect.
I hoped it was because the pointing out the strange use of 'Innovative'.
Unless its been rewritten or something, its a nightmarish program that no sane being should touch.
A slight exaggeration. To install samba, scroll to the package, select and press ENTER. Hardly a mind-mangling experience (unless it's too late for me!).
I suggest aptitude or for GUI usage, synaptic.
Sure - whatever, but that was not my point. Thanks for the info though.
But that's the entire point of choosing Windows as a server, right? I'm pretty sure it was one of the the original selling points, when Windows NT mainly competed against NetWare: "Why not use the file server that has the same UI as your Windows client boxes? Desktop service technicians can be upgraded into server admins with a very smooth learning curve."
When I was involved in purchasing servers, I went for NT because at the time it seemed to fit well into small groups of PCs, as you could use an NT server to provide file/print sharing and as a general purpose workstation at the same time. The idea of a dedicated server PC was an unnecessary expense in many situations. A decade later, hardware is a lot smaller and less expensive, and dedicated servers (even in small installations) make more financial sense. In this situation, having a full Windows system with GUI seems overkill.
...and after getting used to the change in UI... It's funny you should bring that up. If YOU have to get used to the UI, do you really think end users will? End users don't even fully understand how MS Office works, but they know where things are, and what things look like. UI is everything, and very few open source projects realize this.
That's my point - in my experience, end users DO get used to the UI very quickly. Of course they do! There are major UI differences between different versions of MS Office (there have been major re-organisations of menus and buttons), far less than between MS Office and Open Office.
Not trying to just flamebait here, but have you ever used Windows Server 2003 remotely?
Yes. But, to be honest, I just don't care about ease of use of server tools. That is not what servers are for. They are for providing services. If you are choosing a server based on the ease of use tools, then unless you are planning to hand a server over to someone with minimal experience (a bad idea), you are making a bad decision. Servers are complex. I have no problem with tools that reflect that complexity. I have a problem with a system (Windows) that tries to pretend that its all easy and turn-key. I hugely prefer a well-documented/etc file to pretty but obscure GUI tools that change with each Windows release.
From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems.
Firstly, samba IS the same as Server 2003 as a workgroup server. That is it's point. Secondly, how can Server 2003 be a turn-key server? All servers, no matter how small, need configuring, integrating with existing systems (such as existing networking), account management and backup configuration. By the time you have done that, there is going to be little to choose between Server 2003 and Samba.
As for collaboration, Office 2003 may well be good for this, but in my experience such features are rarely used. I have performed many migrations from MS Office to Open Office + Evolution, and after getting used to the change in UI, most users have not noticed any difference in functionality. Microsoft frequently adds 'perceived' value, but not actual value in terms of everyday use. If you really do need some collaboration Evolution works well with MS Exchange.
Skyscrapers, all else being equal, yes. But human activity hasn't just been increasing Earth's moment of inertia, it has also been decreasing it. Cutting down millions of trees, for instance.
And increasing it. Global warming means more water vapour in the atmosphere.
I guess Microsoft doesn't accept something as existing unless they do it themselves so everything they do is "innovative" to them.
Yeah. Reminds me of a description on their website of Object-Oriented features in VB.Net as 'innovative'. Considering those features were in Simula 40 years earlier, I found this amusing.
It's obvious that Microsoft still does not 'get' key aspects of open source:
"I always ask the question of customers and yes, there's always a free version, there's Debian, there's Gentoo, there's different distributions that they can pull down and use in a different environment, but when you really want to deploy it in a mission-critical way, when you really want to have something that's broader from an infrastructure perspective, they want something that has support"
The freeness of the version has nothing whatever to do with the support. I use a server that is Debian but has commercial support.
I also found the following comment very amusing:
"in Windows Server particularly, some of the things that struck me as innovative were some of the server management tools. The ability to take a Windows server and literally dynamically change it from a DHCP infrastructure server to a streaming media server, or more importantly, taking a file/print server and adding a variety of other services, maybe make it a domain controller, maybe also make it a Web server."
Wow! How 'innovative'! Maybe he should look at a tool like 'dselect' under Debian. I can also 'literally dynamically' add and remove services from my server. Anyway, the idea of having a single machine that is nothing more than a DHCP infrastructure server suggests Windows is not the most powerful system.
