Which shows you have no clue what you are talking about.
Just because a modern Linux machine and a 20 year old Unix machine both have a command line interface does not make them the same in any way shape or form.
Hell I can tell what version of VI is on the machine after using it for a couple of minutes without checking the version number.
See in the Unix world, functionally differences are noticed, not just the different colors of the GUI.
This is implying that SCO has a "very strong tool to threaten Open Source Software companies."
That as yet, remains to be seen. Personally I have a hard time believing that SCO has a case at all. Unless all of the developers in the Open Source community are just a bunch of plagiarist SCO has nothing as far as I have seen.
From all of the comments seen on the net from "artists" in the business, they do not make any money off of CD sales. All of this money goes to the record companies.
The money that artists make is from concerts, etc.
Therefore, the sharing of music online, promotes the artists that people like to hear (since they have a choice over what they download) and thus the musician who is liked the most will have the most successful concerts and make the most money?
How again is this a bad thing? Oh right, the Music company doesn't get most of the money. How sad for them.
I have a hard time seeing how this hurts the artist. It hurts the record companies. The musicians just need to learn to stop relying on the labels to promote them.
1. promote yourself!
2. go on tour
3. profit!
Seems like this business has worked in the past...
If you are going to run a full desktop with VNC then why not use a remote X login? Having used both I find a remote X login to be faster than a VNC session.
VNC may be faster than running a single X application remotely but it is slower (imo) than a remote X desktop which is what it basically is.
Microsoft had an opportunity to adhere to their contractual obligations before the lawsuit was ever filed. Sun offered this to Microsoft prior to the lawsuit being brought. If Sun had not given Microsoft this opportunity, the lawsuit would have been defeated on those grounds alone.
Having said that, if you had truly read the court documents (which I doubt along with your other fabulous claims), you would have seen:
In order to obtain the right to make and distribute products incorporating Sun's JAVATM Technology, and to mark such products with Sun's JAVA Compatible trademark, defendant Microsoft entered into two written agreements with Sun in March 1996. Pursuant to one agreement, defendant Microsoft promised to incorporate Sun's JAVATM Technology in certain products, including Microsoft's Internet Explorer 4.0, in a manner that fully conforms with and adheres to Sun's set of published specifications ("JAVA specifications") and "public" application programming interfaces ("JAVA APIs") for the JAVATM Technology. Microsoft further promised to incorporate Sun's future upgrades to its JAVA specifications and JAVA APIs as and when released by Sun in order to maintain compatibility with Sun's set of JAVA specifications and JAVA APIs for a period of five years. In addition, defendant Microsoft expressly agreed to refrain from distributing any products incorporating Sun's JAVATM Technology that do not pass the test suites provided by Sun to ensure that the products Microsoft distributes are in fact compatible with Sun's set of JAVA specifications and JAVA APIs for the JAVATM Technology. In a separate agreement defendant Microsoft promised to mark each product it distributes that implements Sun's JAVATM Technology with Sun's "JAVA Compatible" logo, but only after each such product successfully passes Sun's test suites and otherwise meets the compatibility requirements of the agreements.
As well as the following paragraph clearly indicating that Sun had attempted to resolve this issue prior to the lawsuit being filed:
Microsoft's prior agreements and promises notwithstanding, it has now unilaterally abrogated its obligations under both contracts by refusing to honor its express obligation to implement and adhere to Sun's most current set of JAVA specifications and JAVA APIs for the JAVATM Technology. Rather than comply with its contractual obligations, defendant Microsoft has instead embarked on a deliberate course of conduct in an attempt to fragment the standardized application programming environment established by the JAVATM Technology, to break the cross-platform compatibility of the JAVATM programming environment, and to incorporate the JAVATM Technology in a manner calculated to cause software developers to create programs that will operate only on platforms that use defendant Microsoft's Win32-based operating systems and no other systems platform or browser. In violation of the license, defendant Microsoft is distributing products falsely marked and/or advertised as JAVA Compatible, including Internet Explorer 4.0, but which fail to pass the tests for JAVA Compatible implementations, and fail to conform to Sun's JAVA specifications and JAVA APIs for the JAVATM Technology. (Emphasis Mine).
