First of all, ten years is merely a speculation - I would actually expect a reverse-engineering of Java to be much quicker simply because the "specs" are already fixed. The people coding the new version don't have to reinvent the wheel - they just have to code to spec. MUCH easier than designing the JVM or the class libraries from scratch - no comparison.
Second, as long as there is a project to produce an OSS Java, people can go ahead and use Sun's Java with some confidence that there will be a migration path at some point to OSS.
It's ridiculous to denounce the project just because it may take a few years to come to maturity. Better to spend the time worrying about whether Mono can escape a Microsoft lawsuit at some point, or whether.Net will prove to damage the acceptance of Java so much that Microsoft ends up dominating the Internet. The latter two are much more of problem than how long an OSS Java project will take to produce useful code.
Ever hear of Task Manager not being to kill a program because the system is so hosed even Task Manager can't help?
Happens very often.
No "kill -9 pid" on Windows, homes. When I kill a job on Linux, it's GONE, baby. Not on Windows - Task Manager has to come up and ASK ME AGAIN "Do you want to terminate this process?" Yes, fucking MS piece of shit, that's why I clicked "KILL JOB"!
The other night, I opened Winamp, started playing a video file, moved the slider to select another part of the video - and XP froze up...
Sure, it was Winamp's fault. As it sucked up CPU cycles, even Task Manager was unable to come up.
Once Task Manager did came up, I couldn't kill Winamp. No "kill -9 pid" here, folks.
So I said, shutdown.
Windows SLOWLY popped up every other running program and warned that if I shut it down, I'd lose data, blah, blah.
It took nearly ten minutes to shut Windows down and restart.
So, yes, while it was Winamp's fault (I ASSUME since I don't know what it was trying to do or with what part of Windows it was interacting), Windows XP did NOT handle this very well.
In Linux, I could have killed X in a second and been back up in another second - no reboot needed.
As for Windows 2000, back when I was running it, I caused it to crash dead to black screen a couple of times just doing ordinary crap.
The other night in class, we were configuring some wireless cameras that use Java on Windows 2003 server. We got the Java installed, the Java Media Framework installed, got the camera wireless app configured, ran it, connected to the camera via IE - then IE crashed dead - repeatedly. (To be fair, the software apparently only "works" with IE, as Firefox wouldn't run it all.)
The other night I was downloading babe pictures from the Net using Firefox on Mandrake 10.1 and it was taking 15-20 seconds to save a freakin' image file.
In irritation, I rebooted back to Windows XP Pro and ran Firefox on the same site, downloading the same pictures - they saved in 1 or 2 seconds.
I don't know if it was Firefox, KDE, the widget library or just something slowing my Mandrake system down for a bit, but the same scenario was faster on Windows.
I have also noticed that Windows directory open dialogs work faster than KDE's - I have a lot of directories with >200 files or subdirectories in them, and Windows seems to open them faster than KDE. Although once KDE has opened them, they're cached just like Windows and the different seems to be less or even faster on KDE.
Seriously, Windows 2003 Server is actually more bloated, has more incomprehensible "features", menus, dialog boxes, and other graffitti than even Windows XP Professional or 2000 Server.
There is a command line but only for another load of incomprehensible (and according to my teacher, poorly documented and unreliable) command line utilities that don't do everything the GUI does.
In other words, it's a nightmare.
AND even in a college LAB SETTING, it does weird stuff. Try to follow the examples in the textbook - some of them work, some don't. And the ones that don't - good luck trying to find out why. Multiply this for a production environment and I can easily see why it takes four sys admins to run one Microsoft server...
And servers tend not to upgrade kernels for no reason.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it - which especially applies to a lot of servers. (I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's what a lot of sys admins do.)
Nice. It does PROVE that Veritest is definitely into skewing benchmarks for their clients (or at least that their clients are always going to quote the tests in a skewed way.)
That alone is enough to remove this Windows test from consideration.
The Windows trolls moderators are at work again today, I see. No time to take the weekend off, eh?
This guy reports what is obviously his experience at a given company, and he gets modded "troll"?
Gimme a break.
