I'd like to point out that it's not just Linux that has this problem though. If a new computer user is first introduced to Linux, they'd have just as many problems learning Windows.
Case in point:
I'm sitting in a University computer lab right now. There is a long line of individuals waiting at the door for a chance to use a computer. The thing is, the lab isn't full. All the Windows computers are full, but there are two Apple G4's running OS X beside me here waiting to be used. I regularly here people complain that they don't know how to use a Mac so they wait in line. Reality of the situation is, for all they're using it, the differences between a Mac and PC are nominal. They all have Word and Excel and everything else. Just the interface is different.
Down the street is another lab that has Red Hat 8.0. It's for the Mathematics and Engineering departments. Most of the undergrads that use that lab probably have no clue about what Red Hat is, but they can log in and find an icon for MatLab or whatever it is they're looking for and they're off and running.
My point is, it's not that hard! The problems are usually with the user's own preconceptions. No matter how well you design a system, people are still going to gravitate to whatever they are familiar with and if it so happens they first learned on VMS, then that will feel more user friendly that Windows or OS X. So recognize that it's not always the problem of us geeks writing bad UI's. And in the end, I would hate it if everything looked like Windows simply because that's what everyone is used to. I love the choice and differences that Linux distros and window managers offer.
We need to decide what's right first and then companies have to adapt to that.
What?
Umm, if you don't like what a particular company is doing, then simply don't support them (i.e.- don't buy their products). Unless they're doing something illegal, which in the case of Sony is no, then why do we need to set policy for them? I mean really, who died and made you God? How about I decide what I think is right for your personal life first and then you have to adopt to that.
Regulation has a place. Law is important. But you can't regulate and legistate things to suite your case, especially if there is no crime being committed. We're talking about music here, and not that great of music at that. The only crime Sony and related companies have committed is providing really horrible service and treating customers like criminals. So forget about them, or compete and offer better music and better service. But until you've run a multinational corporation and figured out how to do it "right," I think you should not be so quick to regulate their business according to your values.
Well, my friendly troll, if you want to get mathematical about it, the point is that there are what, thousands, tens of thousands of webmasters out there? What is the probability that I just happen to know the only one who is running PHP and Apache 2.0? Like next to nothing. Especially when we consider that both Apache and PHP are very popular technologies. So, if I bump into one sysadmin who is running Apache 2.0 and PHP, then there is a greater probability that a "few" sysadmins are using rather than just the one I met. Consequently, my statement is reasonable and you are just an Anonymous Troll.
Actually, I'm very familiar with Javascript and DHTML; however, you still CANNOT push with javascript. HTTP is a "pull" based technology. The browser sends a request and the server responds. The server cannot initiate a "push" of data to the client browser. This is why there are some things that are very hard to do within a browser, even with Javascript. Flash has the same problem.
I was just talking to another sysadmin today who has 4 sites running apache 2.x and PHP. From what I could gather, everything was running perfectly (at least for his needs). Granted it's second hand information, but I was surprised myself. So I guess there are quite a few people using it.
I need to reload the image every few seconds, but it's rather tricky since there's a _lot_ of processing that goes into generating the image. It's easier to render it once and then just post the updates. So for several reasons it just wasn't acceptable to reload the whole image. We needed something that could be dynamically changed. There could potentially be some ways to do this with an applet and javascript, probably in Mozilla, but if we went with a fully browser based app, we would be stuck with IE, so it just wasn't going to work.
In the end, I went with Apache's Batik and SVG. It allows us to generate static images for the web and real time images within the WebStart application.
Well mostly. I think Javascript is wonderful when used correctly. However, the other poster still has a point:
HTML as a GUI really lack when you need need to cause change. There is no easy way to "push", so different UI elements can't really be informed when the data they are displaying is changed.
I recently had a project that we wanted to deliver over the web. We have a lot of data that we needed to display in real time graphically and have it dynamically updated while the user is viewing it. This is simple in a classic networked application by using a "push" method of delivering the data. However, for HTML and HTTP, AFAIK there isn't a good solution. Once the page is rendered, that's it. Either you continuously refresh the page or you have some sort of applet or other plug in running. Applets wouldn't suite our situation, so we eventually went for Java WebStart, but I really wish there had been some sort of solution that could have worked directly in the browser.