Hibernate is a great product, but it's single-vendor and a proprietary API.
What do you mean by that?
You can only get Hibernate from a single source. No other organisation provides a product which implements the Hibernate API. Hibernate owns that API.
This is in contrast to JDO, where currently 30 organisations provide competing implementations, including good quality open source versions.
Source? JSF 1.0 was just released in March. No where in Craig's blog does he say "use JSF not Struts" but rather to investigate both.
JSF was in development long before that, and during that time, Craig posted this:
"For applications with a longer lead time, seriously consider waiting for the ability to use JSF components instead of the Struts HTML tag library. Doing this will let you leverage not only the standard HTML components that come with JSF out of the box, but also the rich libraries of JSF components likely to be created by third parties in the future (including Struts developers).
For Struts after 1.1 is released, the developers haven't yet had formal conversations (which will happen on STRUTS-DEV) about what a future Struts will look like. However, I'm going to continue to advocate a long term migration to using standards like JSF and JSTL when they are available, and de-emphasize the further development of the Struts proprietary tag libraries. "
at this page: http://struts.apache.org/proposals/struts-f aces.ht ml
The emphasis these days is that a developer should use JSF, or a combination of JSF for UI and struts for controller aspects of complex sets of pages (although JSF is being extended to help with this).
I'm no physicist but that's the impression I get from what I've read.
You are getting a right impression from what you have read, but what you have read is just one rather old-fashioned view of Quantum Mechanics (it's called the Copenhagen Intepretation). There are plenty of alternative (and equally valid) interpretations that don't require any waveform collapse by observation. These include the Many Worlds Interpretation, the Transactional Interpretation (my favourite) of John Cramer, which implies that particles exchange information back and forth through time, and the ideas of Roger Penrose which suggest that quantum states collapse to a single one of the alternatives when the states differ sufficiently in energy to cause significant spacetime curvature.
My view is that at this time, it's foolish to pick any single interpretation of quantum mechanics (such as collapse by observation) and assume that it has any reality. We just don't know enough.
I did a quick google on the "JDO with Hibernate" think and couldnt find such a project. It was a vague recollection, perhaps I am mistaken. Although, there is talk about JBoss using hibernate to implement their CMP. Perhaps it was that...
Yes, this is true. Hibernate is now part of JBoss, I think. As for the 'JDO with Hibernate', I think that may have been something to do with the fickle (yes, they do irritate me) Hibernate developer team taking an interest in JDO a year ago?
I will definately take a second look at JDO. Seems that much has been happening their and so im probably a shade out of date.
There are some good commercial versions that give free trials. Xcalia is a good one. They allow you to develop for free. Then you could switch to a free version (such as JPOX) for deployment (this is why I like standards!). There are usually fabulous tools bundled with JDO products - graphical object designers, schema analysis and migration tools.
I guess it boils down to the fact that on all of my recent projects, hibernate has handled the ORM and I have never really had cause to complain. If it aint broke, dont fix it, and designing to keep technology neutral covers my ass for when the next silver-bullet comes flying by.
Absolutely! I'm looking a features in Spring (see below) to try and let me abstract even away from JDO.
Having said this, I have a project that is just starting and we are at the 'verticle slice' stage of development. Perhaps I will try converting our hibernate persistance layer to using a JDO implementation. It would be interesting to make the comparison without changing the other tools (velocity & spring at this point). I just may do this...
I'm a huge fan of Spring - I have recently discovered it and it saves me a lot of time. There is supposed to good JDO integration (although their documentation for this is very poor).
I've been watching Mono closely and I'm waiting for their Windows.Forms support before we start prototyping any Rich Clients as we want to maintain that we can be "cross platform", even with a rich client.
I know this may sound like flamebait, but it's not intended to be:
There already is a well-established, proven cross-platform solution with rich client support (including OpenGL-accelerated GUI on the client side, and ActiveX support). Its called Java! It has the huge advantage that it allows rich clients on Mac and Linux too.
I see a lot of resistance to using Windows server-side, as there is such a fast growth in alternative server solutions.
There are a lot of Java/.Net bridging solutions that would allow slow transition to a more portable system.