I'm learning Windows 2003 Server this semester at City College of San Francisco. My teacher in a LAB SETTING can't keep the product from doing weird shit - and he's an experienced Windows sys admin who does consulting as his primary job. (He and I like to go round and round, to the class's amusement, about which is better - Windows or Linux. He's a good guy - just doesn't know Linux.)
That's because it's easy to believe that a stripped-down DBMS without half the features of Oracle would be faster than Oracle.
Excuse me, but it's hard to believe a bloated, complicated, over-featured piece of shit like Windows 2003 Server can possibly run faster than ANY even-slightly-bloated version of Linux.
I will admit that if they were comparing Windows GUI to KDE, that Windows might actually be faster - given that I was downloading babe pictures from the Net the other night via FireFox on Mandrake 10.1, and it was taking 15-20 seconds to save a freaking image file, whereas FireFox on Windows can do it in a couple seconds... I dunno, might have been something wrong with either KDE on my system or the Linux version of FireFox...
Apache needs something to underpin their numerous Java projects. That stuff runs on what is current Java. So if it takes five years to get a free Java JVM and class libraries, it's no big deal. Even if the Java-based projects move ahead to newer versions of Sun's Java, they won't do so immediately nor completely, so the Apache project can catch up enough to be useful for the Apache Java-based projects.
Also, while Sun is working on the next version of Java, any new project can just watch that and plan for it while doing the basic stuff. It's no different than any other software project - just because you're starting from scratch doesn't mean you can't integrate the new stuff. In fact, it's better if you ARE aware that a new version is coming out.
"It's gonna take years! " SO WHAT? It took Linux over ten years to be a truly useful OS - did you tell Linus and the others to stop ten years ago because "you don't think it's gonna happen"?
"Thirty seven full time work years!" SO WHAT? The project starts with a couple dozen people to begin with - how many more will join if it gains traction? Two hundred? Cuts your estimate to peanuts, doesn't it?
The point is not how long it takes (provided we're talking years, not decades) but the end result will either be a free Java - or force Sun to truly OSS Java. Either result is a victory.
Why do people complain about the "current" implementations?
Did you use Java the day it came out?
OSS does not spring full-blown into the world. If it takes ten years to get a useful free Java, like it did Linux, what's the problem? You going somewhere?
While I agree that having many Java projects ported to Mono might be a good thing, I see the same problem with Mono as with Java - the primary implementor is a corporation - and unlike Sun, this one has a major problem with ANY kind of competitor.
We have yet to see whether Miquel can keep Mono going in the face of a Microsoft lawsuit.
In my view, both this project and Mono are good ideas and should be pursued (along with Perl and the other scripting languages) - and it would be nice if someone came up with yet another language that is even better and has no dangling strings to a major corporation.
In any event, the Apache Project supports many Java-based projects and having a totally free Java is obviously a good idea from their standpoint.
And as usual with OSS, if you don't like it, don't participate.
Certainly not "in the Microsoft way". "Embrace and Extend" are perfectly all right - as long as the goal is not "Exterminate" which is Microsoft's method.
I shouldn't have posted above while I had mod points, since this troll crap is modded "Insightful" by the Windows trolls moderators and other idiots.
Look, stupid, this is not just a "licensing fetish" (although as has been discussed, there is a perfectly good reason for Apache to not use the GPL or like Sun's license.)
The point of this project is to provide a compatible free Java that Apache can use to underpin its numerous Java-based projects.
It's an excellent idea - unless Sun ever comes out with a truly OSS license. And if they do, it will probably be because such a project is gaining traction.
As for the JVM, do note that the list of people involved includes at least half a dozen with "commercial JVM experience."
If they come up with a JVM that can implement the core of Java, the existing Java class libraries would presumably not have to be entirely rewritten immediately but would run on the compatible JVM. The class libraries could then be rewritten over time.
Obviously somebody thinks that Sun is not going to open source Java anytime soon and has decided to up the ante. Given the amount of projects Apache is supporting which are Java based, this is a good idea. It can only improve the spread of these OSS projects if the underlying language is also open source.
Another concept that should be explored is porting these Java projects to Mono - assuming that Miquel can keep the Mono project from being sued out of existence by Microsoft at some point.
The article is about online extortion via botnets and the entire first 200 pages of responses are about the Battle of Britain and how America saved the world from the evil Europeans...again.