Okay, I'll bring it up now: IBM's SWT is great. I've been using Eclipse lately under gnome2 and it's wonderful. Nice native look and feel (great anti-aliased fonts) and very responsive.
If you don't know, Standard Widget Toolkit (SWT) is a java GUI framework that uses JNI to call the native OS windowing API. It's an excellent example of how java can successfully be used for client desktop applications. IBM developed it for the open source Eclipse IDE.
I don't know much about the topic, but doesn't the liscencing disallow you from selling it for money? Or is it just a common misconception?
An extremely common misconception. See the GNU GPL FAQ:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
The idea that a commercial entity can incur an actionable loss because of the freedom of speech is a new and dangerous trend in our society
No it isn't. It's called private property and the principle has been around just as long as the first amendment. If you make noise on my property, I can kick you off. No questions. If you make noise in the street, I can't do anything about it. The web site could easily be considered private property and posting to the site would require the visitors abide by the terms of use. If they don't fine, they have to go do their own website.
This has nothing to do with corporate entities imposing censorship. It has everything to do with private property and the user thereof.
I have several projects at work right now that use SVG and there are cases where it's wonderful to use. For those interested, I would suggest Apache's Batik project.
The biggest problem I've encountered so far is with Mozilla. Unfortunately, Mozilla's SVG capabilities are non-existant and the current Adobe SVG plugin doesn't work with the brower.
I'm constantly amazed at how Apple is really not considered evil because they happen to sell an OS based on Unix. Duh. They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other....
So they're evil because they're a company that sells stuff?...
<rant>
Exactly. You know I'm really getting tired of slashdot articles _and_ comments which suggest that such and such a company or organization is evil or good. Whether it's Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA, things are not as black and white as most/.ers would like to think. Within each organization there are lots of different factions.
Since when did the FSF become the bastion of all that is good and pure? Since when did making money become a crime? I don't think I want to label any company as purely good or evil, and particularly not any action so general as making money! Too many of us here are simply zealots, blindly spewing doctrine based on some twisted free-software/open-source/unix-rules/fsck-the-gove rnment/take-your-pick dogma. Following the popular anti-whatever rhetoric gets you karma or a nice troll. I can say that because when I was first introduced to the concepts of free software and open source, I swallowed the whole philosphy. Reading slashdot and other open source forums have allowed me to look in the mirror enough to realize how stupid it can sometimes sound.
Don't get me wrong, I love open source. I agree with many of these principles. Heck, I contribute to couple projects and release open source code myself! But I hope I'm pragmatic enough not to simply buy the standard dogma that makes comments like "M$ sucks" or "making money is evil" rated "Insightful". Okay, <rant> off.
I believe your correct about this, but I also think there are ways past it. If I have some content then I can require any who would like to use it to request so in writing. So if some fan makes something derived from my content, I can say, "Hey, write me, ask permission (it'll be given) and then go ahead." I'm trivializing this a bit, but wouldn't something like this cover me legally? It's not like there has to be a complex written contract for someone to use another's copyrighted works. As long as the owner makes sure that any derivative works that he/she is aware of have asked for and recieved proper permission, then I think this could work. However, IANAL...
In Sony's defense, I'd say they did it on a matter of principle. Under the law, what the Aibo hax0r did is classified as illegal. Regardless of whether or not this application of the law agrees with common sense (in this case, probably not), Sony still has to follow through on it otherwise people may expect them to let other things slide in future.
That's exactly what this article is arguing AGAINST. So what if someone does it in the future. Heck, if they understood things right, they'd be praying that someone would do something similar in the future, thus increasing AIBO's features and popularity. This is exactly the what the lawyers want you to think, but it doesn't make sense, common, business or otherwise.
Is it just me or does this sound like the definition of business for it's own sake? I realize the business of business is to make profit, but that statement make it sound as if the law is a secondary concern, an inconvinience that need be followed only if you're in a good mood.
Lessig is NOT arguing that businesses should break the law, he's arguing that content holders should recognize when it is in their best interest to enforce their "legal rights" and when it's best to just let it pass.