I just wanted to be a MS Fanboy and let people know that it's can be a viable alternative.
A reasonable and useful thing to do. Personally, I would be far more interested in a cross-platform Mono alone, without the constant reference-back to.Net.
I am vaguely aware of reading about somebody using Hibernate to implement the JDO spec
That would be good news if true, but last I heard, the Hibernate team had walked away from JDO, saying 'JDO is dead', and infuriating a lot of people (especially as they asked to be involved in the JDO 2.0 spec in the first place). However, if someone independent is doing this, it would be great. In terms of features, JDO 2.0 and Hibernate are very close.
As for JDO and EJB, this is a HUGELY complicated story, which changes almost on a weekly basis.
As far as I can tell, it goes like this:
There were two groups of people. Those who wanted portable standards, and those interested in using ORM mainly as a thin layer above relational databases, and with vendor-specific extensions. The first group went with JDO, the second with EJB. There has been a phenomenal amount of politics agains JDO, because it is highly functional even without vendor extensions: Its very quick to move both between databases and between different vendor's JDO implementations. There is a new spec for JDO coming out that answers most of the criticisms of JDO - version 2.0. Providers of proprietary solutions (such as TopLink and Hibernate) rant against it whenever they can, because it allows such freedom to change supplier.
To complicate things even further, there is a new spec as part of EJB 3.0 (to be released in 2006) - yet ANOTHER mechanism for ORM, which the JDO vendors, Hibernate and others say they will support. The idea was that it was this spec that would become the industry standard. It will be a long time coming and I really can't see all the vested interests getting together and supporting what is likely to be a minimal subset of features.
The big advantage of JDO 2.0 is that it takes all the vendor-specific extensions (such as the ORM layer) required to make JDO 1.0 useful and makes them part of the standard. The other big thing is that there will be an Apache version.
The interesting thing is unless they fixed it age degradation transfers over.
Some if it, but the DNA does 'recondition' during cloning.
It's not protein buffers - it's DNA. These buffers are called 'telomeres' and consist of simple repeat sequences of DNA.
Sexual reproduction solves this by using the redundancy of the two sets of DNA
No, this is nothing to do with sexual reproduction. Many higher animals only have one set of DNA - haploid insects for example.
while simpler creatures such as bacteria don't need the hugely complex dna chains of animals and plants
The DNA chains of bacteria aren't less complex than other life forms - after all, DNA has the same structure throughout. They just have different mechanisms for regulation.
Hibernate, on the other hand, is fast becoming the defacto ORM tool. It deals purely with relational databases and does so very well IMO. It may not be a documented standard, but I always put more weight behind tools that have been largely accepted by the community, whether documented or not. Hibernate passes this test.
This is true, but there is also wide use of JDO, especially in commercial environments. Hibernate is certainly NOT becoming de-facto (just talk to anyone using TopLink, for example). The new standard implementation of JDO (2.0) is going to be open source, and Apache are moving to JDO as their standard for persistence - something that will definitely encourage its even broader acceptance.
I see Hibernate rather like the ORM equivalent of MySQL - very widely used, but lacking in some standard features the ability to scale to large systems. There is also, I have to say, a certain arrogance about the Hibernate team that discourages me from using their product.
The new JDO (2.0) now out in preview has everything that Hibernate does and more, and has multi-vendor support. There is no reason not to use it, in my view.
I call BS. You don't go into any specifics of why.Net is so bad. Every single developer I have ever talked to thinks.Net is a godsend.
It is definitely a godsend. For Windows development.
But no matter how great.Net is, I had thought that the idea of developing large-scale software for a single platform, using products from a single supplier, went out decades ago.
With.Net making a webapp or a rich client app is not a decision. And with Mono's future support for Windows.Forms you can be assured that you can be cross platform as well.
No-one with any sense, or a desire to remain in their job, starts developing a project based on 'future support'. Even Microsoft won't give any assurance of what.Net will be in the future, so how can we be assured that Mono (or anyone else) will provide a cross-platform version of.Net?
* Java and J2EE by itself (servlets, jsp, ejbs, swing, jdbc, JDO) as it comes from SUN is rather weak and I would recommend not to use it if it wasn't for open source addons and replacements.
