Unlike Open Standards, which is non-controversial, Open Source is (This is mainly caused by economic arguments: governements want to endorse a local software industry, and open source is not much of an industry).
Ummm, I think the President (or was it Prime Minister) of India would disagree with you there, and in fact would say the exact opposite. He said recently that India should embrace open source to support its local IT industry, with the implication to stop sending so much money abroad to Microsoft!
Eh? I think you are confused about what app servers are. I thought that was what O/R mapping tools like JDO, and OO/OR databases, did. If all J2EE app servers can do that, then why did Sun reinvent the wheel with JDO?
Why is sorting information by user any better than by protocol? While i agree by protocol isnt usually the best way, what you need is a sort by X.
You missed the point. That was just an example. Sort by X is the ultimate goal here.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
That may be so. However, the good news is this: Any code that IBM (or anyone else) releases under the GPL cannot be covered by patents (or if patents do cover it, IBM is not allowed to enforce them).
If IBM releases code under the GPL that is patented and then sues someone for patent infringement for using that code in another GPL product, they are in violation of the GPL.
After all, companies know what's best for the consumer, right?
And the Government knows better?
In this case, it should have known better. A diversity of viewpoints is essential in the media, as you implicitly recognised with your next paragraph.
If you think "truth" is something you find on guardian.co.uk, then go there. If you think "truth" is something at christiansciencemonitor.com, then go there. The only thing we lose here is radio and newspapers (that are dying formats anyway) and TV (which will eventually die out when fast internet access is cheaper than cable). The internet, thank God, is still not regulated much. So cheers!
People still watch a lot of TV. And many of those self-same sites which people cite as "reliable", "objective" news sources (which are in reality nothing of the kind) are - surprise, surprise - NYT, CNN, the websites of other newspapers and TV stations, etc. etc.
This affects the Internet too.
So, are you now going to say "Don't worry, there's still Indymedia, the Drudge Report and What Really Happened?" Fine, diversity - but none of those have as high general credibility.
Doesn't NT's "terminal" still run in some bastardised 16-bit emulation mode!? For whatever reason, there's some really insane bottlenecks going on there.
Google cannot provide junk and claim it's a "search result".
Umm... Altavista did so regularly before Google came along. Google has raised the bar by an order of magnitude - but it's still a matter of subjectivity, as the judge rightly ruled. One man's useless search result is another man's goldmine.
Oh yeah? So what search engine do you use that's better than Google?
Face it, computers don't have common sense. People do. But who is going to employ a billion librarians to rank search results? We have to make do with what generic relevance algorithms are invented thus far, which unfortunately will probably fall short of common sense for a long time.
Webmasters refuse very often to links with low pagerank although it would add value to their site.
I think that's a misunderstanding of pagerank. A few links here and there to low pagerank sites shouldn't affect rankings too much. Besides, "pagerank" isn't, by far, the only algorithm Google uses to determine relevancy.
Or perhaps webmasters just don't want to link to pages they think are crap but use "low pagerank" as an excuse.
Fine. Identify the problem, come up with a solution, then release THAT to the public.. at the very least to render yourself immune from any future legal reprocussions, however misguided they may be.
Actually, I don't think the Perl or Python developersare going to be suing over these bug advisories anytime soon.
If any corporate user of Python wants to sue the Python developers for taking an open source attitude towards security bugfixing (i.e. discussing the problem on public mailing lists)... well, that would be, um, interesting - and rather unprecented AFAIK.
If Linus developed Linux before 1998 (and he did) then he used trade secrets, since the Lions book didn't become available to the public until 1998.
AT&T did due diligence on the Lions book. Everyone obtaining it knew it was improperly distributed. Anything derived from it was developed using UNIX trade secrets.
That's a big stinking pile of bullshit. We've heard elsewhere how the entire source code of early UNIX was available to select developers, and therefore didn't contain trade secrets. So it's perfectly possible for someone to have used information on UNIX to code various parts of Linux without leaking trade secrets.