If my rights are violated, I can CHOOSE whether or not to press charges. If I choose not to, then there's nothing stopping anyone from violating those rights, especially if I make my intentions public. If I decide that certain rights aren't worth defending, or as Lessig points out are actually more profitable to me if I allow them to be "violated," then no one else can come in and tell me I must defend myself. In general it's not a smart idea to give away your rights, but perhaps Lessig has a point here that some laws and rights don't always protect they way you want them to and in fact you'd be better off not enforcing them.
In practice this may happen more often than you think. Sometimes it's not worth the trouble hauling someone into court when you can deal with it person to person. Even the GPL itself "gives away" rights the law gives to copyright holders. In this case, such free software advocates feel the loss of traditional copyright privileges is outweighed by the gains of free-as-in-speech software.
Management should begin to demand a business justification for copyright litigation. How does this legal action advance the bottom line? How will it grow markets or increase consumer demand for our products? Will calling our customers criminals increase consumer loyalty?
If only more executives would ask these questions. Few businesses have realized the true power of fans and fan or user created content. Just look at the classic example of Half Life and Counter Strike. Where did these ideas that copyright law trumps the copyright holder's profits come from anyway?
I could see how this could be different if the original code is released under some other license like the Mozilla license, but the GPL does put these type of restrictions on the company.
... when Google is going to start offering Instant Messenger services and web-based email.
Google's strength has come from sticking to one thing and doing it well. Google does searches and does them better than anyone else. It's that sort of focus and simplicity that other companies lack. If Google started offering portal-like services such as email and chat I would definitely use them (because I know that the quality would be great); however, I rather hope that Google doesn't fall to the temptation of branching out and thus risks its strength.
Here in Pittsburgh, the larger theater complex had a 12:00, 12:01, 12:02, and 12:03 showing and I believe there was more than one theater room for each of these showings (so somewhere like 6 to 8 rooms). These are large theater rooms too. And it was PACKED! I couldn't believe it. You had to be in line two hours early to get a seat even IF you had tickets.
Okay, I run a small home network of about a dozen computers. I like to play around with clustering and I'm working on a small web site. I have a nice DSL connection that connects my little network to the hostile wide-open internet. I also have a small WIFI network running, but I have it closed as best I can so that only approved PC's or devices can access my (wireless) network. Why? Well for the same reason I have a firewall between my network and the internet. Sure, given my location, I doubt I would have many people connecting to the WIFI network, but that still no reason for lax security.
Besides, I pay for my DSL bandwidth. Why should I let some stranger passing by or neighbor down the street get free internet access while I'm paying good money for it? I don't get these free WIFI networks. They seem insecure and leech of those who offer them. Someone has to provide the gateway to the internet, which means someone's paying for the bandwidth. It can't be free. So if there's going to be some great open WIFI network, it's got to have some sort of business model (ie- be profitable) or it's going to die eventually -- just like "free" websites which eventually become popular, have increasing bandwidth costs, and finally turn to some ad or subscription model to cover the costs.
The only other solution I can think of is if these WIFI networks simply don't offer internet connectivity and exist as a network outside the traditional DNS and internet infastructure. In this case you are limited to only those services that exisit within the WIFI "cloud" or region. And even if all the services you could ever need were there, you still have security issues, especially if the WIFI service is being offered by average households who may not completely appriciate or understand network and computer security.
I'll admit that I don't understand these WIFI networks very well or the goals of those who want to have large free WIFI access. How do such advocates plan to solve these problems? And moreover, how to do it in a sustainable way that can return the cost of investment to the providers? Please, I'm really interested in understanding how this is supposed to work. Thanks.
Hey, I've been trying to find some info on those PCI blade computers. I remember and ad in Linux Journal for them a couple of months ago. Anyone have a link or two about these things?
you still have a big pile of servlets that does everything from database access to presentation.
If you end up with a big pile of servlets like this then you aren't using the framework properly. No framework is going to save stupid developers with a bad design. It can try to save them from themselves, but ultimately, the developers have to have a clue about how to code and how to properly design an application.
Re:Who still uses structs? Tapestry the way to go
on
Manning's Struts in Action
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Velocity is still very much alive. Watch the mailing lists for a while if you want to see what's going on.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to point out that it's not just Linux that has this problem though. If a new computer user is first introduced to Linux, they'd have just as many problems learning Windows.
