I don't honestly know how difficult it would be to have the Swing team add the ability to ask the OS which theme is current, but it would probably be a hell of a lot easier than rewriting all the native peers to use AWT instead.
Why would I bother? As I said the GCJ and GNU Classpath developers are already doing this for me. Furthermore, I think having Java code
that somehow emulates the current GTK+ theme would be much more effort and perform much worse than rewriting all the native peers. After all
the native peers are *designed* to be rewritten for each new platform Java is ported to. All that is really involved is using JNI to bind
constructors and methods to the appropriate underlying GTK+ functions. Simple.
Looking at the page you referenced, what it said was A lightweight component is a component that is not associated with a
native opaque window. So, I guess the Component class itself is not associated with a Peer...
Exactly. I usually place my lightweight custom components inside an applet window and integrate them into a web application. Using
Swing would be overkill in such cases. I suppose that technically I'm not using much of AWT other than the event model and graphics
processing routines it shares with Swing.
I don't need to [invoke a new Java VM for every incomming web process].
Of course you don't. That would be insane. The point I was trying to make is that this is *not* insane for all but the most demanding
Python applications. I think this says something troubling about Java performance in general, and in fact people at Sun think
so too. That's not to say that a clever Java programmer can't make a reasonably fast application, just that he or she has an uphill battle.
Performance is not critical for every aspect of every application. And the good news is that the
Python example suggests that much of the Java
performance problem is due to poor virtual machine implementation rather than any fundamental flaw. That means things might get better
over time. I don't think Java will ever be able to compete with C for speed in all cases, any more than C will ever be able to compete
with assembly for speed in all cases. But surely Java could catch up to Python. Releasing a free software version of the Sun VM might bring that about since it would give more people a chance to make suggestions and test experimental virtual machine variants.
After working for companies that build everything on Windows, Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, AS/400, etc.... I can't tell you how happy
I am to only compile once. I no longer have to modify the makefile every time we try to build X or Y on platform Z... it really is a HUGE
timesaver for the developer.
Actually I've worked for companies that build for each of those platforms except AS/400 (plus some others like s/390 Linux). I
never found the compile isses terribly challenging, and we used scripts to automate nightly and release builds. Much more problematic
were things like the lack of a good pseudo-random number generator on many proprietary platforms, and these issues often affect Java no less than C or any other language.
In addition, I have downloaded services for my BSD box (that were newer than the Port Collection), and been completely unable to
figure out how to get them to compile properly, and fix the errors. Had they distributed it as a jar (especially over JNLP), I would not have had to go through all that hassles, and those services
would be currently running.
I think you underestimate how much this kind of problem affects Java. Just try installing two or more major enterprise Java applications. Each will require a virtual machine from a specific and often mutually exclusive subset of vendors and version numbers. Perhaps someday the Java platform will be less of a moving target and this
argument will be stronger. A free software virtual machine
I can see that. So, really, what we need is a solution where an
open-source OS (thus alleiviating their fear of M$ practices) could
include it on the install disc?
Yes, that would be a considerable improvement. Note though that
there are plenty of other benefits of making j2sdk free software,
both for the world at large and for Sun Microsystems. I thnk the
parent article on LinuxToday makes the case for that quite well.
From the way I understand it, [...] there is an AWT component
for the main window.
This matches my (somewhat rusty) understanding of things.
Well, with Swing, you have the option of your application [...]
looking like other native applications
I've not tried this, but I suspect that things will not work the
way I want them to because, as you pointed out, Swing uses Java code
to do the drawing of components. I want the buttons, scroll bars and
other widgets to use whatever GTK+ theme I have configured. I also
want it to change dynamically at runtime if I alter my GTK+ theme.
Using GTK native peers would accomplish this easily, but to do it
in Java code seems impractical.
I don't think that [implementing lighweight components in AWT]
is technically possible.
I should have been more clear about what I mean. I create
subclasses of java.awt.Component and override the paint() and update()
methods. According to the API reference
this creates a lightweight component with no native peer, much the way
Swing does. A JButton is a subclass of java.awt.Component too.
I usually use XML
I do that as well. This has advantages over relational databases
in places where absolute performance is not critical. I meant that
for user interfaces I use Python CGI scripts that generate a web based
user interface. (I keep meaning to try mod_python, but so far in
spite of my best efforts I've been unable to make my Python code slow
enough for this to be worthwhile. Imagine invoking a new Java VM for
every incomming web process!)
I still don't understand. AWT is the one that looks really ugly,
Swing has the look-n-feel/theming options.
I didn't mean that I think Swing is ugly (or that AWT isn't ugly --
though really the problem is that Motif is ugly and AWT uses Motif).
I meant that the look and feel doesn't match my desktop GTK+ theme
as I mentioned above.
I prefer writing all of my BSD software (and am in the process of
replacing all my httpd, ftpd, sshd, smtpd, etc) in Java, because then
I don't have to be tied to any specific OS.
I suppose time will tell and I wish you luck with the project, but
I'm skeptical. Packages such as Apache (and even OpenSSH, which does
run on Windows) are quite portable. All one saves with Java is a
compile step, and while this is a powerful advantage for applications
I think the dynamics of system software are less affected by it. Most
people get their operating systems on CDs and through vendor updates,
so code mobility is not a concern.
On the other side, I believe performance will suffer, particularly
on non-Windows platforms where the Sun VM is grotesquely slow.
Non-blocking I/O is indeed efficient (though it is best to combine it
with threading for SMP systems), but this feature is at least as easy
to use in C.
I am actually working on something like that, because I think
that idea is the perfect solution. Make a Java-based OS on CDR(W), and
run it on and i386, mac, ps2, dreamcast, etc.
Again, good luck but I'm skeptical. Ultimately you will need
something very much like a Unix kernel to talk directly to the
hardware and implement the Java VM. I'm also not convinced that
maintenence will be much easer. Most C projects separate and minimize
platform specific code. A JavaOS would still need testing for each
platform, and for the same reasons. Note that Sun and IBM have tried
and failed to create a viable JavaOS already. That do
Are you saying that the problem is that they can not download it and put it on the Debian CD for redistribution?
Yes. Other more subtle problems of a similar nature lurk here as well.
If that is the entire problem, why can't they do it like the BSD port system, where the makefile downloads the most recent one and installs it?
That isn't the entire problem, but even so a BSD like port system is not a good solution for everyone. For example it doesn't work well for people who have low bandwidth or inconsistent connections. Obviously you're right to point out that Java is somewhat accessible to Debian and FreeBSD users, but that is not what Open Source means. I use the Sun JDK on Fedora for everything GCJ doesn't currently do. Still, significant problems would be solved if Java were more open.
I am not clear why you prefer AWT.
I am more pleased with the concept of AWT than with the actual implementation. As you say, it is dreadful. However, as I understand it -- do correct me if I'm mistaken -- Swing is built on top of AWT, which means that while it doesn't have to be slow, it can't plausibly be much faster. Also, AWT is certainly as cross-platform as anything else in Java.
Do you mean that the look and feel varies by platform? I consider that a good feature in principle since I prefer applications to be consistent across a desktop. Clearly that's a matter of taste though, and there's no accounting for it. Naturally the lack of GTK+ and Qt based AWT implementations makes things much uglier than they need to be in practice.
I usually find myself implementing lighweight components in AWT, but then I generally use HTML and forms backed by Python for everything they can support and wheel out Java only for custom widgets. I suspect that if I were writing entire applications with Java I would grudgingly prefer Swing in spite of the look and feel issue.
Since the Java chips are 32-bit with only 8-bit operands, they are able to grab 4 instructions and use 1 every clock cycle, [...]
This is not an advantage that is unique to Java. Donald Knuth's MMIX architecture has the same property and there is a GCC back-end so C, C++, Fortran, Java and other languages can be used with it easily. Unlike the alleged.NET language neutrality no changes to syntax are required. Even standard libraries only need to be changed enough to make low level system calls work.
What do you mean by ["the advantages of Java are application focused"]? Do you mean that it is no good for server software (which it is even better for than GUIs), or do you mean that it is not good for things like device drivers?