What a vague and broad (and incorrect) statement! Swing is now fast and accelated and Sun provides all the above features (with the exception of JDO) in the form of its Application Server, which is a high quality product. I never heard anyone ever say 'Sun's Java is weak' or 'Sun has weak servlets'!
As for the ORM, you should definitely use JDO, not Hibernate. JDO is a standard, with competing open source and commercial implementations. JDO integrates well with Spring.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux seems to be taking market share from commercial Unix. I don't see many small and medium size businesses migrating away from Windows to Linux.
It's the exact opposite. Commercial Unix has been traditionally used for enterprise-scale servers. Linux has had significant penetration at the low end - sneaking in as replacement for workgroup servers (replacing NT/Win2000). Only recently has Linux been replacing commercial Unixes at the 'enterprise' level. It's the substantial migration of low-range servers to Linux (largely as a result of the quality of Samba) that has been worrying Microsoft in the past few years.
Sure, someday Linux might eventually have enough market penetration to make it profitable to develop SMB software on Linux,
First, have you looked at the market penetration figures? Secondly, SMB software is very well developed already on Linux! This is why Linux is competing so well as a Windows server replacement.
I do agree that we will see more 'clueless Linux admins' - I have already met many!
The theory can't make any predictions yet. Right now they've basically been able to show that with more work this theory has the potential to be the TOE, but it's not there yet. It's not a failing though.
I know this is going to be a controversial opinion, but I feel that String Theory isn't even a possible candidate for the TOE. It is too complex, and contains too many assumptions. Any model of the fundamental entities in the universe which includes properties such as length, ends, vibration and tension can hardly be a true representation of the building blocks of matter.
I'm expressing this more from a philosopher's point of view than an expert in maths or particle physics, and remain open to being convinced otherwise!
I always wonder why people assume that "windows admins" are "clueless admins".
I guess because we see so many of them. But that is not the point. The point is that Windows encourages the clueless to think they can be admins. This is not to say that there aren't skilled Windows admins.
The Linux/Unix community needs to come down out of their ivory towers if they are to EVER take serious marketshare from Microsoft.
Of course, in the server market (which is what we are talking about), they already have.
Sorry I'm having troubles actually locating these 'features' in open office 1.1.3, could you be more specific?
First, you will need to set up a data source, (Tools/Data Sources), then the data navigator is available under the 'Data Sources' button (or View/Data Sources). Forms and Reports can be designed using the File/AutoPilot option.
I also don't see anything giving me the ability to import old ms access files.
That is a problem for any application! There are two quick ways to do this: Either export the Access tables as CSV files (Open Office can handle these directly as tables), or link to a data source on Access and copy the tables over.
"those features" in "a description" and the guy gets 4, Interesting? What are those features?
Inheritance. Visual Basic up to and including version 6.0 did not allow one of the most basic features of Object Orientation - inheritance. VB.Net is a different language in many respects, but has inheritance and other features widely used in the IT industry for decades.
The web and javascript and a page state and wasn't even around 40 years ago.
What have these to do with Object Orientation?
Come on now, make them earn the moderation at least. They've got to provide evidence.
Done.
However, I'm not sure this was the point. I was illustrating Microsoft's Orwellian re-definitition of language through the misuse of the term 'Innovation'.
What opensource solution do you reccommend to replace Microsoft Access?
Open Office 1.1.3 has most of the features of Access for the common user: forms, reports, and an SQL/QBE query designer. This works on a variety of external databases.
Open Office 2.0 has a direct Access replacement, 'Base', which includes an embedded SQL database.
You're marked funny because you suggest someone look at dselect.
I hoped it was because the pointing out the strange use of 'Innovative'.
Unless its been rewritten or something, its a nightmarish program that no sane being should touch.
A slight exaggeration. To install samba, scroll to the package, select and press ENTER. Hardly a mind-mangling experience (unless it's too late for me!).
I suggest aptitude or for GUI usage, synaptic.
Sure - whatever, but that was not my point. Thanks for the info though.
But that's the entire point of choosing Windows as a server, right? I'm pretty sure it was one of the the original selling points, when Windows NT mainly competed against NetWare: "Why not use the file server that has the same UI as your Windows client boxes? Desktop service technicians can be upgraded into server admins with a very smooth learning curve."