Case in point:
I'm sitting in a University computer lab right now. There is a long line of individuals waiting at the door for a chance to use a computer. The thing is, the lab isn't full. All the Windows computers are full, but there are two Apple G4's running OS X beside me here waiting to be used. I regularly here people complain that they don't know how to use a Mac so they wait in line. Reality of the situation is, for all they're using it, the differences between a Mac and PC are nominal. They all have Word and Excel and everything else. Just the interface is different.
Down the street is another lab that has Red Hat 8.0. It's for the Mathematics and Engineering departments. Most of the undergrads that use that lab probably have no clue about what Red Hat is, but they can log in and find an icon for MatLab or whatever it is they're looking for and they're off and running.
My point is, it's not that hard! The problems are usually with the user's own preconceptions. No matter how well you design a system, people are still going to gravitate to whatever they are familiar with and if it so happens they first learned on VMS, then that will feel more user friendly that Windows or OS X. So recognize that it's not always the problem of us geeks writing bad UI's. And in the end, I would hate it if everything looked like Windows simply because that's what everyone is used to. I love the choice and differences that Linux distros and window managers offer.
Several Jakarta Subprojects are becoming top level projects:
db.apache.org (OJB and Torque)
avalon.apache.org (The Avalon server framework).
Plus Tapestry is moving into Jakarta. If you look around there really is a lot going on over at Apache, especially within the Jakarta projects.
We need to decide what's right first and then companies have to adapt to that.
What?
Umm, if you don't like what a particular company is doing, then simply don't support them (i.e.- don't buy their products). Unless they're doing something illegal, which in the case of Sony is no, then why do we need to set policy for them? I mean really, who died and made you God? How about I decide what I think is right for your personal life first and then you have to adopt to that.
Regulation has a place. Law is important. But you can't regulate and legistate things to suite your case, especially if there is no crime being committed. We're talking about music here, and not that great of music at that. The only crime Sony and related companies have committed is providing really horrible service and treating customers like criminals. So forget about them, or compete and offer better music and better service. But until you've run a multinational corporation and figured out how to do it "right," I think you should not be so quick to regulate their business according to your values.
Well, my friendly troll, if you want to get mathematical about it, the point is that there are what, thousands, tens of thousands of webmasters out there? What is the probability that I just happen to know the only one who is running PHP and Apache 2.0? Like next to nothing. Especially when we consider that both Apache and PHP are very popular technologies. So, if I bump into one sysadmin who is running Apache 2.0 and PHP, then there is a greater probability that a "few" sysadmins are using rather than just the one I met. Consequently, my statement is reasonable and you are just an Anonymous Troll.
Actually, I'm very familiar with Javascript and DHTML; however, you still CANNOT push with javascript. HTTP is a "pull" based technology. The browser sends a request and the server responds. The server cannot initiate a "push" of data to the client browser. This is why there are some things that are very hard to do within a browser, even with Javascript. Flash has the same problem.
I was just talking to another sysadmin today who has 4 sites running apache 2.x and PHP. From what I could gather, everything was running perfectly (at least for his needs). Granted it's second hand information, but I was surprised myself. So I guess there are quite a few people using it.
I need to reload the image every few seconds, but it's rather tricky since there's a _lot_ of processing that goes into generating the image. It's easier to render it once and then just post the updates. So for several reasons it just wasn't acceptable to reload the whole image. We needed something that could be dynamically changed. There could potentially be some ways to do this with an applet and javascript, probably in Mozilla, but if we went with a fully browser based app, we would be stuck with IE, so it just wasn't going to work.
In the end, I went with Apache's Batik and SVG. It allows us to generate static images for the web and real time images within the WebStart application.
Isn't that what Javascript is meant to be for?
Well mostly. I think Javascript is wonderful when used correctly. However, the other poster still has a point:
HTML as a GUI really lack when you need need to cause change. There is no easy way to "push", so different UI elements can't really be informed when the data they are displaying is changed.
I recently had a project that we wanted to deliver over the web. We have a lot of data that we needed to display in real time graphically and have it dynamically updated while the user is viewing it. This is simple in a classic networked application by using a "push" method of delivering the data. However, for HTML and HTTP, AFAIK there isn't a good solution. Once the page is rendered, that's it. Either you continuously refresh the page or you have some sort of applet or other plug in running. Applets wouldn't suite our situation, so we eventually went for Java WebStart, but I really wish there had been some sort of solution that could have worked directly in the browser.