I mean the latter. (I don't dispute the utility of Java for server software, but I prefer Python for a variety of reasons.) Well, actually, I mean that the advantages of Java are not especially compelling for system software in general. A Write Once Run Anywhere kernel seems a bit nonsensical. Similarly, running system daemons on top of a virtual machine seems unlikley improve anything.
USB device drivers are an interesting counter-example, though I think the notion that software which communicates with a device over a USB bus is a "device driver" is a bit misleading and conceals what makes USB great: it transforms something that was once clearly system software into something more like application code.
Every single time you see any application crash in your OS, that is a runtime exception.
That's an interesting way of looking at things. Are you saying all exceptions ought to be checked exceptions? Does that include NullPointerException and OutOfMemoryError? Plenty of shoddy software that doesn't deal with these gets sent to customers. What makes exceptions useful in the first place is that they allow parts of a program to ignore problems that they couldn't reasonably do anything about. Checked exceptions take that advantage away, often tearing enorm
I am also tired of all the "Java-should-be-Open-Source" by people who have never bothered to spend 10 minutes looking into the JCP and how Java IS currently Open Source and how Java is NOT run exclusively by Sun anymore. Every couple days/weeks, I log onto Slashdot and someone else is making these presumptious claims without looking into the facts.
No doubt this situation is complicated by the fact that "Java" means several dozen things, but Java (meaning the Java Developer Kit) is NOT Open Source. As a result, it is impossible to distribute it with any operating systems without obtaining some sort of permission from Sun. This is a real problem, especially for freely redistributable systems like Fedora and Debian.
As for the Java Community Process, while it is much more open than it could be, it is NOT Open Source. As a result, there are ongoing problems with free software projects such as JBOSS. Though Sun has taken some steps to address these, there is more work to be done. Surely you're right that there is plenty of ignorance in the Slashdot community that works against Sun, but the truth is there are real problems created and perpetuated by choices Sun has made and continues to make.
2) The coder wrote it in AWT
I like the concept of the AWT. A consistent look and feel for applications is desirable. Also, having as much as possible of the system -- and especially the fundamentally non-portable things -- implemented in a more efficient language[1] is a good thing. All of the advantages of Java are application focused, which may be why things like JavaOS never went anywhere. The trouble with AWT as I see it is that the interface caters to the lowest common denominator, which is backwards. An interface should cater to the highest common denominator and emulate features on systems that don't have them.
Sure, use a Java tree widget on platforms that don't have tree widgets, but give me an AWT interface that makes it impossible for me to tell that native code isn't being used without a special query. This lets the system improve as the underlying platform does without forcing anyone to rewrite code. Methods that can't be supported can throw exceptions (runtime exceptions please -- I loathe checked exceptions).
The problem I have with Swing is that it has so many bells and whistles that I don't need or even want, but nevertheless have to pay a performance cost for. I use GTK+, so I've already got a theme engine. An AWT backed by GTK+ would give my applications a consistent look of the sort I want. This will happen before long because of gij, but exposing all of GTK+ would either require more widgets or non-portable code.
[1] Please don't pester me with breathless praise of HotSpot here. I understand and agree that it is in principle possible for dynamically compiled Java code to be faster than C code in some cases. However in practice this just doesn't happen. All of my C applications run significantly faster than equivalent Java applications for all cases I have ever tested. I use Sun J2SDK 1.4.2 for this kind of testing.
I also concede that higher productivity can outweigh higher performance in many cases, and that some programmers do better in this regard when using Java. I'm not one of them. My productivity is consistently with object oriented C (and even C++). Feel free to presume that this is because I don't know this or that important facet of using Java effectively, but try not to think about how this undermines the argument that Java is easier to use.;-)
I'd like to have a VM for C++ *and* Java. That would surely rock and end some of the flamewars.
So would I, but please let's not make it anything like the tortured and ugly Java Virtual Machine. I suggest using MMIX (Donald Knuth's updated virutal machine developed for demonstrating algorithms in assembly for his books). Start with a high quality free software implementation of this and make use of the GCC back-end for its instruction set, and all that's left are some browser plugins. Every language GCC supports (including Java) should work with this approach.
(*)- The often stated security argument (java has no pointers and is therefore inherently more secure than C++) would fall with C++ on a VM.
Not quite. The virtual machine doesn't really understand pointers at all, so implementing C++ on it -- which would probably involve simulating pointers using byte arrays -- might produce code with faulty security assumptions, but it would not enable malicious code to escape the sandbox. I'm not convinced that the lack of pointers as a security feature is really all that effective, but it will take a better argument than that to make progress on the issue.
There are a few in the Opensource community that would love all software to roam "free" in all sense of the word, but I for one do not think that Opensource is the answer to every problem.
People who want to see all software "roam" free don't necessarily believe that this is the answer to every problem either. We do think it is the answer to some problems, though. For instance, it is a potent cure for vendor lock-in and protects important freedoms that we value. What problem does the proprietary approach to software solve that is worth giving that up?
Meanwhile, you seem to have completely missed the point that the article in question makes. The author spells out clear and convincing reasons why in the particular case of Sun and Java, a free software license is the right tool for the job -- not the job of making free software advocates happy, but rather for making Sun a dominant player in the information technology industry. He doesn't say that every software package should be free software.
If suddenly there are 50 versions of J2EE on the market, each with its unquie traits, which do I run? How do I know that the app I program will work on the others?
This is already the case. There are already a bewildering variety of Java virtual machines with unique traits available. Sun, IBM, HP, BEA and so on offer their own brand of JVM. Clean-room varieties of all shapes and sizes exist. Most are proprietary software. Why would making the Sun implementation free software aggrivate this problem? Most likely it would make things better as many vendors would use the Sun code to increase the compatability of their own versions.
This is why a lot of developers won't port to linux, especially desktop applications: too many variations.
This is nonsense. First of all, Windows is not a single operating system. In the last decade Microsoft has deployed NT, 95, 98, 2000, XP, ME and CE systems out there (I'm probably forgetting a few), and each is different in subtle ways. Somehow this collection of platforms manages to get plenty of applications. Second, a much more important reason vendors don't port to GNU/Linux is that they judge the available market to be too small for the effort. Remember that BeOS didn't go anywhere, and there was just one variation of that. Third, many developers do port to some subset of GNU/Linux systems successfully in spite of the variations. Some just pick a popular distribution such as RedHat. Of course, people creating free software applications can just wait for patches from people who prefer this or that obscure distribution. Meanwhile, a great deal of innovation is quietly proceeding in the many distributions available.
I see the same potential of Java, to become slpit into so many forks, that it defeats the purpose in the first place.
Perhaps your crystal ball needs a bit of polishing. At any rate you've given no convicing reasons why we should expect a free software release of the Sun JDK to result in forks. Most of the variety in free software comes from completely separate applications that share no code at all. That's not a fork. Actual forking is rare and usually happens for good reasons. Even then, much compatability is often preserved. For example, some RPM packages can be installed just as easily on RedHat as on distributions derived from it.
Another good example is a good friend that is developing a support ticket application for the company he works for. I asked him, "Isn't there several GPL'd apps outhere that could installed within a couple hours?" He responded of course, but he put it this way: "I like to use my own code and not other peoples. Its a lot less messy that way." and I see his point.
This is completely irrelevant. Not only does it have nothing to do with Java or this discussion, but it is completely unrelated to the difference between free and proprietary software. I could tell rather similar stories about avoiding messy proprie
Have you not looked around lately? In addition to virtual machines from Sun, IBM, HP, BEA and the like there are plenty of crufty proprietary clean-room implementations from tiny vendors who support them poorly. There are even high quality free software versions such as Kaffe and gcj/gij. A bewildering array of Java forks already exists and as it is these are often incompatible in strange ways, not least of which that most lack features found in Sun's J2SDK 1.2 and higher. And then there are the various forks that Sun perpetuates, such as J2ME and J2EE.
The likely effect of making Java free software would be to make at least the free software virutal machines *more* compatible, not less. People in the free software community actually want their virutal machines to be as compatible as possible and consider operational differences to be bugs. Notice efforts like GNU Classpath which tend to un-fork free implementations. The major obstacle to compatability is the need to create clean-room implementations of absolutely everything, and making the J2SDK free software would solve that problem.