When I was involved in purchasing servers, I went for NT because at the time it seemed to fit well into small groups of PCs, as you could use an NT server to provide file/print sharing and as a general purpose workstation at the same time. The idea of a dedicated server PC was an unnecessary expense in many situations. A decade later, hardware is a lot smaller and less expensive, and dedicated servers (even in small installations) make more financial sense. In this situation, having a full Windows system with GUI seems overkill.
...and after getting used to the change in UI... It's funny you should bring that up. If YOU have to get used to the UI, do you really think end users will? End users don't even fully understand how MS Office works, but they know where things are, and what things look like. UI is everything, and very few open source projects realize this.
/etc file to pretty but obscure GUI tools that change with each Windows release.
That's my point - in my experience, end users DO get used to the UI very quickly. Of course they do! There are major UI differences between different versions of MS Office (there have been major re-organisations of menus and buttons), far less than between MS Office and Open Office.
Not trying to just flamebait here, but have you ever used Windows Server 2003 remotely?
Yes. But, to be honest, I just don't care about ease of use of server tools. That is not what servers are for. They are for providing services. If you are choosing a server based on the ease of use tools, then unless you are planning to hand a server over to someone with minimal experience (a bad idea), you are making a bad decision. Servers are complex. I have no problem with tools that reflect that complexity. I have a problem with a system (Windows) that tries to pretend that its all easy and turn-key. I hugely prefer a well-documented
From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems.
Firstly, samba IS the same as Server 2003 as a workgroup server. That is it's point. Secondly, how can Server 2003 be a turn-key server? All servers, no matter how small, need configuring, integrating with existing systems (such as existing networking), account management and backup configuration. By the time you have done that, there is going to be little to choose between Server 2003 and Samba.
As for collaboration, Office 2003 may well be good for this, but in my experience such features are rarely used. I have performed many migrations from MS Office to Open Office + Evolution, and after getting used to the change in UI, most users have not noticed any difference in functionality. Microsoft frequently adds 'perceived' value, but not actual value in terms of everyday use. If you really do need some collaboration Evolution works well with MS Exchange.
Skyscrapers, all else being equal, yes. But human activity hasn't just been increasing Earth's moment of inertia, it has also been decreasing it. Cutting down millions of trees, for instance.
And increasing it. Global warming means more water vapour in the atmosphere.
I guess Microsoft doesn't accept something as existing unless they do it themselves so everything they do is "innovative" to them.
Yeah. Reminds me of a description on their website of Object-Oriented features in VB.Net as 'innovative'. Considering those features were in Simula 40 years earlier, I found this amusing.
It's obvious that Microsoft still does not 'get' key aspects of open source:
"I always ask the question of customers and yes, there's always a free version, there's Debian, there's Gentoo, there's different distributions that they can pull down and use in a different environment, but when you really want to deploy it in a mission-critical way, when you really want to have something that's broader from an infrastructure perspective, they want something that has support"
The freeness of the version has nothing whatever to do with the support. I use a server that is Debian but has commercial support.
I also found the following comment very amusing:
"in Windows Server particularly, some of the things that struck me as innovative were some of the server management tools. The ability to take a Windows server and literally dynamically change it from a DHCP infrastructure server to a streaming media server, or more importantly, taking a file/print server and adding a variety of other services, maybe make it a domain controller, maybe also make it a Web server."
Wow! How 'innovative'! Maybe he should look at a tool like 'dselect' under Debian. I can also 'literally dynamically' add and remove services from my server. Anyway, the idea of having a single machine that is nothing more than a DHCP infrastructure server suggests Windows is not the most powerful system.
Hibernate is a great product, but it's single-vendor and a proprietary API.
f aces.ht ml
What do you mean by that?
You can only get Hibernate from a single source. No other organisation provides a product which implements the Hibernate API. Hibernate owns that API.
This is in contrast to JDO, where currently 30 organisations provide competing implementations, including good quality open source versions.
Source? JSF 1.0 was just released in March. No where in Craig's blog does he say "use JSF not Struts" but rather to investigate both.