Okay, I'll bring it up now: IBM's SWT is great. I've been using Eclipse lately under gnome2 and it's wonderful. Nice native look and feel (great anti-aliased fonts) and very responsive.
If you don't know, Standard Widget Toolkit (SWT) is a java GUI framework that uses JNI to call the native OS windowing API. It's an excellent example of how java can successfully be used for client desktop applications. IBM developed it for the open source Eclipse IDE.
I don't know much about the topic, but doesn't the liscencing disallow you from selling it for money? Or is it just a common misconception?
An extremely common misconception. See the GNU GPL FAQ:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
The idea that a commercial entity can incur an actionable loss because of the freedom of speech is a new and dangerous trend in our society
No it isn't. It's called private property and the principle has been around just as long as the first amendment. If you make noise on my property, I can kick you off. No questions. If you make noise in the street, I can't do anything about it. The web site could easily be considered private property and posting to the site would require the visitors abide by the terms of use. If they don't fine, they have to go do their own website.
This has nothing to do with corporate entities imposing censorship. It has everything to do with private property and the user thereof.
I have several projects at work right now that use SVG and there are cases where it's wonderful to use. For those interested, I would suggest Apache's Batik project.
The biggest problem I've encountered so far is with Mozilla. Unfortunately, Mozilla's SVG capabilities are non-existant and the current Adobe SVG plugin doesn't work with the brower.
I'm constantly amazed at how Apple is really not considered evil because they happen to sell an OS based on Unix. Duh. They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other. ...
...
/.ers would like to think. Within each organization there are lots of different factions.
e rnment/take-your-pick dogma. Following the popular anti-whatever rhetoric gets you karma or a nice troll. I can say that because when I was first introduced to the concepts of free software and open source, I swallowed the whole philosphy. Reading slashdot and other open source forums have allowed me to look in the mirror enough to realize how stupid it can sometimes sound.
So they're evil because they're a company that sells stuff?
<rant>
Exactly. You know I'm really getting tired of slashdot articles _and_ comments which suggest that such and such a company or organization is evil or good. Whether it's Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA, things are not as black and white as most
Since when did the FSF become the bastion of all that is good and pure? Since when did making money become a crime? I don't think I want to label any company as purely good or evil, and particularly not any action so general as making money! Too many of us here are simply zealots, blindly spewing doctrine based on some twisted free-software/open-source/unix-rules/fsck-the-gov
Don't get me wrong, I love open source. I agree with many of these principles. Heck, I contribute to couple projects and release open source code myself! But I hope I'm pragmatic enough not to simply buy the standard dogma that makes comments like "M$ sucks" or "making money is evil" rated "Insightful". Okay, <rant> off.
I believe your correct about this, but I also think there are ways past it. If I have some content then I can require any who would like to use it to request so in writing. So if some fan makes something derived from my content, I can say, "Hey, write me, ask permission (it'll be given) and then go ahead." I'm trivializing this a bit, but wouldn't something like this cover me legally? It's not like there has to be a complex written contract for someone to use another's copyrighted works. As long as the owner makes sure that any derivative works that he/she is aware of have asked for and recieved proper permission, then I think this could work. However, IANAL...
In Sony's defense, I'd say they did it on a matter of principle. Under the law, what the Aibo hax0r did is classified as illegal. Regardless of whether or not this application of the law agrees with common sense (in this case, probably not), Sony still has to follow through on it otherwise people may expect them to let other things slide in future.
That's exactly what this article is arguing AGAINST. So what if someone does it in the future. Heck, if they understood things right, they'd be praying that someone would do something similar in the future, thus increasing AIBO's features and popularity. This is exactly the what the lawyers want you to think, but it doesn't make sense, common, business or otherwise.
I know, I know, I have been trolled...
Is it just me or does this sound like the definition of business for it's own sake? I realize the business of business is to make profit, but that statement make it sound as if the law is a secondary concern, an inconvinience that need be followed only if you're in a good mood.
Lessig is NOT arguing that businesses should break the law, he's arguing that content holders should recognize when it is in their best interest to enforce their "legal rights" and when it's best to just let it pass.