However you are correct in one thing. It is a waste of time to continue to argue this point. It is clear you would rather make bold factually incorrect statements rather than the truth. I am not claiming nor have I ever claimed that Sun is the best thing since sliced bread. However, Sun has done great work for the Java community as well as programmers in general.
Reply if you want (and I am sure you will). This is my last response to this thread.
BTW Back to your original comment. Microsoft could have easily avoided this bug. All they had to do was stop allowing people to download their non-compliant JVM. If they had instead given any of the Sun compliant JVM's then, guess what, the bug would not exist on any modern computer.
The settlement prohobited Microsoft from creating, updating or modifying any form of the Microsoft JVM. Microsoft could have easily changed their JVM to be compliant and it would have solved the lawsuit. Instead they decided to play games. Now that it has been settled, that choice is no longer available to them. Tell me exactly again how this is Sun's fault that Microsoft tried their extend and extinguish tactic on Java and it failed?
If you had "been involved" in the process you would have known this instead of spreading the typical Microsoft FUD.
Sun is in business to make money. Even given that they have given more to the open source community than Microsoft ever has. In fact there are very few "big corporations" that have given more to the open source community than Sun has. I can think of at least two major applications that Sun has given over to the open source community.
Support Microsoft all you want. In the end I suspect your pocketbook will be much smaller than mine.
Complete and utter FUD. Try doing some research before you post such total crap.
Sun sued MS because they violated the contract and created a non-compliant VM. That is what the lawsuit was about. Microsoft was prohibited from updating their non-compliant VM.
Instead of being compliant MS played their games and took their ball and went home.
And comments like this are what MS was hoping for when they created their "version" of the JVM for windows. People thinking "java sucks on the client" was exactly the goal.
Fortunately, people are still producing applications in Java for the client and they work.
If you are running on a windows platform chances are your VM in your browser it the MS VM. Try making sure that your IDE and everything else on your system are using the same VM.
I am guessing that you are working on an applet and not an application since you mentioned running it in a browser. If that is the case then the appletviewer is going to run slower (personal experience).
Anything to back up that statement? Seems to me creating and destroying three Strings and three StringBuffers just to create one string is a waste and not efficient at all.
Please support your claim I would really like to see this since my experience is the opposite.
True, going back and fine tuning to gain a 2% speed increase (example) is a waste of time. However the value I see in books like this is in training/teaching the developer to write more efficient code the first go around. If you get out of the habit of doing String + String + String and use StringBuffers instead your code is more efficient from the beginning.
Code like that may be easier for you to read it certainly is expensive for the system. The book example creates one string buffer. Your example creates three. Which is better?
Your correct you wouldn't because they would not hire you.
If a programmer does not know the language well enough to write out a class/method, etc. on a whiteboard without reference then who is really doing the programming?
Part of being a progammer is understanding the language so well that you can see what the language is doing "under the covers". If the IDE does all of that for you, then I guess the company should hire monkeys because the IDE is doing all of the work.
There is no disagreement that an IDE is useful. But the original start of this was a person claiming that a language was crap because the IDE was crap in his opinion. My response to that is simple. If you need the IDE your not a coder, go get a job with your name on your shirt.
Yes a good IDE will make a good programmer more efficient. The said part is there are all of these people out there that think dragging and dropping in some supped up IDE is coding and they get hired.
If a person HAS TO HAVE some super IDE to code then they are not a coder. Period.
I speak from experience. I have hired (and fired) a large number of programmers over the years and write code myself. Part of the reason it is so hard to find a job in this industry right now (other than the recession) is that there are a huge number of people out there that think they are coders but have no clue.