JSF was in development long before that, and during that time, Craig posted this:
"For applications with a longer lead time, seriously consider waiting for the ability to use JSF components instead of the Struts HTML tag library. Doing this will let you leverage not only the standard HTML components that come with JSF out of the box, but also the rich libraries of JSF components likely to be created by third parties in the future (including Struts developers).
For Struts after 1.1 is released, the developers haven't yet had formal conversations (which will happen on STRUTS-DEV) about what a future Struts will look like. However, I'm going to continue to advocate a long term migration to using standards like JSF and JSTL when they are available, and de-emphasize the further development of the Struts proprietary tag libraries. "
at this page:
http://struts.apache.org/proposals/struts-
The emphasis these days is that a developer should use JSF, or a combination of JSF for UI and struts for controller aspects of complex sets of pages (although JSF is being extended to help with this).
I'm no physicist but that's the impression I get from what I've read.
You are getting a right impression from what you have read, but what you have read is just one rather old-fashioned view of Quantum Mechanics (it's called the Copenhagen Intepretation). There are plenty of alternative (and equally valid) interpretations that don't require any waveform collapse by observation. These include the Many Worlds Interpretation, the Transactional Interpretation (my favourite) of John Cramer, which implies that particles exchange information back and forth through time, and the ideas of Roger Penrose which suggest that quantum states collapse to a single one of the alternatives when the states differ sufficiently in energy to cause significant spacetime curvature.
My view is that at this time, it's foolish to pick any single interpretation of quantum mechanics (such as collapse by observation) and assume that it has any reality. We just don't know enough.
I did a quick google on the "JDO with Hibernate" think and couldnt find such a project. It was a vague recollection, perhaps I am mistaken. Although, there is talk about JBoss using hibernate to implement their CMP. Perhaps it was that...
Yes, this is true. Hibernate is now part of JBoss, I think. As for the 'JDO with Hibernate', I think that may have been something to do with the fickle (yes, they do irritate me) Hibernate developer team taking an interest in JDO a year ago?
I will definately take a second look at JDO. Seems that much has been happening their and so im probably a shade out of date.
There are some good commercial versions that give free trials. Xcalia is a good one. They allow you to develop for free. Then you could switch to a free version (such as JPOX) for deployment (this is why I like standards!). There are usually fabulous tools bundled with JDO products - graphical object designers, schema analysis and migration tools.
I guess it boils down to the fact that on all of my recent projects, hibernate has handled the ORM and I have never really had cause to complain. If it aint broke, dont fix it, and designing to keep technology neutral covers my ass for when the next silver-bullet comes flying by.
Absolutely! I'm looking a features in Spring (see below) to try and let me abstract even away from JDO.
Having said this, I have a project that is just starting and we are at the 'verticle slice' stage of development. Perhaps I will try converting our hibernate persistance layer to using a JDO implementation. It would be interesting to make the comparison without changing the other tools (velocity & spring at this point). I just may do this...
I'm a huge fan of Spring - I have recently discovered it and it saves me a lot of time. There is supposed to good JDO integration (although their documentation for this is very poor).
BTW... Merry Xmas (Or politically correct alternative).
Same to you.
I've been watching Mono closely and I'm waiting for their Windows.Forms support before we start prototyping any Rich Clients as we want to maintain that we can be "cross platform", even with a rich client.
I know this may sound like flamebait, but it's not intended to be:
There already is a well-established, proven cross-platform solution with rich client support (including OpenGL-accelerated GUI on the client side, and ActiveX support). Its called Java! It has the huge advantage that it allows rich clients on Mac and Linux too.
I see a lot of resistance to using Windows server-side, as there is such a fast growth in alternative server solutions.
There are a lot of Java/.Net bridging solutions that would allow slow transition to a more portable system.
I just wanted to be a MS Fanboy and let people know that it's can be a viable alternative.
.Net.
A reasonable and useful thing to do. Personally, I would be far more interested in a cross-platform Mono alone, without the constant reference-back to
I am vaguely aware of reading about somebody using Hibernate to implement the JDO spec
That would be good news if true, but last I heard, the Hibernate team had walked away from JDO, saying 'JDO is dead', and infuriating a lot of people (especially as they asked to be involved in the JDO 2.0 spec in the first place). However, if someone independent is doing this, it would be great. In terms of features, JDO 2.0 and Hibernate are very close.