If a project with 1000 source files, totalling a million lines of code uses some GPL code in one of the routines that performs some utility function, is the application based on the GPL program? According to armchair lawyers on Slashdot the answer is YES, however would a judge and jury see it the same way?
You expect to get a better answer than the one an armchair lawyer on Slashdot would give by... asking on Slashdot? Ingenious.
That was the worse insult I think I've ever encountered. I'm more insulted that you would think I would be offended by such a diminutive effort to insult me than I am offended by the insult itself.
What made you think I might be fluent in French, exactly? Were you that impressed?
Misundertanding the blatantly obvious seems to define you, Cranky. The point of everything I've said on this subject was that I was not impressed by your pompous use of profanity in a foreign language. I suggested you demonstrate a fluency in French as a way of redeeming yourself from this latest self-inflicted humiliation, but like basic logic and so many other things that's simply beyond your ability. Now you're trying to turn your lack of aptitude into something that reflects badly on me? Whatever.
Got any new interesting journal entries?
Perhaps I'll collect my dissection of the nonsensical claim that the GPL is viral and use that as the basis for a journal entry at some point.
Now you have gone delusionally into the subject of whether or not I am fluent in French.
In other words, you don't actually know French and merely threw a few common words into your post in a pompous attempt to salve your bruised ego. Now that I've called your bluff you've resorted to defensive whining and all the usual canards. I wish I could say I was surprised.
You are obsessive and delusional, to say the least. A class-A cult candidate if I ever saw one.
So now you claim to be qualified to make psychiatric diagnoses? Tell me, exactly how much research into cult behavior have you actually done? Enough to identify a class-A cult candidate? Or is this just even more of your empty headed bluster?
Atta boy, Cranx. Do whatever it takes to avoid sticking to a subject, since the moment you take a stand you're sure to be clobbered.
Don't stalk me, ok?
You're the one digging through someone else's slashdot journal. If this exchange is so exhausting for you feel free to slink away in shame. I won't miss you.
I find it amusing you made the assumption I used a translator.
I have assumed nothing, but anyone with a web browser and a free moment can produce three words in almost any language. Are you claiming fluency in French? Prove it. Simply make one of your characteristic content-free snide posts completely in French. Soyez sûr d'employer quelques verbes cette fois. A few sentences with reasonable grammar will convince me, but be warned that what comes out of web translation programs is quite easy to identify.
Of course, like the rest of your prattling, this has nothing to do with the original topic, but after you've made such a fool of yourself I'm curious to see whether you know anything at all.
So you remain unable to address the issue, resorting once again to unimaginative profanity instead. No surprise there.
Or did you think I would be impressed by your ability to chuck a few words into babelfish? Sorry, no. Perhaps you could try stringing a few sentences of French together so that I can see if your grammar is any good.
You still have not provided me with sufficient evidence that the GPL is not viral to counter my belief that it attaches itself permanently to projects and then replicates perfect copies of itself; defining behaviors of a virus.
I don't need to counter your demented belief. Reasonable people in the real world use GPL licensed software all the time, on its own or as part of derivative works. With the exception of Microsoft executives and cranks like yourself, people just don't believe that the GPL is viral. That's because it isn't.
How does the GPL attach itself to code? It is a license which must be applied by conscious choice of a software developer every time. Do you doubt this? Do you seriously claim such an obvious fact isn't so? So far you've done nothing more than assert that it attaches itself without even addressing this simple point.
How does the GPL replicate perfect copies of itself? Again, a software developer is required to perform that operation by choice, as with "cp" or some equivalent tool. Do you doubt this one? Are you even capable of addressing the issue?
Until you take on these questions and explain why the facts above don't undermine your case all of your desparate claims to the intellectual high ground do nothing more than make you look even more foolish.
You've lost so much ground! You write love letters to RMS! You have too much of a cult mentality! You nit-pick and stonewall! You quote from a Latin booklet! Show me a medical site with other types of virii that have sex with glitter!
<YAWN/> Not only do you have the intelligence of a doorknob, you're about equally imaginative. I'm pleased to see that your ego is still too bruised to allow you to drop the virus thing. That's a sure sign that I'm doing a good job of humiliating you. I do hope it will make an appearance in your next little temper tantrum.
the only evidence of critical thinking you've performed is nit-picking on the syntax of "virus."
That one really seems to have stung you.:-)
You remind me of a born-again Christian arguing for the existence of a god.
Once again an attempt to change the subject, eh Cranx? Religion has nothing to do with the GPL, expect perhaps in your little world.
You can't actually delve into the subject itself, you have to dance around and create a hostile atmosphere, using external references such as the Latin origins of the term "viral" and then go on to summarize with bulleted paragraphs.
Now this is a gem, perfectly framing your foolishness. I have undeniably delved into the subject itself, and even summarized the points I've made for you with the very bulleted paragraphs you casually deride. Not one of those points has been graced by a direct response from you. Instead you dance around the issue and deny plain reality. I'm not impressed.
Can't let that Latin thing go, can you Cranx? I am most pleased to have frustrated you so effectively.
You are dazzled by RMS' governing light and are now completely protected from all arguments regarding the GPL, and you have nothing more to offer this or ANY discussion any more than reflexive counter-propaganda.
So you admit that your ramblings about the viral nature of the GPL are propaganda? That is some progress, at last. While I'd be delighted to demonstrate how I can respond rationally to arguments regarding the GPL, you would actually have to provide one for me to respond to. It's never too late, you know.
Speaking of your god, I glanced briefly at your journal entry regarding RMS. Touching diatribe.
Well well well. Only one post ago you declared that I was a sad sack because I wasted too much time on slashdot. Now here you are whiling away the day reading my journal! Were I able to summon a shred of respect for you I would be flattered. Congratulations on adding hypocrite to your long list of demonstrated deficiencies.
So says you, a person who has demonstrated an inability to think clearly and has wasted plenty of his own time on this discussion. I don't much care what intellectually feeble people like yourself think of the GPL or me for that matter. If you can't construct a rational argument you just don't matter.
Now you're just trolling. That's a sure sign that you've lost the argument and you know it.
I refuse to address your questions.
I've noticed. I'm sure that if you had the intellectual capacity to address them you would. Instead you pretend that your empty assertions and unimaginative are a substitute for argument. That's just pitiful.
I have nothing to say now which I haven't already said.
No? Let's recall what you've said so far in support of your absurd claim that the GPL is viral. I've removed some of your most silly errors for the sake of clarity.
The GPL is viral because one is forced to choose between using a compatible license for derivative works or not incorporating code offered under it.
A virus, whether of the computer or biological variety, strives to give its host no choice at all. This is altogether unlike what the GPL does and therefore does not justify claims that it is viral.
People worry about the emotional baggage of the term viral without regard to its fitness as an analogy.
The term viral actually isn't a good fit. That there is negative emotional baggage merely suggests that those who insist on using it are motivated by some petty jealousy or a desire to misappropriate the work of others.
The GPL is parasitic because it cannot be revoked.
Does that mean other licenses that can't be revoked, such as the BSD license most other licenses, are also parasitic? No. It simply means you don't know what a parasite is.
A parasite does not do harm to its host. A bird making a nest in a tree has attached itself and is likely to replicate, yet no sensible person would call it a parasite because it does no harm. Clearly you don't know what a parasite is.
The only thing people mean when they say the GPL is viral is that it attaches itself permanently to code and replicates perfect copies of itself.
The GPL is no more permanent than any other copyright license and neither attaches itself to anything nor performs self-replication. One must consciously choose to incorporate GPL covered code into a project in which case one can comply with it's terms by using the GPL or any compatible license for the work as a whole. Therefore your statement is wrong from begining to end and does not justify the claim that the GPL is viral.
There are tens of thousands of examples of how the GPL is viral on sourceforge.
The existance of a project licensed under the GPL is not in and of itself an example of a viral property. Otherwise the existance of a BSD licensed project would indicate a viral property of that license, and so on for other licenses.
You are UTTERLY RETARDED. You don't know what specious means without looking it up in a dictionary. You need to put down the vodka and sober up. I'm picturing you taking a dump. Go sit out in the fresh air and use your noodle awhile to actually think.