If you cannot write a piece of code on the whiteboard without your IDE, then you have no business applying for a coding job.
Amazing how defensive some people get when you tell them that the IDE does not make the language.
I have said it before and I will say it again. If you MUST HAVE a super powerful IDE that wipes your ass for you, you need to find another job. If you cannot write your code without it then you are not coding the IDE is.
Part of the problem with many of today's software offerings is people write with these IDEs who do everything for them then wonder why their code has security leaks and performs poorly.
If you ever want to be a serious programmer. Learn the language not the IDE. There is nothing wrong with using a good tool to make you more productive. But if you cannot write the code yourself who are you fooling?
The parent makes an excellent point that many people tend to forget. MySQL and the other OSS database solutions are perfect for an integrated database. The application that I am working on was originally connected into an Oracle database since the owner of the company is an Oracle DBA. However once the cost associated with the Oracle license was figured in, there was no way we could sell our product for a reasonable price.
Moving the database to MySQL but still keeping the option of hooking into a larger more expensive database has been a huge asset for us.
There are multiple free implementations of Java. Have been for years. Sun could attempt to stop providing a JVM but that would not stop the community. In fact Sun's implementation of the JVM is one of the slower versions out there.
Java may appear to be proprietary to the non-informed but the programmers know better.
Comparing Linux to a Windows upgrade is comparing Apples to Oranges. It would be more accurate to compare this to Solaris 2.6 rather than Linux. BTW, Sun still creates patches for 2.6.
Nevertheless, if the EoL of a product is in the future, then the only reason NOT to create patches for it until the EoL is to force upgrades. Otherwise the EoL would have been the same day they agreed to stop writing patches.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because a modern Linux machine and a 20 year old Unix machine both have a command line interface does not make them the same in any way shape or form.
Hell I can tell what version of VI is on the machine after using it for a couple of minutes without checking the version number.
See in the Unix world, functionally differences are noticed, not just the different colors of the GUI.
That as yet, remains to be seen. Personally I have a hard time believing that SCO has a case at all. Unless all of the developers in the Open Source community are just a bunch of plagiarist SCO has nothing as far as I have seen.
The money that artists make is from concerts, etc.
Therefore, the sharing of music online, promotes the artists that people like to hear (since they have a choice over what they download) and thus the musician who is liked the most will have the most successful concerts and make the most money?
How again is this a bad thing? Oh right, the Music company doesn't get most of the money. How sad for them.
I have a hard time seeing how this hurts the artist. It hurts the record companies. The musicians just need to learn to stop relying on the labels to promote them.
1. promote yourself!
2. go on tour
3. profit!
Seems like this business has worked in the past...
For those who did not know, Solaris 8 is actually version 2.8. Version 9 is 2.9, etc.
Would make sense for Apple to do the same thing.
If you are going to run a full desktop with VNC then why not use a remote X login? Having used both I find a remote X login to be faster than a VNC session.
VNC may be faster than running a single X application remotely but it is slower (imo) than a remote X desktop which is what it basically is.
Having said that, if you had truly read the court documents (which I doubt along with your other fabulous claims), you would have seen:
As well as the following paragraph clearly indicating that Sun had attempted to resolve this issue prior to the lawsuit being filed:
However you are correct in one thing. It is a waste of time to continue to argue this point. It is clear you would rather make bold factually incorrect statements rather than the truth. I am not claiming nor have I ever claimed that Sun is the best thing since sliced bread. However, Sun has done great work for the Java community as well as programmers in general.
Reply if you want (and I am sure you will). This is my last response to this thread.
BTW Back to your original comment. Microsoft could have easily avoided this bug. All they had to do was stop allowing people to download their non-compliant JVM. If they had instead given any of the Sun compliant JVM's then, guess what, the bug would not exist on any modern computer.
