"Wow; you would almost swear they planned it this way."
It is pretty convenient. Still, your history is a bit revisionist; The embedded devices Java was designed for, way back when it was called Green, was set-top boxes, or smart TVs, or some such.
Also, the language hasn't seen much retrofits at all, it is the JVM that has been continually revamped and API's that have bourgeoned.
As for J2EE being evil: [shrug]. Servlets work great, as fo a few other bits and pieces, but EJB's seem to be, ah, interesting. Don't confuse EJB's with the rest of J2EE, though.
"Your argument is that if Java is so successful, how come something like WinAmp, Corel Draw, Turbo Tax isn't written in it."
Because they're all targetted at Windows machines. There's no point in writing the apps using Java. Running a Java app on different host platforms varies greatly, as is the difference in platform UIs, and so on, so the support costs for deploying Java apps accross multiple platforms is greater than the support costs for deploying any {native|Java} app on one platform. If they're not going to bother supporting non-Windows platforms, then there's no point using Java.
"Corel tried to reimplement Word Perfect in Java, and the result was such a performance pig that it never saw the light of day."
Yep, because they were using, what, v1.0? v1.1? Both of course, sucked, sucked very badly. v1.2, which included Swing, was much better, but still sucked. v1.3 is much better still, and is finally getting usable. I'm looking forward to seeing how well 1.4 works. It should be good.
"Do you know how much Java is in Star Office (I'd like some cherry tart without so much rat in it), and what is your take on its performance?"
To be honest; no. I don't use it, and so I couldn't comment on its performance, either. Anecedotally, a few guys on my team at work do, and they don't seem to complain about it.
To date, the big acceptance issue for Java on the desktop has been it's performance. Early version did suck, but latter verisons are much better, and desktop machines are more powerful, so it's all becoming moot. Many large, complex applications arew written in Java. Forte, a Java IDE is written in Java. Most desktop applications coming out of IBM's Alpha Works seem to be Java based. ThinkFree is an office suite written in Java. But AFAICT, most Java apps are written by developer's tools. Developers get the most out of Java's portability because they can use their tools on whatever platform they need to be developing/testing/running their software on. It makes a developer's life much easier.
When did I say anything about "good feelings" and "making friends"? What crack are you on?
Look, *no one* is going to out-sell native Windows apps until Windows is not the dominant OS on the desktop. Period.
So, you have successful Mac apps that don't sell as much as successful Windows apps. You have successful Solaris apps that don't sell as much as successful Windows apps. You have successful UN*X apps that you can get for free!
Looking at raw sales for a measure of success for a particular application across *all* platforms is misleading, and incorrect. You should be looking at the usage figures on the app's native platform.
Going off on a tangent here:
What you (and many others, including MS) seem to be missing is that Java is a platform unto itself. You don't run Java apps on a Windows box, you run them on a JVM, which may happen to be hosted by a Windows box. Java isn't just the language, it is also the JVM and the java.* APIs.
Whoa, didn't you say "Java has failed in Sun's primary quest - to bring massive cross-platform applications to the desktop"?
Given that they have brought these applications to the desktop, then how can they possibly have failed? You seem to be arguing the point that because Java based applications are not the at the top in terms of units shipped or sales generated that Java has failed - which is patently absurd.
I guess you're also one of these people who judge how successful person is by looking at their salary. You poor bastard.
Yes, just like the vast majority of all desktop software is not {Mac|Linux|Solaris} based, so we can safely assume that {Mac|Linux|Solaris} did not catch on.
Hey, is that's not entirely correct. According to bug #103706[0], and the three metabugs blocking it, Embed, XUL and XPCom still have a lot of changes to their respective API's to come. I don't know about the plugins API, however.
The impression I got from from n.p.m.* was that at least XUL will be changing, right up to 1.0. I mean, wasn't that the point? 1.0 => API freeze.
Okay, the igorning of emails bit may have been a bit harsh of them, but the *other* thing which I forgot to mention is that whilst bug reports are good, there's only a finite amount of resources available to deal with them.