Apparently when the going gets tough, Cranx rounds up a bunch of fourth grade students from a local playground and asks them for tips. Unfortunately, none of this is justifies the claim that the GPL is viral.
Give it up Cranx. You're just not good at this sort of thing.
Pulling out the "Latin for Dummies" book is a smooth move.
Why thank you. Making a churlish remark which implies that my knowledge of Latin is limited instead of actually testing it with an intelligent question is... well, not especially smooth. There is nothing wrong with not knowing Latin, so there is no reason you could not have absorbed the information I provided without making a fool of yourself yet again.
I've already made my point clear, so I won't repea.[sic]
Indeed, you've made your point perfectly clear: you are determined to believe that the GPL is somehow viral regardless of all evidence to the contrary, and you are untroubled by the muddled nature of your statements.
If you can't find evidence that the GPL is viral, you need to put down the vodka and sober up because sourceforge has tens of thousands of examples.
How does the existance of a project licensed under the GPL provide evidence that the GPL is viral? A quick look around on sourceforge will reveal many projects with BSD, Artistic and other licenses. Does that mean these are viral as well? Or is this just one more example of how hopelessly confused and inarticulate you are? Perhaps you should take your own advice and cut down on the booze.
I'm paying attention, but you're not convincing me.
I'm not going to convince you of anything because your insistance that the GPL is viral seems to be rooted in religion rather than reason. Somehow it has become a cherished belief for you and nothing so prosaic as a rational argument is going to change your little mind. But I'm not about to leave your meandering witterings unrebutted.
Then [a file server that hosts its own code is] like every living organism in the world carrying it's own DNA. No particular relation to virii.
Then the same is true of the GPL. There is no particular relation to viruses. By the way, "virus" is a Latin word pronounced "weir-us" meaning "slime" or "poison" but despite its ending it is a second declension neuter noun. That means the plural would be "vira" (pronounced "weir-ah") not "virii". However, we speak a language called English, so "viruses" will do just fine.
The GPL is not a living organism, therefore you can find LOTS of differences between it and a virus. That doesn't meant that the viral analogy isn't an appropriate one. I feel it's extremely appropriate.
Clearly you feel no need to back up the silly assertion that the GPL is like a virus with anything resembling evidence. Everything you've put forward so far has been demonstrably wrong and there's nothing new this time. Apparently you're like Humpty Dumpty: when you use a word it means whatever you want it to regardless of what it means to the rest of the world.
You need the dictionary; go check the definition of parasite. A parasite does not, by definition, do harm to a host, it merely lives off the host without contributing to the survival of the host.
Wrong. You've given a passable definition of a communal relationship, which is not parasitic. A bird making a nest in a tree is not a parasite, even though it lives in it and doesn't do it any good. A parasite would drain resources from the tree which qualifies as doing harm.
This is elementary biology here. Did you somehow miss ninth grade?
And again, the GPL is not a living organism, so any analogies drawn between it and a living organism are tentatively contextual.
No, sorry that's just muddled thinking on your part. Some analogies are a good fit and are helpful in advancing a discussion. A computer virus is similar in important ways to a biological virus because both infect unwilling hosts and use their resources to spread copies of themselves. Other analogies are a poor fit and merely confuse the issue. Claiming that the BSD licenses is like a prion would be nonsensical -- they have nothing in common. Nor does the GPL have anything important in common with a virus.
Execpt perhaps on whatever planet you're from, Humpty. Be careful you don't wobble too much up on that wall.
[...]arguing that the GPL is not parasitic because you think (wrongly, I must add) the term parasitic means to inflict harm upon its host and the GPL causes no harm to the applications its attached itself to
Which claim do you dispute? That parasites harm their hosts? I've pointed out that you've got that wrong above, so you'll have to take that one up with a dictionary yourself.
Or do you believe the GPL does harm to applications it is attached to? (I've also pointed out that the GPL does not attach itself to anything)? Do elaborate on that, if you are able. Otherwise it's just more nonsense.
UTTERLY RETARDED.
When I was in fourth grade those would have been fighting words. Since then I've grown up. You should try doing that yourself, as it would do you a world of good.
Just because you have a short attention span doesn't mean I was trying to change the subject. If you found yourself wandering brainlessly around the subject of bacteriophages, blame yourself, not me.
You see, this is you not paying attention again. As I said, I didn't give your irrelevant distractio
Like I said, people are worried about the negative emotional baggage with the term "viral" and ignoring its true fitness for describing the GPL.
Wrong again. The term "viral" both carries negative emotional baggage and is a poor analogy to the GPL. I've already explained this, but I'll go over it once more for you. Do pay attention this time.
Something that make perfect copies of something else is not viral, so no, a file server that copies files or anything else is not viral.
What if the file server hosts a copy of its own source code? By your standards we should look past the bad connotations and call it "viral" because it makes perfect copies of itself. Obviously that's wrong. Unlike a virus this is not self directing, someone has to initiate the copy. The same is true of the GPL. It doesn't sneak into code against he will of the author; someone has to deliberately and consciously put it there every time.
No, I'm not stretching the truth. Virii are parasitic, yes, just like the GPL. Once a project has been released as GPL, it is forever so and cannot be revoked; it is attached forever.
Please pick up a dictionary and look up "parasitic". A parasite is not defined by being attached forever, but by doing harm to an unwilling host. Furthermore, most licenses -- including the BSD license -- are effective for the duration of the copyright (so the GPL does not last forever, alas) on a work released under its terms. While GPL encourages people to apply it by forbidding derivative works under an incompatible license, this is clearly not parasitic behavior.
I suppose you're right that you're not stretching the truth, since you've barely even noticed it.
However, they do NOT always take without giving. [irrelevant wittering about baceriophages omitted]
Exceptions to the parasitic rule of natural viruses are completely irrelevant, as are scientific attempts to turn them to useful purposes. The GPL is not a molecule and has no meaningful resemblance to those molecules we call viruses. But don't be dissuaded from attempting to change the subject since you obviously know precious little about the one at hand.
And no, replication is NOT beside the point. It *IS* the point, the only point, in calling the GPL viral. [...] it attaches itself permanently to people's code and replicates itself perfectly.
Again, this is complete nonsense. The GPL does not attach itself to anything. A person may make the decision to accept its terms and replicate its conditions or refrefrain from creating derivative works. No self-replication is happening and there is no parasitic relationship in sight. Nor is this process any more permanent than the results of applying a BSD license.
Clearly you have an adgenda here that has nothing to do with the facts. Maybe you're angry because the GPL doesn't let you misappropriate the work of others, or maybe you're just jealous that some high profile GPL licensed project is more popular than your favorite. Whatever. I look forward to shredding your next round of specious rambling.
What he's saying is, unless he's willing to change his license to the GPL, he cannot use the GPL code.
Indeed. I think that's a good thing. Anyone considering reusing code from my GPL covered work should pass on the freedoms I've provided or look elsewhere.
The GPL would force him to do so. In this way, the GPL isn't very free or friendly;
You've lost sight of the larger reality. The GPL isn't forcing him to do anything or taking away anything he had before. As a matter of fact, it's giving quite a lot. He is free to use the code for any purpose, study, modify, distribute or sell it. That's quite free and friendly. The only thing it doesn't allow is creating a derivative work which denies those freedoms to others. Arguably that's less free than a BSD license, depending on whether or not you think the freedom to impose proprietary restrictions on other people is important. I don't. You are welcome to disagree, but please refrain from making churlish and misleading statements about how "viral" and "non-free" the GPL is.
in fact, it's quite viral as it gives him only two options: don't use the code, or use it and be forced to release his product as GPL.
A virus strives to give you one option: become infected and do what the virus wants. That makes the comparison to the GPL or even most proprietary licenses quite silly.
The GPL attempts to attach itself to his product and then replicate a perfect copy of itself.
Again, you're stretching the truth and missing the salient point about viruses: they are parasitic, taking away without giving. The GPL takes nothing away and is completely voluntary, as you've stated several times. Replication is beside the point. Should a file server that stives to make perfect copies be called viral too?
His only real choice, unless he wants to be assimilated, is to avoid the GPL code entirely.