If my rights are violated, I can CHOOSE whether or not to press charges. If I choose not to, then there's nothing stopping anyone from violating those rights, especially if I make my intentions public. If I decide that certain rights aren't worth defending, or as Lessig points out are actually more profitable to me if I allow them to be "violated," then no one else can come in and tell me I must defend myself. In general it's not a smart idea to give away your rights, but perhaps Lessig has a point here that some laws and rights don't always protect they way you want them to and in fact you'd be better off not enforcing them.
In practice this may happen more often than you think. Sometimes it's not worth the trouble hauling someone into court when you can deal with it person to person. Even the GPL itself "gives away" rights the law gives to copyright holders. In this case, such free software advocates feel the loss of traditional copyright privileges is outweighed by the gains of free-as-in-speech software.
From the article:
Management should begin to demand a business justification for copyright litigation. How does this legal action advance the bottom line? How will it grow markets or increase consumer demand for our products? Will calling our customers criminals increase consumer loyalty?
If only more executives would ask these questions. Few businesses have realized the true power of fans and fan or user created content. Just look at the classic example of Half Life and Counter Strike. Where did these ideas that copyright law trumps the copyright holder's profits come from anyway?
Very good point.
I could see how this could be different if the original code is released under some other license like the Mozilla license, but the GPL does put these type of restrictions on the company.
Hmm...
Google's strength has come from sticking to one thing and doing it well. Google does searches and does them better than anyone else. It's that sort of focus and simplicity that other companies lack. If Google started offering portal-like services such as email and chat I would definitely use them (because I know that the quality would be great); however, I rather hope that Google doesn't fall to the temptation of branching out and thus risks its strength.
For the lazy:
Strong Bad's Website Lessons
Even if you hate flash, you've got to check this site out.
Here in Pittsburgh, the larger theater complex had a 12:00, 12:01, 12:02, and 12:03 showing and I believe there was more than one theater room for each of these showings (so somewhere like 6 to 8 rooms). These are large theater rooms too. And it was PACKED! I couldn't believe it. You had to be in line two hours early to get a seat even IF you had tickets.
By the way, the movie rocked!
Okay, I run a small home network of about a dozen computers. I like to play around with clustering and I'm working on a small web site. I have a nice DSL connection that connects my little network to the hostile wide-open internet. I also have a small WIFI network running, but I have it closed as best I can so that only approved PC's or devices can access my (wireless) network. Why? Well for the same reason I have a firewall between my network and the internet. Sure, given my location, I doubt I would have many people connecting to the WIFI network, but that still no reason for lax security.
Besides, I pay for my DSL bandwidth. Why should I let some stranger passing by or neighbor down the street get free internet access while I'm paying good money for it? I don't get these free WIFI networks. They seem insecure and leech of those who offer them. Someone has to provide the gateway to the internet, which means someone's paying for the bandwidth. It can't be free. So if there's going to be some great open WIFI network, it's got to have some sort of business model (ie- be profitable) or it's going to die eventually -- just like "free" websites which eventually become popular, have increasing bandwidth costs, and finally turn to some ad or subscription model to cover the costs.
The only other solution I can think of is if these WIFI networks simply don't offer internet connectivity and exist as a network outside the traditional DNS and internet infastructure. In this case you are limited to only those services that exisit within the WIFI "cloud" or region. And even if all the services you could ever need were there, you still have security issues, especially if the WIFI service is being offered by average households who may not completely appriciate or understand network and computer security.
I'll admit that I don't understand these WIFI networks very well or the goals of those who want to have large free WIFI access. How do such advocates plan to solve these problems? And moreover, how to do it in a sustainable way that can return the cost of investment to the providers? Please, I'm really interested in understanding how this is supposed to work. Thanks.
Hey, I've been trying to find some info on those PCI blade computers. I remember and ad in Linux Journal for them a couple of months ago. Anyone have a link or two about these things?
you still have a big pile of servlets that does everything from database access to presentation.
If you end up with a big pile of servlets like this then you aren't using the framework properly. No framework is going to save stupid developers with a bad design. It can try to save them from themselves, but ultimately, the developers have to have a clue about how to code and how to properly design an application.
Velocity is still very much alive. Watch the mailing lists for a while if you want to see what's going on.