There could be many, many reasons for your reports to go ignored. The developer may be pressed for cycles, may have gone awol or whatever. People may be not responding to you because they know the someone else should be doing so. Given I get paid to write software, and I've also contributed to a few free software projects, I know what it is like in the trenches, so give please give them a break. The day has too few hours as it is.
It's typical in free software projects for someone random to come in, make some (usually misdirected) noise, and expect people to jump for them. The best approach you can take is lurk around related mailing lists or usenet groups. Get a feel for the community, who does what, get to know the general social dynanic. Once you've done that and you know how the community works, you'll know where to ask, who to talk to and how to get them to give your case a hand.
It isn't a very simple approach, but it is the best way to get results from developer communitites like XFree's.
Hey, what you have to keep in mind is that XFree developers (like all free software developers) are working on it either in their own time, or are getting paid to do so.
In the first case, they're only going to be inclined to work on what appeals to them, or what they need to get working. In the second case, they're only going to work on what their employers want.
So, if no one is interested in getting older Mystique cards working, then all the bug reports and bitching on/. in the world isn't going to get it fixed. You either have to fix it yourself, or if you can't then wait until someone with the appropirate skills is sufficiently motivated to fix it for you.
The situation is slightly different here, however. When MS missed the Internet boat, their core business wasn't in danger. It wasn't like they were going to lose anything, the only problem was that their growth wasn't going to be as good as they wanted. Netscape was seen as a danger to the Windows platform, as was Java, but web applications aren't perfect for every situation, so there was always going to be a need to a "native" platform. And that could just as well be Windows. So, no hassle there.
The problem MS faces at the moment is one which will actually drive people away from their products., on which if left unchecked, might not even slow but, gasp, reverse their growth. Tha is the real issue here.
Now, it's not likely that in the three or four years it may take to ramp their security up to something approaching decent that they'll go down in flames, but their reputation will be harmed, a lot. If only from all the unpatched instances of Windows that are running out in the wild. The issue will be whether or not someone can present a decent alternative before then, and use MS's tarnished image to get a foot in the door.
I guess it will come down to a) how much they can improve their situation and b) how good a spin their PR can put on the situation in the meantime.
Mike.
PS, I'm still laughing, especially at the poor bastards who have to use Windows all day long. Heh heh heh!
Does anyone know what they were talking about when they said "Developers are still working out compatibility issues with [...] FreeBSD's thread implementation"?
I know -CURRENT is working towards use KSEs for threading, so is the issue with -CURRENT, or are they having problems with libc_r (the POSIX threads impl) in -STABLE? Or somthing completely else?
X11 isn't a peice of turd. It works well for what it was designed to do, which is to provide a network transparent gui interface to multi-user systems.
It does this well. Really, really well.
Whilst IANAXE[0], it clear that the current version of the protocol is not well sutied for the number of things you're griping about, but you miss the fact that it wasn't
designed for doing that stuff. It's like trying to open a can with a screwdriver; sure it may work, but not well.
X is now up to version 11. It has gone through that many major revisons because it been reworked that many times to not only get it right, but to also support new technology, when colour support was added, for example. So, maybe it's time for someone to start work on X12. Maybe, instead of bitching about it, you should start working on it.
- Using XFree locally on Linux doesn't involve the network at all, it uses UNIX sockets[0] instead.
- It's all completely transparent, you don't have to do anything networky to get it running on your local machine.
- It even has a shared memory extension, for doing a few things[0] (which again eascape me).
So, why is it such a hassle for you?
Mike.
[0] - I'm too hung over to remember, but will provide references if you really want.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. I used to 0wnz a Matrox card. FTR, only my Windows games machine and my Linux workstation (at work) has Nvidia cards. When the game box was put together, NVidia wa sthe only option, but if I was doing it again I'd probably use an ATI. NVidia's drivers are nothing other than a pain in the ass for both Linux and Win, I probably won't be buying too many more.
Still, you have to admit, NVidia ownz Matrox for games performance..
Yep, which is cool, but unfortunately I've got a T21. Even more unfortunately, it's got one of the 3Com/3Com mini-pci ethernet/modem cards, instead of one of the Intel/Lucent ones.