He has a choice. That's what counts. I have a choice too. I choose to protect the freedom of my code with the GPL. Nobody has to like that, but everyone who isn't willing to give up the choice of license for their own code should respect it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't honestly know how difficult it would be to have the Swing team add the ability to ask the OS which theme is current, but it would probably be a hell of a lot easier than rewriting all the native peers to use AWT instead.
Why would I bother? As I said the GCJ and GNU Classpath developers are already doing this for me. Furthermore, I think having Java code that somehow emulates the current GTK+ theme would be much more effort and perform much worse than rewriting all the native peers. After all the native peers are *designed* to be rewritten for each new platform Java is ported to. All that is really involved is using JNI to bind constructors and methods to the appropriate underlying GTK+ functions. Simple.
Looking at the page you referenced, what it said was A lightweight component is a component that is not associated with a native opaque window. So, I guess the Component class itself is not associated with a Peer...
Exactly. I usually place my lightweight custom components inside an applet window and integrate them into a web application. Using Swing would be overkill in such cases. I suppose that technically I'm not using much of AWT other than the event model and graphics processing routines it shares with Swing.
I don't need to [invoke a new Java VM for every incomming web process].
Of course you don't. That would be insane. The point I was trying to make is that this is *not* insane for all but the most demanding Python applications. I think this says something troubling about Java performance in general, and in fact people at Sun think so too. That's not to say that a clever Java programmer can't make a reasonably fast application, just that he or she has an uphill battle.
Performance is not critical for every aspect of every application. And the good news is that the Python example suggests that much of the Java performance problem is due to poor virtual machine implementation rather than any fundamental flaw. That means things might get better over time. I don't think Java will ever be able to compete with C for speed in all cases, any more than C will ever be able to compete with assembly for speed in all cases. But surely Java could catch up to Python. Releasing a free software version of the Sun VM might bring that about since it would give more people a chance to make suggestions and test experimental virtual machine variants.
After working for companies that build everything on Windows, Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, AS/400, etc.... I can't tell you how happy I am to only compile once. I no longer have to modify the makefile every time we try to build X or Y on platform Z... it really is a HUGE timesaver for the developer.
Actually I've worked for companies that build for each of those platforms except AS/400 (plus some others like s/390 Linux). I never found the compile isses terribly challenging, and we used scripts to automate nightly and release builds. Much more problematic were things like the lack of a good pseudo-random number generator on many proprietary platforms, and these issues often affect Java no less than C or any other language.
In addition, I have downloaded services for my BSD box (that were newer than the Port Collection), and been completely unable to figure out how to get them to compile properly, and fix the errors. Had they distributed it as a jar (especially over JNLP), I would not have had to go through all that hassles, and those services would be currently running.
I think you underestimate how much this kind of problem affects Java. Just try installing two or more major enterprise Java applications. Each will require a virtual machine from a specific and often mutually exclusive subset of vendors and version numbers. Perhaps someday the Java platform will be less of a moving target and this argument will be stronger. A free software virtual machine
I can see that. So, really, what we need is a solution where an open-source OS (thus alleiviating their fear of M$ practices) could include it on the install disc?
Yes, that would be a considerable improvement. Note though that there are plenty of other benefits of making j2sdk free software, both for the world at large and for Sun Microsystems. I thnk the parent article on LinuxToday makes the case for that quite well.
From the way I understand it, [...] there is an AWT component for the main window.
This matches my (somewhat rusty) understanding of things.
Well, with Swing, you have the option of your application [...] looking like other native applications
I've not tried this, but I suspect that things will not work the way I want them to because, as you pointed out, Swing uses Java code to do the drawing of components. I want the buttons, scroll bars and other widgets to use whatever GTK+ theme I have configured. I also want it to change dynamically at runtime if I alter my GTK+ theme. Using GTK native peers would accomplish this easily, but to do it in Java code seems impractical.
I don't think that [implementing lighweight components in AWT] is technically possible.
I should have been more clear about what I mean. I create subclasses of java.awt.Component and override the paint() and update() methods. According to the API reference this creates a lightweight component with no native peer, much the way Swing does. A JButton is a subclass of java.awt.Component too.
I usually use XML
I do that as well. This has advantages over relational databases in places where absolute performance is not critical. I meant that for user interfaces I use Python CGI scripts that generate a web based user interface. (I keep meaning to try mod_python, but so far in spite of my best efforts I've been unable to make my Python code slow enough for this to be worthwhile. Imagine invoking a new Java VM for every incomming web process!)
I still don't understand. AWT is the one that looks really ugly, Swing has the look-n-feel/theming options.
I didn't mean that I think Swing is ugly (or that AWT isn't ugly -- though really the problem is that Motif is ugly and AWT uses Motif). I meant that the look and feel doesn't match my desktop GTK+ theme as I mentioned above.
I prefer writing all of my BSD software (and am in the process of replacing all my httpd, ftpd, sshd, smtpd, etc) in Java, because then I don't have to be tied to any specific OS.
I suppose time will tell and I wish you luck with the project, but I'm skeptical. Packages such as Apache (and even OpenSSH, which does run on Windows) are quite portable. All one saves with Java is a compile step, and while this is a powerful advantage for applications I think the dynamics of system software are less affected by it. Most people get their operating systems on CDs and through vendor updates, so code mobility is not a concern.
On the other side, I believe performance will suffer, particularly on non-Windows platforms where the Sun VM is grotesquely slow. Non-blocking I/O is indeed efficient (though it is best to combine it with threading for SMP systems), but this feature is at least as easy to use in C.
I am actually working on something like that, because I think that idea is the perfect solution. Make a Java-based OS on CDR(W), and run it on and i386, mac, ps2, dreamcast, etc.
Again, good luck but I'm skeptical. Ultimately you will need something very much like a Unix kernel to talk directly to the hardware and implement the Java VM. I'm also not convinced that maintenence will be much easer. Most C projects separate and minimize platform specific code. A JavaOS would still need testing for each platform, and for the same reasons. Note that Sun and IBM have tried and failed to create a viable JavaOS already. That do
Are you saying that the problem is that they can not download it and put it on the Debian CD for redistribution?
Yes. Other more subtle problems of a similar nature lurk here as well.
If that is the entire problem, why can't they do it like the BSD port system, where the makefile downloads the most recent one and installs it?
That isn't the entire problem, but even so a BSD like port system is not a good solution for everyone. For example it doesn't work well for people who have low bandwidth or inconsistent connections. Obviously you're right to point out that Java is somewhat accessible to Debian and FreeBSD users, but that is not what Open Source means. I use the Sun JDK on Fedora for everything GCJ doesn't currently do. Still, significant problems would be solved if Java were more open.
I am not clear why you prefer AWT.
I am more pleased with the concept of AWT than with the actual implementation. As you say, it is dreadful. However, as I understand it -- do correct me if I'm mistaken -- Swing is built on top of AWT, which means that while it doesn't have to be slow, it can't plausibly be much faster. Also, AWT is certainly as cross-platform as anything else in Java.
Do you mean that the look and feel varies by platform? I consider that a good feature in principle since I prefer applications to be consistent across a desktop. Clearly that's a matter of taste though, and there's no accounting for it. Naturally the lack of GTK+ and Qt based AWT implementations makes things much uglier than they need to be in practice.
I usually find myself implementing lighweight components in AWT, but then I generally use HTML and forms backed by Python for everything they can support and wheel out Java only for custom widgets. I suspect that if I were writing entire applications with Java I would grudgingly prefer Swing in spite of the look and feel issue.
Since the Java chips are 32-bit with only 8-bit operands, they are able to grab 4 instructions and use 1 every clock cycle, [...]
This is not an advantage that is unique to Java. Donald Knuth's MMIX architecture has the same property and there is a GCC back-end so C, C++, Fortran, Java and other languages can be used with it easily. Unlike the alleged .NET language neutrality no changes to syntax are required. Even standard libraries only need to be changed enough to make low level system calls work.
What do you mean by ["the advantages of Java are application focused"]? Do you mean that it is no good for server software (which it is even better for than GUIs), or do you mean that it is not good for things like device drivers?