Either you really don't know what you're talking about, you're trolling, or you're just a SCO shill.
And it doesn't matter if the trade secret "gets out". The owner of that trade secret still owns it, and anyone passing it along (e.g., as part of an open-source operating system, hint, hint) is open to action from the owner.
You don't know what you're talking about, or you're just trolling. If everyone and their cat knows a so-called "trade secret", it's no longer a secret any more, is it?
So leaks are only actionable if they occured before the "trade secrets" were publically available (and possibly not even then, depending on if an NDA was signed, etc.).
The whole point of ESR's call for information is to establish data on when the alleged "trade secrets" (which we don't know what they are yet, but we'll find out eventually) were publically available.
So just what is going on here? I've read your other posts on this story, and frankly, I'm confused. Are you an anti-ESR troll, or are you a paid SCO shill, or what?
IIRC, Minsky's proof was only for a limited scenario, i.e. using "binary" perceptrons. The mathematics of the proof wasn't wrong - it just didn't apply to the eventual solution.
In some countries, no reverse engineering is legal. Even in the United States, reverse engineering for "interoperability purposes" is legal. So yes, this is legal. (Assuming that they haven't stolen any code.)
Uh yes, but one problem. Memory is not the same as hard drive space. It's not good to leave the conflation of memory and disks uncorrected. That's if anything more dumbed-down than leaving the concept of file unexplained.
Actually.NET is where I think Microsoft is going right for once. For the first time we have a truely open standard (ECMA standardized), well the CLR parts of it, which people can develop for.
What use is a CLR standard without an API standard? You can't exactly WORA! It's like coding in C to platform-specific APIs! Or restricting your code to only run on x86.
Fine - so you're in effect targeting a single processor architecture which happens to be a virtual machine, not a real machine. Big whoop! That only solves the least interesting and challenging half of the platform standardisation problem. Java has already solved 99% of it.
Why don't people see this?
You won't find their Windowing code in their or ASP.NET but these are the area's that are going to generate revenue for MS.
Of course... but Sun made all their APIs cross-platform. Why the difference? Because MS needs to entrench its monopoly.
Anyone who doesn't want to support the MS OS/Office monopolies should not be using.NET. Java is equally capable, and more mature, save for some minor language points which are being addressed in JDK 1.5.
There are now ports for FreeBSD, MacOSX and the Mono guys are working a version for Linux.
Once again, a port of the CLR is not much use for without the API. Why not just use Java? Plus there are patent issues with the entire.NET shebang. Java is becoming more and more open all the time. The source code of J2SE 1.5 will be licensed for commercial use at no charge, according to Sun. And the language and all standard APIs are developed under the Java Community Process which includes open source groups like Apache (and one company heavily invested in open source, you might have heard of them - their name begins with I and ends in M).
True platform cross compatibility, plus a typed runtime that was actually designed to provide support for somewhat seemless byte code compilation from multiple languages. Unlike the JVM which really was designed for Java only to run on different platforms.
That's hype. CLR and JVMs are about equal in their ability to run different languages. Neither are perfect.
I've been workin on.NET for a few yrs now, actually with the open source release Rotor designing a functional langauge and have found it rather a joy to use.
Well, I'm sorry but I don't think that provides a good indication of real-world usefulness. "Pure functional languages" like Haskell are niche products that are inherently not suitable for many real-world, high-volume uses, because they don't support single-process interactivity(!) (Unless you implement a non-functional language on top of them and use that instead, which is one heck of a way to waste effort.) That's a pretty fundamental problem, man!
"Impure" functional languages, like Scheme, on the other hand, are fine - but the word "functional" has been stretched so much it's now unclear what it means.
Anyway, as I said, JVMs and the CLR are pretty much equal in terms of language support, so it's a moot point.
Plus MS Research is now supporting quite a few research oriented open source initiatives that will hopefully provide rather novel enhancements in the coming years.