As much as I hate buying Intel hardware, I'll probably have to spring for the Intel/Lucent if I ever need a modem.
Because winmodems *are* shitty, and comapred to ATIs or NVidias, G400 look pretty damm poor.;)
In any case, the reason Winmodems "work fine" under Windows is because the manufacturers have released drivers for them. In almost every case, they will not release the specs for the hardware interface because they want to protect their IP (god knows why, they're only winmodems). Some manufacturers (Lucent, IBM[0]) have released Linux drivers for their weird-arse modems, and they also "work fine". Again, I'm talking from experience here[1].
Now, it so happens that, IIRC, G400s do work under Linux, and AFAIK, work as well as you can expect for a G400. FreeBSD support is under question here, but if support is in CVS, it will get released soon enough. Still, the fact that G400s work under Linux has nothing to do with vendor-supplied drivers, it's because people cared enough to write the driver for it. The reason you don't see this happening with Winmodems is because of the afore-mentioned suckage; people don't care about winmodems, so they're not going to bother writing drivers for them. It's much easier to buy a real modem in the first place.
So, if you really care about winmodems, please, feel free to write a driver (the Linux/BSD source is there, so is gcc and emacs).
Mike.
[0] - actually, IBM's mwaves are pretty good, they're diametrically(sp?) opposed to winmodems, but they're still sucky for being proprietry.
[1] - my old TP had a Lucent winmodem.
Your hardware sucks! It's not Linux's fault! Go get some real hardware!
Hey, I hate to have to point it out to you, but if you're using a Winmodem, you *are* using crap hardware. Honestly, they are pimples on the wart that is PC hardware.
Don't get me wrong, I'm using a PC (Athalon-based, so I don't feel too bad) to type this, my servers are 486's and up, and my sexxy IBM Thinkpad has an Linux-unsupported mini-pci winmodem. *I know* exactly how crap they are.
So please, deal with it. Be pragmatic; use what works for you. If you really need to use shite hardware, then be prepared to put up with the inevitable pain that comes along with it. Use the OS that best suits your needs, but don't bitch an moan about software that people write for free, when you're obviously not capable of doing anything about it, even if it was legally possible to support such festeringly putrid hardware.
Will someone please mod this post, and the parent down?
"What you're suggesting, is that rather than trying to make machines as linguistically competent as we are, we should instead adjust to fit their convenience."
No, not at all. It's easy to retro-fit a web site with RDF metadata about the content of that site and requires no human-visible changes to the site. Metadata can be stored in HTML meta tags or perferably in seperate RDF description files. None of this effects the way people surf the Web, and unless they have a good browser they won't even know the additional metadata exists.
In addition, using SW-friendly content in web pages (like strict XHTML, using CSS for all style, use of other XML dialects like SVG, MathML, CML and so on) only lends to machine comprehension while not detracting a single iota from human comprehension.
It's possible to have web content that is both human and machine comprehsible, but it unfortunately takes a little more effort than making content that is just human readable.
Surely this kind of issue is what Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C is trying to address with the Semantic Web.
The problem with content on the web today is that while it is perfectly readable by humans, it is incomprenesible to machines. If Tim and Co get their way, and I for one would love to see the Semantic Web catch on, then we can get rid of kluges like the Anti-Thesaurus, HTML meta keywords and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's a very intelligent, well-thought-out reply, did your daddy help you out with it? Wait, does he even know you're using his computer again?
Hm?
"Wow; you would almost swear they planned it this way."
It is pretty convenient. Still, your history is a bit revisionist; The embedded devices Java was designed for, way back when it was called Green, was set-top boxes, or smart TVs, or some such.
Also, the language hasn't seen much retrofits at all, it is the JVM that has been continually revamped and API's that have bourgeoned.
As for J2EE being evil: [shrug]. Servlets work great, as fo a few other bits and pieces, but EJB's seem to be, ah, interesting. Don't confuse EJB's with the rest of J2EE, though.
"Your argument is that if Java is so successful, how come something like WinAmp, Corel Draw, Turbo Tax isn't written in it."