I mean the latter. (I don't dispute the utility of Java for server software, but I prefer Python for a variety of reasons.) Well, actually, I mean that the advantages of Java are not especially compelling for system software in general. A Write Once Run Anywhere kernel seems a bit nonsensical. Similarly, running system daemons on top of a virtual machine seems unlikley improve anything.
USB device drivers are an interesting counter-example, though I think the notion that software which communicates with a device over a USB bus is a "device driver" is a bit misleading and conceals what makes USB great: it transforms something that was once clearly system software into something more like application code.
Every single time you see any application crash in your OS, that is a runtime exception.
That's an interesting way of looking at things. Are you saying all exceptions ought to be checked exceptions? Does that include NullPointerException and OutOfMemoryError? Plenty of shoddy software that doesn't deal with these gets sent to customers. What makes exceptions useful in the first place is that they allow parts of a program to ignore problems that they couldn't reasonably do anything about. Checked exceptions take that advantage away, often tearing enorm
I am also tired of all the "Java-should-be-Open-Source" by people who have never bothered to spend 10 minutes looking into the JCP and how Java IS currently Open Source and how Java is NOT run exclusively by Sun anymore. Every couple days/weeks, I log onto Slashdot and someone else is making these presumptious claims without looking into the facts.
No doubt this situation is complicated by the fact that "Java" means several dozen things, but Java (meaning the Java Developer Kit) is NOT Open Source. As a result, it is impossible to distribute it with any operating systems without obtaining some sort of permission from Sun. This is a real problem, especially for freely redistributable systems like Fedora and Debian.
As for the Java Community Process, while it is much more open than it could be, it is NOT Open Source. As a result, there are ongoing problems with free software projects such as JBOSS. Though Sun has taken some steps to address these, there is more work to be done. Surely you're right that there is plenty of ignorance in the Slashdot community that works against Sun, but the truth is there are real problems created and perpetuated by choices Sun has made and continues to make.
2) The coder wrote it in AWT
I like the concept of the AWT. A consistent look and feel for applications is desirable. Also, having as much as possible of the system -- and especially the fundamentally non-portable things -- implemented in a more efficient language[1] is a good thing. All of the advantages of Java are application focused, which may be why things like JavaOS never went anywhere. The trouble with AWT as I see it is that the interface caters to the lowest common denominator, which is backwards. An interface should cater to the highest common denominator and emulate features on systems that don't have them.
Sure, use a Java tree widget on platforms that don't have tree widgets, but give me an AWT interface that makes it impossible for me to tell that native code isn't being used without a special query. This lets the system improve as the underlying platform does without forcing anyone to rewrite code. Methods that can't be supported can throw exceptions (runtime exceptions please -- I loathe checked exceptions).
The problem I have with Swing is that it has so many bells and whistles that I don't need or even want, but nevertheless have to pay a performance cost for. I use GTK+, so I've already got a theme engine. An AWT backed by GTK+ would give my applications a consistent look of the sort I want. This will happen before long because of gij, but exposing all of GTK+ would either require more widgets or non-portable code.
[1] Please don't pester me with breathless praise of HotSpot here. I understand and agree that it is in principle possible for dynamically compiled Java code to be faster than C code in some cases. However in practice this just doesn't happen. All of my C applications run significantly faster than equivalent Java applications for all cases I have ever tested. I use Sun J2SDK 1.4.2 for this kind of testing.
I also concede that higher productivity can outweigh higher performance in many cases, and that some programmers do better in this regard when using Java. I'm not one of them. My productivity is consistently with object oriented C (and even C++). Feel free to presume that this is because I don't know this or that important facet of using Java effectively, but try not to think about how this undermines the argument that Java is easier to use. ;-)
I'd like to have a VM for C++ *and* Java. That would surely rock and end some of the flamewars.
So would I, but please let's not make it anything like the tortured and ugly Java Virtual Machine. I suggest using MMIX (Donald Knuth's updated virutal machine developed for demonstrating algorithms in assembly for his books). Start with a high quality free software implementation of this and make use of the GCC back-end for its instruction set, and all that's left are some browser plugins. Every language GCC supports (including Java) should work with this approach.
(*)- The often stated security argument (java has no pointers and is therefore inherently more secure than C++) would fall with C++ on a VM.
Not quite. The virtual machine doesn't really understand pointers at all, so implementing C++ on it -- which would probably involve simulating pointers using byte arrays -- might produce code with faulty security assumptions, but it would not enable malicious code to escape the sandbox. I'm not convinced that the lack of pointers as a security feature is really all that effective, but it will take a better argument than that to make progress on the issue.
There are a few in the Opensource community that would love all software to roam "free" in all sense of the word, but I for one do not think that Opensource is the answer to every problem.
People who want to see all software "roam" free don't necessarily believe that this is the answer to every problem either. We do think it is the answer to some problems, though. For instance, it is a potent cure for vendor lock-in and protects important freedoms that we value. What problem does the proprietary approach to software solve that is worth giving that up?
Meanwhile, you seem to have completely missed the point that the article in question makes. The author spells out clear and convincing reasons why in the particular case of Sun and Java, a free software license is the right tool for the job -- not the job of making free software advocates happy, but rather for making Sun a dominant player in the information technology industry. He doesn't say that every software package should be free software.
If suddenly there are 50 versions of J2EE on the market, each with its unquie traits, which do I run? How do I know that the app I program will work on the others?
This is already the case. There are already a bewildering variety of Java virtual machines with unique traits available. Sun, IBM, HP, BEA and so on offer their own brand of JVM. Clean-room varieties of all shapes and sizes exist. Most are proprietary software. Why would making the Sun implementation free software aggrivate this problem? Most likely it would make things better as many vendors would use the Sun code to increase the compatability of their own versions.
This is why a lot of developers won't port to linux, especially desktop applications: too many variations.
This is nonsense. First of all, Windows is not a single operating system. In the last decade Microsoft has deployed NT, 95, 98, 2000, XP, ME and CE systems out there (I'm probably forgetting a few), and each is different in subtle ways. Somehow this collection of platforms manages to get plenty of applications. Second, a much more important reason vendors don't port to GNU/Linux is that they judge the available market to be too small for the effort. Remember that BeOS didn't go anywhere, and there was just one variation of that. Third, many developers do port to some subset of GNU/Linux systems successfully in spite of the variations. Some just pick a popular distribution such as RedHat. Of course, people creating free software applications can just wait for patches from people who prefer this or that obscure distribution. Meanwhile, a great deal of innovation is quietly proceeding in the many distributions available.
I see the same potential of Java, to become slpit into so many forks, that it defeats the purpose in the first place.
Perhaps your crystal ball needs a bit of polishing. At any rate you've given no convicing reasons why we should expect a free software release of the Sun JDK to result in forks. Most of the variety in free software comes from completely separate applications that share no code at all. That's not a fork. Actual forking is rare and usually happens for good reasons. Even then, much compatability is often preserved. For example, some RPM packages can be installed just as easily on RedHat as on distributions derived from it.
Another good example is a good friend that is developing a support ticket application for the company he works for. I asked him, "Isn't there several GPL'd apps outhere that could installed within a couple hours?" He responded of course, but he put it this way: "I like to use my own code and not other peoples. Its a lot less messy that way." and I see his point.
This is completely irrelevant. Not only does it have nothing to do with Java or this discussion, but it is completely unrelated to the difference between free and proprietary software. I could tell rather similar stories about avoiding messy proprie
Have you not looked around lately? In addition to virtual machines from Sun, IBM, HP, BEA and the like there are plenty of crufty proprietary clean-room implementations from tiny vendors who support them poorly. There are even high quality free software versions such as Kaffe and gcj/gij. A bewildering array of Java forks already exists and as it is these are often incompatible in strange ways, not least of which that most lack features found in Sun's J2SDK 1.2 and higher. And then there are the various forks that Sun perpetuates, such as J2ME and J2EE.
The likely effect of making Java free software would be to make at least the free software virutal machines *more* compatible, not less. People in the free software community actually want their virutal machines to be as compatible as possible and consider operational differences to be bugs. Notice efforts like GNU Classpath which tend to un-fork free implementations. The major obstacle to compatability is the need to create clean-room implementations of absolutely everything, and making the J2SDK free software would solve that problem.