Java is not standing still either. I suspect that Intentional Software (a R&D company - for now - started by a former MS research prodigy, and Gregor Kiczales, inventor of AspectJ) will produce stuff that feeds back into both Java and MS's stable. I don't however see anything which leads to the impression that MS will have a decisive upper hand in future.
Finally, check out www.gotdotnet.com and compare MS's short list of success stories (TWO! AllState and BearStearns) with the huge number of companies out there that have switched to Java or are building their business on Java technology. NET has been in public release (beta or otherwise) for quite a while now - shouldn't they have more success stories by now?
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, I think the President (or was it Prime Minister) of India would disagree with you there, and in fact would say the exact opposite. He said recently that India should embrace open source to support its local IT industry, with the implication to stop sending so much money abroad to Microsoft!
Well, that's what you get for using non Open Source software ;-)
Eh? I think you are confused about what app servers are. I thought that was what O/R mapping tools like JDO, and OO/OR databases, did. If all J2EE app servers can do that, then why did Sun reinvent the wheel with JDO?
You missed the point. That was just an example. Sort by X is the ultimate goal here.
If IBM releases code under the GPL that is patented and then sues someone for patent infringement for using that code in another GPL product, they are in violation of the GPL.
No, no, and no.
Glad I could clear that up.
And the Government knows better?
In this case, it should have known better. A diversity of viewpoints is essential in the media, as you implicitly recognised with your next paragraph.
If you think "truth" is something you find on guardian.co.uk, then go there. If you think "truth" is something at christiansciencemonitor.com, then go there. The only thing we lose here is radio and newspapers (that are dying formats anyway) and TV (which will eventually die out when fast internet access is cheaper than cable). The internet, thank God, is still not regulated much. So cheers!
People still watch a lot of TV. And many of those self-same sites which people cite as "reliable", "objective" news sources (which are in reality nothing of the kind) are - surprise, surprise - NYT, CNN, the websites of other newspapers and TV stations, etc. etc.
This affects the Internet too.
So, are you now going to say "Don't worry, there's still Indymedia, the Drudge Report and What Really Happened?" Fine, diversity - but none of those have as high general credibility.
Where? What are you talking about?
Doesn't NT's "terminal" still run in some bastardised 16-bit emulation mode!? For whatever reason, there's some really insane bottlenecks going on there.
Umm... Altavista did so regularly before Google came along. Google has raised the bar by an order of magnitude - but it's still a matter of subjectivity, as the judge rightly ruled. One man's useless search result is another man's goldmine.
Oh yeah? So what search engine do you use that's better than Google?
Face it, computers don't have common sense. People do. But who is going to employ a billion librarians to rank search results? We have to make do with what generic relevance algorithms are invented thus far, which unfortunately will probably fall short of common sense for a long time.
Webmasters refuse very often to links with low pagerank although it would add value to their site.
I think that's a misunderstanding of pagerank. A few links here and there to low pagerank sites shouldn't affect rankings too much. Besides, "pagerank" isn't, by far, the only algorithm Google uses to determine relevancy.
Or perhaps webmasters just don't want to link to pages they think are crap but use "low pagerank" as an excuse.
Actually, I don't think the Perl or Python developersare going to be suing over these bug advisories anytime soon.
If any corporate user of Python wants to sue the Python developers for taking an open source attitude towards security bugfixing (i.e. discussing the problem on public mailing lists)... well, that would be, um, interesting - and rather unprecented AFAIK.
AT&T did due diligence on the Lions book. Everyone obtaining it knew it was improperly distributed. Anything derived from it was developed using UNIX trade secrets.
That's a big stinking pile of bullshit. We've heard elsewhere how the entire source code of early UNIX was available to select developers, and therefore didn't contain trade secrets. So it's perfectly possible for someone to have used information on UNIX to code various parts of Linux without leaking trade secrets.
Either you really don't know what you're talking about, you're trolling, or you're just a SCO shill.