As for JDO and EJB, this is a HUGELY complicated story, which changes almost on a weekly basis.
As far as I can tell, it goes like this:
There were two groups of people. Those who wanted portable standards, and those interested in using ORM mainly as a thin layer above relational databases, and with vendor-specific extensions. The first group went with JDO, the second with EJB. There has been a phenomenal amount of politics agains JDO, because it is highly functional even without vendor extensions: Its very quick to move both between databases and between different vendor's JDO implementations. There is a new spec for JDO coming out that answers most of the criticisms of JDO - version 2.0. Providers of proprietary solutions (such as TopLink and Hibernate) rant against it whenever they can, because it allows such freedom to change supplier.
To complicate things even further, there is a new spec as part of EJB 3.0 (to be released in 2006) - yet ANOTHER mechanism for ORM, which the JDO vendors, Hibernate and others say they will support. The idea was that it was this spec that would become the industry standard. It will be a long time coming and I really can't see all the vested interests getting together and supporting what is likely to be a minimal subset of features.
The big advantage of JDO 2.0 is that it takes all the vendor-specific extensions (such as the ORM layer) required to make JDO 1.0 useful and makes them part of the standard. The other big thing is that there will be an Apache version.
The interesting thing is unless they fixed it age degradation transfers over.
Some if it, but the DNA does 'recondition' during cloning.
It's not protein buffers - it's DNA. These buffers are called 'telomeres' and consist of simple repeat sequences of DNA.
Sexual reproduction solves this by using the redundancy of the two sets of DNA
No, this is nothing to do with sexual reproduction. Many higher animals only have one set of DNA - haploid insects for example.
while simpler creatures such as bacteria don't need the hugely complex dna chains of animals and plants
The DNA chains of bacteria aren't less complex than other life forms - after all, DNA has the same structure throughout. They just have different mechanisms for regulation.
Hibernate, on the other hand, is fast becoming the defacto ORM tool. It deals purely with relational databases and does so very well IMO. It may not be a documented standard, but I always put more weight behind tools that have been largely accepted by the community, whether documented or not. Hibernate passes this test.
This is true, but there is also wide use of JDO, especially in commercial environments. Hibernate is certainly NOT becoming de-facto (just talk to anyone using TopLink, for example). The new standard implementation of JDO (2.0) is going to be open source, and Apache are moving to JDO as their standard for persistence - something that will definitely encourage its even broader acceptance.
I see Hibernate rather like the ORM equivalent of MySQL - very widely used, but lacking in some standard features the ability to scale to large systems. There is also, I have to say, a certain arrogance about the Hibernate team that discourages me from using their product.
The new JDO (2.0) now out in preview has everything that Hibernate does and more, and has multi-vendor support. There is no reason not to use it, in my view.
Flamebait? Since when has suggesting (note - suggesting, not ranting) using standards (including open source options) been flamebait?
What or who have I flamed?
I call BS. You don't go into any specifics of why .Net is so bad. Every single developer I have ever talked to thinks .Net is a godsend.
.Net is, I had thought that the idea of developing large-scale software for a single platform, using products from a single supplier, went out decades ago.
It is definitely a godsend. For Windows development.
But no matter how great
With .Net making a webapp or a rich client app is not a decision. And with Mono's future support for Windows.Forms you can be assured that you can be cross platform as well.
.Net will be in the future, so how can we be assured that Mono (or anyone else) will provide a cross-platform version of .Net?
No-one with any sense, or a desire to remain in their job, starts developing a project based on 'future support'. Even Microsoft won't give any assurance of what
* Java and J2EE by itself (servlets, jsp, ejbs, swing, jdbc, JDO) as it comes from SUN is rather weak and I would recommend not to use it if it wasn't for open source addons and replacements.
What a vague and broad (and incorrect) statement! Swing is now fast and accelated and Sun provides all the above features (with the exception of JDO) in the form of its Application Server, which is a high quality product. I never heard anyone ever say 'Sun's Java is weak' or 'Sun has weak servlets'!
As for the ORM, you should definitely use JDO, not Hibernate. JDO is a standard, with competing open source and commercial implementations. JDO integrates well with Spring.