Careful. That shell script may contain valuable and confidential SCO intellectual property. ;-)
If a project with 1000 source files, totalling a million lines of code uses some GPL code in one of the routines that performs some utility function, is the application based on the GPL program? According to armchair lawyers on Slashdot the answer is YES, however would a judge and jury see it the same way?
You expect to get a better answer than the one an armchair lawyer on Slashdot would give by... asking on Slashdot? Ingenious.
That was the worse insult I think I've ever encountered. I'm more insulted that you would think I would be offended by such a diminutive effort to insult me than I am offended by the insult itself.
That is absolutely hilarious. Well done.
Are you still here? I hope you didn't strain your puny little mind thinking of a reason to continue this volley.
Goodbye and good riddance.
What made you think I might be fluent in French, exactly? Were you that impressed?
Misundertanding the blatantly obvious seems to define you, Cranky. The point of everything I've said on this subject was that I was not impressed by your pompous use of profanity in a foreign language. I suggested you demonstrate a fluency in French as a way of redeeming yourself from this latest self-inflicted humiliation, but like basic logic and so many other things that's simply beyond your ability. Now you're trying to turn your lack of aptitude into something that reflects badly on me? Whatever.
Got any new interesting journal entries?
Perhaps I'll collect my dissection of the nonsensical claim that the GPL is viral and use that as the basis for a journal entry at some point.
Now you have gone delusionally into the subject of whether or not I am fluent in French.
In other words, you don't actually know French and merely threw a few common words into your post in a pompous attempt to salve your bruised ego. Now that I've called your bluff you've resorted to defensive whining and all the usual canards. I wish I could say I was surprised.
You are obsessive and delusional, to say the least. A class-A cult candidate if I ever saw one.
So now you claim to be qualified to make psychiatric diagnoses? Tell me, exactly how much research into cult behavior have you actually done? Enough to identify a class-A cult candidate? Or is this just even more of your empty headed bluster?
Atta boy, Cranx. Do whatever it takes to avoid sticking to a subject, since the moment you take a stand you're sure to be clobbered.
Don't stalk me, ok?
You're the one digging through someone else's slashdot journal. If this exchange is so exhausting for you feel free to slink away in shame. I won't miss you.
I find it amusing you made the assumption I used a translator.
I have assumed nothing, but anyone with a web browser and a free moment can produce three words in almost any language. Are you claiming fluency in French? Prove it. Simply make one of your characteristic content-free snide posts completely in French. Soyez sûr d'employer quelques verbes cette fois. A few sentences with reasonable grammar will convince me, but be warned that what comes out of web translation programs is quite easy to identify.
Of course, like the rest of your prattling, this has nothing to do with the original topic, but after you've made such a fool of yourself I'm curious to see whether you know anything at all.
So you remain unable to address the issue, resorting once again to unimaginative profanity instead. No surprise there.
Or did you think I would be impressed by your ability to chuck a few words into babelfish? Sorry, no. Perhaps you could try stringing a few sentences of French together so that I can see if your grammar is any good.
You still have not provided me with sufficient evidence that the GPL is not viral to counter my belief that it attaches itself permanently to projects and then replicates perfect copies of itself; defining behaviors of a virus.
I don't need to counter your demented belief. Reasonable people in the real world use GPL licensed software all the time, on its own or as part of derivative works. With the exception of Microsoft executives and cranks like yourself, people just don't believe that the GPL is viral. That's because it isn't.
How does the GPL attach itself to code? It is a license which must be applied by conscious choice of a software developer every time. Do you doubt this? Do you seriously claim such an obvious fact isn't so? So far you've done nothing more than assert that it attaches itself without even addressing this simple point.
How does the GPL replicate perfect copies of itself? Again, a software developer is required to perform that operation by choice, as with "cp" or some equivalent tool. Do you doubt this one? Are you even capable of addressing the issue?
Until you take on these questions and explain why the facts above don't undermine your case all of your desparate claims to the intellectual high ground do nothing more than make you look even more foolish.
You've lost so much ground! You write love letters to RMS! You have too much of a cult mentality! You nit-pick and stonewall! You quote from a Latin booklet! Show me a medical site with other types of virii that have sex with glitter!
<YAWN/> Not only do you have the intelligence of a doorknob, you're about equally imaginative. I'm pleased to see that your ego is still too bruised to allow you to drop the virus thing. That's a sure sign that I'm doing a good job of humiliating you. I do hope it will make an appearance in your next little temper tantrum.
the only evidence of critical thinking you've performed is nit-picking on the syntax of "virus."
That one really seems to have stung you. :-)
You remind me of a born-again Christian arguing for the existence of a god.
Once again an attempt to change the subject, eh Cranx? Religion has nothing to do with the GPL, expect perhaps in your little world.
You can't actually delve into the subject itself, you have to dance around and create a hostile atmosphere, using external references such as the Latin origins of the term "viral" and then go on to summarize with bulleted paragraphs.
Now this is a gem, perfectly framing your foolishness. I have undeniably delved into the subject itself, and even summarized the points I've made for you with the very bulleted paragraphs you casually deride. Not one of those points has been graced by a direct response from you. Instead you dance around the issue and deny plain reality. I'm not impressed.
Can't let that Latin thing go, can you Cranx? I am most pleased to have frustrated you so effectively.
You are dazzled by RMS' governing light and are now completely protected from all arguments regarding the GPL, and you have nothing more to offer this or ANY discussion any more than reflexive counter-propaganda.
So you admit that your ramblings about the viral nature of the GPL are propaganda? That is some progress, at last. While I'd be delighted to demonstrate how I can respond rationally to arguments regarding the GPL, you would actually have to provide one for me to respond to. It's never too late, you know.
Speaking of your god, I glanced briefly at your journal entry regarding RMS. Touching diatribe.
Well well well. Only one post ago you declared that I was a sad sack because I wasted too much time on slashdot. Now here you are whiling away the day reading my journal! Were I able to summon a shred of respect for you I would be flattered. Congratulations on adding hypocrite to your long list of demonstrated deficiencies.
Even 10 minutes is a waste of time
So says you, a person who has demonstrated an inability to think clearly and has wasted plenty of his own time on this discussion. I don't much care what intellectually feeble people like yourself think of the GPL or me for that matter. If you can't construct a rational argument you just don't matter.
Actually, I spent less than ten minutes making that bullet list. You see, this game is quite easy for me. I can play as long as you like.
Oh, and the GPL is not viral.
Now you're just trolling. That's a sure sign that you've lost the argument and you know it.
I refuse to address your questions.
I've noticed. I'm sure that if you had the intellectual capacity to address them you would. Instead you pretend that your empty assertions and unimaginative are a substitute for argument. That's just pitiful.
I have nothing to say now which I haven't already said.
No? Let's recall what you've said so far in support of your absurd claim that the GPL is viral. I've removed some of your most silly errors for the sake of clarity.
A virus, whether of the computer or biological variety, strives to give its host no choice at all. This is altogether unlike what the GPL does and therefore does not justify claims that it is viral.
The term viral actually isn't a good fit. That there is negative emotional baggage merely suggests that those who insist on using it are motivated by some petty jealousy or a desire to misappropriate the work of others.
Does that mean other licenses that can't be revoked, such as the BSD license most other licenses, are also parasitic? No. It simply means you don't know what a parasite is.
A bird making a nest in a tree has attached itself and is likely to replicate, yet no sensible person would call it a parasite because it does no harm. Clearly you don't know what a parasite is.
The GPL is no more permanent than any other copyright license and neither attaches itself to anything nor performs self-replication. One must consciously choose to incorporate GPL covered code into a project in which case one can comply with it's terms by using the GPL or any compatible license for the work as a whole. Therefore your statement is wrong from begining to end and does not justify the claim that the GPL is viral.
The existance of a project licensed under the GPL is not in and of itself an example of a viral property. Otherwise the existance of a BSD licensed project would indicate a viral property of that license, and so on for other licenses.
Apparently when the going gets tough, Cranx rounds up a bunch of fourth grade students from a local playground and asks them for tips. Unfortunately, none of this is justifies the claim that the GPL is viral.