The settlement prohobited Microsoft from creating, updating or modifying any form of the Microsoft JVM. Microsoft could have easily changed their JVM to be compliant and it would have solved the lawsuit. Instead they decided to play games. Now that it has been settled, that choice is no longer available to them. Tell me exactly again how this is Sun's fault that Microsoft tried their extend and extinguish tactic on Java and it failed?
If you had "been involved" in the process you would have known this instead of spreading the typical Microsoft FUD.
Sun is in business to make money. Even given that they have given more to the open source community than Microsoft ever has. In fact there are very few "big corporations" that have given more to the open source community than Sun has. I can think of at least two major applications that Sun has given over to the open source community.
Support Microsoft all you want. In the end I suspect your pocketbook will be much smaller than mine.
Sun sued MS because they violated the contract and created a non-compliant VM. That is what the lawsuit was about. Microsoft was prohibited from updating their non-compliant VM.
Instead of being compliant MS played their games and took their ball and went home.
Try being accurate and not spread this crap.
Fortunately, people are still producing applications in Java for the client and they work.
It was interesting to read though that the difference between the two is incredibly small.
At least you got the point behind it.
I hope they never do operator overloading though, while it is easier for you, maintaining someone else's operator overloading is painful.
I am guessing that you are working on an applet and not an application since you mentioned running it in a browser. If that is the case then the appletviewer is going to run slower (personal experience).
Please support your claim I would really like to see this since my experience is the opposite.
That is the value I see from books like this.
Code like that may be easier for you to read it certainly is expensive for the system. The book example creates one string buffer. Your example creates three. Which is better?
If a programmer does not know the language well enough to write out a class/method, etc. on a whiteboard without reference then who is really doing the programming?
Part of being a progammer is understanding the language so well that you can see what the language is doing "under the covers". If the IDE does all of that for you, then I guess the company should hire monkeys because the IDE is doing all of the work.
There is no disagreement that an IDE is useful. But the original start of this was a person claiming that a language was crap because the IDE was crap in his opinion. My response to that is simple. If you need the IDE your not a coder, go get a job with your name on your shirt.
If a person HAS TO HAVE some super IDE to code then they are not a coder. Period.
I speak from experience. I have hired (and fired) a large number of programmers over the years and write code myself. Part of the reason it is so hard to find a job in this industry right now (other than the recession) is that there are a huge number of people out there that think they are coders but have no clue.
If you cannot write a piece of code on the whiteboard without your IDE, then you have no business applying for a coding job.
I have said it before and I will say it again. If you MUST HAVE a super powerful IDE that wipes your ass for you, you need to find another job. If you cannot write your code without it then you are not coding the IDE is.
Part of the problem with many of today's software offerings is people write with these IDEs who do everything for them then wonder why their code has security leaks and performs poorly.
If you ever want to be a serious programmer. Learn the language not the IDE. There is nothing wrong with using a good tool to make you more productive. But if you cannot write the code yourself who are you fooling?
The parent makes an excellent point that many people tend to forget. MySQL and the other OSS database solutions are perfect for an integrated database. The application that I am working on was originally connected into an Oracle database since the owner of the company is an Oracle DBA. However once the cost associated with the Oracle license was figured in, there was no way we could sell our product for a reasonable price.
Moving the database to MySQL but still keeping the option of hooking into a larger more expensive database has been a huge asset for us.
Support your claims (as others have in this discussion).
If you depend upon the IDE to determine what is a good language then please stay with MS. Real programmers dont need you.
Java may appear to be proprietary to the non-informed but the programmers know better.
This case is not in the US you idiot.
Upgrading a Linux kernel costs....nothing.
Upgrading a Windows Server....
Comparing Linux to a Windows upgrade is comparing Apples to Oranges. It would be more accurate to compare this to Solaris 2.6 rather than Linux. BTW, Sun still creates patches for 2.6.
Nevertheless, if the EoL of a product is in the future, then the only reason NOT to create patches for it until the EoL is to force upgrades. Otherwise the EoL would have been the same day they agreed to stop writing patches.