You don't know what you're talking about, or you're just trolling. If everyone and their cat knows a so-called "trade secret", it's no longer a secret any more, is it?
So leaks are only actionable if they occured before the "trade secrets" were publically available (and possibly not even then, depending on if an NDA was signed, etc.).
The whole point of ESR's call for information is to establish data on when the alleged "trade secrets" (which we don't know what they are yet, but we'll find out eventually) were publically available.
So just what is going on here? I've read your other posts on this story, and frankly, I'm confused. Are you an anti-ESR troll, or are you a paid SCO shill, or what?
No. I've never encountered an open source JVM that fully supports AWT - let alone Swing. So they are useless for most desktop apps.
Let me know if you find one...
What's ungrammatical about that?
How do you figure that? Can I see your math?
Could be due to the cronjobs (they are set to run at 4am on my system).
(Simulating a person isn't necessarily a sane way to about creating AI, however.)
It's no wonder AI is going nowhere if they can't even simulate a real environment - let alone get computers to understand it.
What use is a CLR standard without an API standard? You can't exactly WORA! It's like coding in C to platform-specific APIs! Or restricting your code to only run on x86.
Fine - so you're in effect targeting a single processor architecture which happens to be a virtual machine, not a real machine. Big whoop! That only solves the least interesting and challenging half of the platform standardisation problem. Java has already solved 99% of it.
Why don't people see this?
You won't find their Windowing code in their or ASP.NET but these are the area's that are going to generate revenue for MS.
Of course... but Sun made all their APIs cross-platform. Why the difference? Because MS needs to entrench its monopoly.
Anyone who doesn't want to support the MS OS/Office monopolies should not be using .NET. Java is equally capable, and more mature, save for some minor language points which are being addressed in JDK 1.5.
There are now ports for FreeBSD, MacOSX and the Mono guys are working a version for Linux.
Once again, a port of the CLR is not much use for without the API. Why not just use Java? Plus there are patent issues with the entire .NET shebang. Java is becoming more and more open all the time. The source code of J2SE 1.5 will be licensed for commercial use at no charge, according to Sun. And the language and all standard APIs are developed under the Java Community Process which includes open source groups like Apache (and one company heavily invested in open source, you might have heard of them - their name begins with I and ends in M).
True platform cross compatibility, plus a typed runtime that was actually designed to provide support for somewhat seemless byte code compilation from multiple languages. Unlike the JVM which really was designed for Java only to run on different platforms.
That's hype. CLR and JVMs are about equal in their ability to run different languages. Neither are perfect.
I've been workin on .NET for a few yrs now, actually with the open source release Rotor designing a functional langauge and have found it rather a joy to use.
Well, I'm sorry but I don't think that provides a good indication of real-world usefulness. "Pure functional languages" like Haskell are niche products that are inherently not suitable for many real-world, high-volume uses, because they don't support single-process interactivity(!) (Unless you implement a non-functional language on top of them and use that instead, which is one heck of a way to waste effort.) That's a pretty fundamental problem, man!
"Impure" functional languages, like Scheme, on the other hand, are fine - but the word "functional" has been stretched so much it's now unclear what it means.
Anyway, as I said, JVMs and the CLR are pretty much equal in terms of language support, so it's a moot point.
Plus MS Research is now supporting quite a few research oriented open source initiatives that will hopefully provide rather novel enhancements in the coming years.
Java is not standing still either. I suspect that Intentional Software (a R&D company - for now - started by a former MS research prodigy, and Gregor Kiczales, inventor of AspectJ) will produce stuff that feeds back into both Java and MS's stable. I don't however see anything which leads to the impression that MS will have a decisive upper hand in future.
Finally, check out www.gotdotnet.com and compare MS's short list of success stories (TWO! AllState and BearStearns) with the huge number of companies out there that have switched to Java or are building their business on Java technology. NET has been in public release (beta or otherwise) for quite a while now - shouldn't they have more success stories by now?