Give it up Cranx. You're just not good at this sort of thing.
Pulling out the "Latin for Dummies" book is a smooth move.
Why thank you. Making a churlish remark which implies that my knowledge of Latin is limited instead of actually testing it with an intelligent question is... well, not especially smooth. There is nothing wrong with not knowing Latin, so there is no reason you could not have absorbed the information I provided without making a fool of yourself yet again.
I've already made my point clear, so I won't repea.[sic]
Indeed, you've made your point perfectly clear: you are determined to believe that the GPL is somehow viral regardless of all evidence to the contrary, and you are untroubled by the muddled nature of your statements.
If you can't find evidence that the GPL is viral, you need to put down the vodka and sober up because sourceforge has tens of thousands of examples.
How does the existance of a project licensed under the GPL provide evidence that the GPL is viral? A quick look around on sourceforge will reveal many projects with BSD, Artistic and other licenses. Does that mean these are viral as well? Or is this just one more example of how hopelessly confused and inarticulate you are? Perhaps you should take your own advice and cut down on the booze.
I'm paying attention, but you're not convincing me.
I'm not going to convince you of anything because your insistance that the GPL is viral seems to be rooted in religion rather than reason. Somehow it has become a cherished belief for you and nothing so prosaic as a rational argument is going to change your little mind. But I'm not about to leave your meandering witterings unrebutted.
Then [a file server that hosts its own code is] like every living organism in the world carrying it's own DNA. No particular relation to virii.
Then the same is true of the GPL. There is no particular relation to viruses. By the way, "virus" is a Latin word pronounced "weir-us" meaning "slime" or "poison" but despite its ending it is a second declension neuter noun. That means the plural would be "vira" (pronounced "weir-ah") not "virii". However, we speak a language called English, so "viruses" will do just fine.
The GPL is not a living organism, therefore you can find LOTS of differences between it and a virus. That doesn't meant that the viral analogy isn't an appropriate one. I feel it's extremely appropriate.
Clearly you feel no need to back up the silly assertion that the GPL is like a virus with anything resembling evidence. Everything you've put forward so far has been demonstrably wrong and there's nothing new this time. Apparently you're like Humpty Dumpty: when you use a word it means whatever you want it to regardless of what it means to the rest of the world.
You need the dictionary; go check the definition of parasite. A parasite does not, by definition, do harm to a host, it merely lives off the host without contributing to the survival of the host.
Wrong. You've given a passable definition of a communal relationship, which is not parasitic. A bird making a nest in a tree is not a parasite, even though it lives in it and doesn't do it any good. A parasite would drain resources from the tree which qualifies as doing harm.
This is elementary biology here. Did you somehow miss ninth grade?
And again, the GPL is not a living organism, so any analogies drawn between it and a living organism are tentatively contextual.
No, sorry that's just muddled thinking on your part. Some analogies are a good fit and are helpful in advancing a discussion. A computer virus is similar in important ways to a biological virus because both infect unwilling hosts and use their resources to spread copies of themselves. Other analogies are a poor fit and merely confuse the issue. Claiming that the BSD licenses is like a prion would be nonsensical -- they have nothing in common. Nor does the GPL have anything important in common with a virus.
Execpt perhaps on whatever planet you're from, Humpty. Be careful you don't wobble too much up on that wall.
[...]arguing that the GPL is not parasitic because you think (wrongly, I must add) the term parasitic means to inflict harm upon its host and the GPL causes no harm to the applications its attached itself to
Which claim do you dispute? That parasites harm their hosts? I've pointed out that you've got that wrong above, so you'll have to take that one up with a dictionary yourself.
Or do you believe the GPL does harm to applications it is attached to? (I've also pointed out that the GPL does not attach itself to anything)? Do elaborate on that, if you are able. Otherwise it's just more nonsense.
UTTERLY RETARDED.
When I was in fourth grade those would have been fighting words. Since then I've grown up. You should try doing that yourself, as it would do you a world of good.
Just because you have a short attention span doesn't mean I was trying to change the subject. If you found yourself wandering brainlessly around the subject of bacteriophages, blame yourself, not me.
You see, this is you not paying attention again. As I said, I didn't give your irrelevant distractio
Like I said, people are worried about the negative emotional baggage with the term "viral" and ignoring its true fitness for describing the GPL.
Wrong again. The term "viral" both carries negative emotional baggage and is a poor analogy to the GPL. I've already explained this, but I'll go over it once more for you. Do pay attention this time.
Something that make perfect copies of something else is not viral, so no, a file server that copies files or anything else is not viral.
What if the file server hosts a copy of its own source code? By your standards we should look past the bad connotations and call it "viral" because it makes perfect copies of itself. Obviously that's wrong. Unlike a virus this is not self directing, someone has to initiate the copy. The same is true of the GPL. It doesn't sneak into code against he will of the author; someone has to deliberately and consciously put it there every time.
No, I'm not stretching the truth. Virii are parasitic, yes, just like the GPL. Once a project has been released as GPL, it is forever so and cannot be revoked; it is attached forever.
Please pick up a dictionary and look up "parasitic". A parasite is not defined by being attached forever, but by doing harm to an unwilling host. Furthermore, most licenses -- including the BSD license -- are effective for the duration of the copyright (so the GPL does not last forever, alas) on a work released under its terms. While GPL encourages people to apply it by forbidding derivative works under an incompatible license, this is clearly not parasitic behavior.
I suppose you're right that you're not stretching the truth, since you've barely even noticed it.
However, they do NOT always take without giving. [irrelevant wittering about baceriophages omitted]
Exceptions to the parasitic rule of natural viruses are completely irrelevant, as are scientific attempts to turn them to useful purposes. The GPL is not a molecule and has no meaningful resemblance to those molecules we call viruses. But don't be dissuaded from attempting to change the subject since you obviously know precious little about the one at hand.
And no, replication is NOT beside the point. It *IS* the point, the only point, in calling the GPL viral. [...] it attaches itself permanently to people's code and replicates itself perfectly.
Again, this is complete nonsense. The GPL does not attach itself to anything. A person may make the decision to accept its terms and replicate its conditions or refrefrain from creating derivative works. No self-replication is happening and there is no parasitic relationship in sight. Nor is this process any more permanent than the results of applying a BSD license.
Clearly you have an adgenda here that has nothing to do with the facts. Maybe you're angry because the GPL doesn't let you misappropriate the work of others, or maybe you're just jealous that some high profile GPL licensed project is more popular than your favorite. Whatever. I look forward to shredding your next round of specious rambling.
What he's saying is, unless he's willing to change his license to the GPL, he cannot use the GPL code.
Indeed. I think that's a good thing. Anyone considering reusing code from my GPL covered work should pass on the freedoms I've provided or look elsewhere.
The GPL would force him to do so. In this way, the GPL isn't very free or friendly;
You've lost sight of the larger reality. The GPL isn't forcing him to do anything or taking away anything he had before. As a matter of fact, it's giving quite a lot. He is free to use the code for any purpose, study, modify, distribute or sell it. That's quite free and friendly. The only thing it doesn't allow is creating a derivative work which denies those freedoms to others. Arguably that's less free than a BSD license, depending on whether or not you think the freedom to impose proprietary restrictions on other people is important. I don't. You are welcome to disagree, but please refrain from making churlish and misleading statements about how "viral" and "non-free" the GPL is.
in fact, it's quite viral as it gives him only two options: don't use the code, or use it and be forced to release his product as GPL.
A virus strives to give you one option: become infected and do what the virus wants. That makes the comparison to the GPL or even most proprietary licenses quite silly.
The GPL attempts to attach itself to his product and then replicate a perfect copy of itself.
Again, you're stretching the truth and missing the salient point about viruses: they are parasitic, taking away without giving. The GPL takes nothing away and is completely voluntary, as you've stated several times. Replication is beside the point. Should a file server that stives to make perfect copies be called viral too?
His only real choice, unless he wants to be assimilated, is to avoid the GPL code entirely.
He has a choice. That's what counts. I have a choice too. I choose to protect the freedom of my code with the GPL. Nobody has to like that, but everyone who isn't willing to give up the choice of license for their own code should respect it.