Because they're all targetted at Windows machines. There's no point in writing the apps using Java. Running a Java app on different host platforms varies greatly, as is the difference in platform UIs, and so on, so the support costs for deploying Java apps accross multiple platforms is greater than the support costs for deploying any {native|Java} app on one platform. If they're not going to bother supporting non-Windows platforms, then there's no point using Java.
"Corel tried to reimplement Word Perfect in Java, and the result was such a performance pig that it never saw the light of day."
Yep, because they were using, what, v1.0? v1.1? Both of course, sucked, sucked very badly. v1.2, which included Swing, was much better, but still sucked. v1.3 is much better still, and is finally getting usable. I'm looking forward to seeing how well 1.4 works. It should be good.
"Do you know how much Java is in Star Office (I'd like some cherry tart without so much rat in it), and what is your take on its performance?"
To be honest; no. I don't use it, and so I couldn't comment on its performance, either. Anecedotally, a few guys on my team at work do, and they don't seem to complain about it.
To date, the big acceptance issue for Java on the desktop has been it's performance. Early version did suck, but latter verisons are much better, and desktop machines are more powerful, so it's all becoming moot. Many large, complex applications arew written in Java. Forte, a Java IDE is written in Java. Most desktop applications coming out of IBM's Alpha Works seem to be Java based. ThinkFree is an office suite written in Java. But AFAICT, most Java apps are written by developer's tools. Developers get the most out of Java's portability because they can use their tools on whatever platform they need to be developing/testing/running their software on. It makes a developer's life much easier.
When did I say anything about "good feelings" and "making friends"? What crack are you on?
Look, *no one* is going to out-sell native Windows apps until Windows is not the dominant OS on the desktop. Period.
So, you have successful Mac apps that don't sell as much as successful Windows apps. You have successful Solaris apps that don't sell as much as successful Windows apps. You have successful UN*X apps that you can get for free!
Looking at raw sales for a measure of success for a particular application across *all* platforms is misleading, and incorrect. You should be looking at the usage figures on the app's native platform.
Going off on a tangent here:
What you (and many others, including MS) seem to be missing is that Java is a platform unto itself. You don't run Java apps on a Windows box, you run them on a JVM, which may happen to be hosted by a Windows box. Java isn't just the language, it is also the JVM and the java.* APIs.
Feel free to get a clue at any point.
Whoa, didn't you say "Java has failed in Sun's primary quest - to bring massive cross-platform applications to the desktop"?
Given that they have brought these applications to the desktop, then how can they possibly have failed? You seem to be arguing the point that because Java based applications are not the at the top in terms of units shipped or sales generated that Java has failed - which is patently absurd.
I guess you're also one of these people who judge how successful person is by looking at their salary. You poor bastard.
8/
Yes, just like the vast majority of all desktop software is not {Mac|Linux|Solaris} based, so we can safely assume that {Mac|Linux|Solaris} did not catch on.
Nicely flawed argument you have there.
Hey, I'm consistently late, I spend at least an hour after I do get in on the Web and r/r'ing to email, and I get a shitload of work done, dammit.
Don't go casting dispersions because you have nothing better to do at work than work!
^_^
Hey, is that's not entirely correct. According to bug #103706[0], and the three metabugs blocking it, Embed, XUL and XPCom still have a lot of changes to their respective API's to come. I don't know about the plugins API, however.
./
The impression I got from from n.p.m.* was that at least XUL will be changing, right up to 1.0. I mean, wasn't that the point? 1.0 => API freeze.
Mike.
[0] - link not included to save Bugzilla from
As opposed to yourself, who just sounds like a wanker.
Okay, the igorning of emails bit may have been a bit harsh of them, but the *other* thing which I forgot to mention is that whilst bug reports are good, there's only a finite amount of resources available to deal with them.
There could be many, many reasons for your reports to go ignored. The developer may be pressed for cycles, may have gone awol or whatever. People may be not responding to you because they know the someone else should be doing so. Given I get paid to write software, and I've also contributed to a few free software projects, I know what it is like in the trenches, so give please give them a break. The day has too few hours as it is.
It's typical in free software projects for someone random to come in, make some (usually misdirected) noise, and expect people to jump for them. The best approach you can take is lurk around related mailing lists or usenet groups. Get a feel for the community, who does what, get to know the general social dynanic. Once you've done that and you know how the community works, you'll know where to ask, who to talk to and how to get them to give your case a hand.
It isn't a very simple approach, but it is the best way to get results from developer communitites like XFree's.
Mike.
Hey, what you have to keep in mind is that XFree developers (like all free software developers) are working on it either in their own time, or are getting paid to do so.
/. in the world isn't going to get it fixed. You either have to fix it yourself, or if you can't then wait until someone with the appropirate skills is sufficiently motivated to fix it for you.
In the first case, they're only going to be inclined to work on what appeals to them, or what they need to get working. In the second case, they're only going to work on what their employers want.
So, if no one is interested in getting older Mystique cards working, then all the bug reports and bitching on
Mike.
Here's a few questions to ask yourself:
- Are you ever going to use it?
- How long until the next release (with it's own code name) comes out?
But most importantly:
- Does it matter what the code name for an alpha release is?
Hoonestly? Does it?
How long? About three or for years.
The situation is slightly different here, however. When MS missed the Internet boat, their core business wasn't in danger. It wasn't like they were going to lose anything, the only problem was that their growth wasn't going to be as good as they wanted. Netscape was seen as a danger to the Windows platform, as was Java, but web applications aren't perfect for every situation, so there was always going to be a need to a "native" platform. And that could just as well be Windows. So, no hassle there.
The problem MS faces at the moment is one which will actually drive people away from their products., on which if left unchecked, might not even slow but, gasp, reverse their growth. Tha is the real issue here.
Now, it's not likely that in the three or four years it may take to ramp their security up to something approaching decent that they'll go down in flames, but their reputation will be harmed, a lot. If only from all the unpatched instances of Windows that are running out in the wild. The issue will be whether or not someone can present a decent alternative before then, and use MS's tarnished image to get a foot in the door.
I guess it will come down to a) how much they can improve their situation and b) how good a spin their PR can put on the situation in the meantime.
Mike.
PS, I'm still laughing, especially at the poor bastards who have to use Windows all day long. Heh heh heh!
Does anyone know what they were talking about when they said "Developers are still working out compatibility issues with [...] FreeBSD's thread implementation"?
I know -CURRENT is working towards use KSEs for threading, so is the issue with -CURRENT, or are they having problems with libc_r (the POSIX threads impl) in -STABLE? Or somthing completely else?
Cheers,
Mike.
X11 isn't a peice of turd. It works well for what it was designed to do, which is to provide a network transparent gui interface to multi-user systems.
It does this well. Really, really well.
Whilst IANAXE[0], it clear that the current version of the protocol is not well sutied for the number of things you're griping about, but you miss the fact that it wasn't
designed for doing that stuff. It's like trying to open a can with a screwdriver; sure it may work, but not well.
X is now up to version 11. It has gone through that many major revisons because it been reworked that many times to not only get it right, but to also support new technology, when colour support was added, for example. So, maybe it's time for someone to start work on X12. Maybe, instead of bitching about it, you should start working on it.
But in the mean-time, get a can opener.
Mike.
[0] - I Am Not An X Expert.
Why does it bother you so much? Especially given:
- Using XFree locally on Linux doesn't involve the network at all, it uses UNIX sockets[0] instead.
- It's all completely transparent, you don't have to do anything networky to get it running on your local machine.
- It even has a shared memory extension, for doing a few things[0] (which again eascape me).
So, why is it such a hassle for you?
Mike.
[0] - I'm too hung over to remember, but will provide references if you really want.
[snip: rant about why Matrox cards don't suck]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. I used to 0wnz a Matrox card. FTR, only my Windows games machine and my Linux workstation (at work) has Nvidia cards. When the game box was put together, NVidia wa sthe only option, but if I was doing it again I'd probably use an ATI. NVidia's drivers are nothing other than a pain in the ass for both Linux and Win, I probably won't be buying too many more.
Still, you have to admit, NVidia ownz Matrox for games performance..
Yep, which is cool, but unfortunately I've got a T21. Even more unfortunately, it's got one of the 3Com/3Com mini-pci ethernet/modem cards, instead of one of the Intel/Lucent ones.
As much as I hate buying Intel hardware, I'll probably have to spring for the Intel/Lucent if I ever need a modem.
8(
Because winmodems *are* shitty, and comapred to ATIs or NVidias, G400 look pretty damm poor. ;)
In any case, the reason Winmodems "work fine" under Windows is because the manufacturers have released drivers for them. In almost every case, they will not release the specs for the hardware interface because they want to protect their IP (god knows why, they're only winmodems). Some manufacturers (Lucent, IBM[0]) have released Linux drivers for their weird-arse modems, and they also "work fine". Again, I'm talking from experience here[1].
Now, it so happens that, IIRC, G400s do work under Linux, and AFAIK, work as well as you can expect for a G400. FreeBSD support is under question here, but if support is in CVS, it will get released soon enough. Still, the fact that G400s work under Linux has nothing to do with vendor-supplied drivers, it's because people cared enough to write the driver for it. The reason you don't see this happening with Winmodems is because of the afore-mentioned suckage; people don't care about winmodems, so they're not going to bother writing drivers for them. It's much easier to buy a real modem in the first place.
So, if you really care about winmodems, please, feel free to write a driver (the Linux/BSD source is there, so is gcc and emacs).
Mike.
[0] - actually, IBM's mwaves are pretty good, they're diametrically(sp?) opposed to winmodems, but they're still sucky for being proprietry.
[1] - my old TP had a Lucent winmodem.
Your hardware sucks! It's not Linux's fault! Go get some real hardware!
Hey, I hate to have to point it out to you, but if you're using a Winmodem, you *are* using crap hardware. Honestly, they are pimples on the wart that is PC hardware.
Don't get me wrong, I'm using a PC (Athalon-based, so I don't feel too bad) to type this, my servers are 486's and up, and my sexxy IBM Thinkpad has an Linux-unsupported mini-pci winmodem. *I know* exactly how crap they are.
So please, deal with it. Be pragmatic; use what works for you. If you really need to use shite hardware, then be prepared to put up with the inevitable pain that comes along with it. Use the OS that best suits your needs, but don't bitch an moan about software that people write for free, when you're obviously not capable of doing anything about it, even if it was legally possible to support such festeringly putrid hardware.
Will someone please mod this post, and the parent down?
Geeze.
Here's a clue: Solaris is SysV based, not BSD based.
Also, here's an example of FreeBSD's 90's hardware support: it supported the Promise ATA100 controller long before Linux did.
Don't make me come over there, troll-boy.
-xox-
Well, of course you're going to see XBox ra! Ra! RA! everywhere you go, if you go to Windows oriented sites, and shops.
Do you honestly expect to see www.microsoft.com to be sporting PS2 ads?
Mozilla 2001112712 (0.9.6+)
"What you're suggesting, is that rather than trying to make machines as linguistically competent as we are, we should instead adjust to fit their convenience."
No, not at all. It's easy to retro-fit a web site with RDF metadata about the content of that site and requires no human-visible changes to the site. Metadata can be stored in HTML meta tags or perferably in seperate RDF description files. None of this effects the way people surf the Web, and unless they have a good browser they won't even know the additional metadata exists.
In addition, using SW-friendly content in web pages (like strict XHTML, using CSS for all style, use of other XML dialects like SVG, MathML, CML and so on) only lends to machine comprehension while not detracting a single iota from human comprehension.
It's possible to have web content that is both human and machine comprehsible, but it unfortunately takes a little more effort than making content that is just human readable.
Surely this kind of issue is what Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C is trying to address with the Semantic Web.
The problem with content on the web today is that while it is perfectly readable by humans, it is incomprenesible to machines. If Tim and Co get their way, and I for one would love to see the Semantic Web catch on, then we can get rid of kluges like the Anti-Thesaurus, HTML meta keywords and the like.