Slashdot Mirror
"there's still billions in their war-chest."
They've already pissed away $37 bilion on a one-time stock prop scheme. What's to stop them pissing away the rest?
If I had "billions" in MY war-chest, we'd have HAL by next Tuesday.
As for Gates claiming IE is a better browser than Firefox: Bwahahahahahahaha!!!! Why am I not using it, then, geek-face?
(not that I would want to break anybody's record on
"I am a non-Microsoft guy working at Microsoft," Hilf said."
Tells me all I need to know - he's a liar like everybody else at Microsoft.
And how would you speed up that ten years?
First of all, ten years is merely a speculation - I would actually expect a reverse-engineering of Java to be much quicker simply because the "specs" are already fixed. The people coding the new version don't have to reinvent the wheel - they just have to code to spec. MUCH easier than designing the JVM or the class libraries from scratch - no comparison.
Second, as long as there is a project to produce an OSS Java, people can go ahead and use Sun's Java with some confidence that there will be a migration path at some point to OSS.
It's ridiculous to denounce the project just because it may take a few years to come to maturity. Better to spend the time worrying about whether Mono can escape a Microsoft lawsuit at some point, or whether
Fine - and if ninety percent of your customers don't have version 6 installed five minutes after it comes out, what do you do?
Go out of business?
Just because YOU intend to take advantage of the latest and greatest doesn't mean everybody else will.
And as I said, there's nothing stopping Apache Java from catching up fast enough to be useful.
Ever hear of Task Manager not being to kill a program because the system is so hosed even Task Manager can't help?
Happens very often.
No "kill -9 pid" on Windows, homes. When I kill a job on Linux, it's GONE, baby. Not on Windows - Task Manager has to come up and ASK ME AGAIN "Do you want to terminate this process?" Yes, fucking MS piece of shit, that's why I clicked "KILL JOB"!
Right, Windows XP is "stable"...
The other night, I opened Winamp, started playing a video file, moved the slider to select another part of the video - and XP froze up...
Sure, it was Winamp's fault. As it sucked up CPU cycles, even Task Manager was unable to come up.
Once Task Manager did came up, I couldn't kill Winamp. No "kill -9 pid" here, folks.
So I said, shutdown.
Windows SLOWLY popped up every other running program and warned that if I shut it down, I'd lose data, blah, blah.
It took nearly ten minutes to shut Windows down and restart.
So, yes, while it was Winamp's fault (I ASSUME since I don't know what it was trying to do or with what part of Windows it was interacting), Windows XP did NOT handle this very well.
In Linux, I could have killed X in a second and been back up in another second - no reboot needed.
As for Windows 2000, back when I was running it, I caused it to crash dead to black screen a couple of times just doing ordinary crap.
The other night in class, we were configuring some wireless cameras that use Java on Windows 2003 server. We got the Java installed, the Java Media Framework installed, got the camera wireless app configured, ran it, connected to the camera via IE - then IE crashed dead - repeatedly. (To be fair, the software apparently only "works" with IE, as Firefox wouldn't run it all.)
I'm not impressed.
Well, you MIGHT be right about SOME aspects.
The other night I was downloading babe pictures from the Net using Firefox on Mandrake 10.1 and it was taking 15-20 seconds to save a freakin' image file.
In irritation, I rebooted back to Windows XP Pro and ran Firefox on the same site, downloading the same pictures - they saved in 1 or 2 seconds.
I don't know if it was Firefox, KDE, the widget library or just something slowing my Mandrake system down for a bit, but the same scenario was faster on Windows.
I have also noticed that Windows directory open dialogs work faster than KDE's - I have a lot of directories with >200 files or subdirectories in them, and Windows seems to open them faster than KDE. Although once KDE has opened them, they're cached just like Windows and the different seems to be less or even faster on KDE.
Yes, it's true. Bill Gates has no dick.
Well, that's what I heard!
Seriously, Windows 2003 Server is actually more bloated, has more incomprehensible "features", menus, dialog boxes, and other graffitti than even Windows XP Professional or 2000 Server.
There is a command line but only for another load of incomprehensible (and according to my teacher, poorly documented and unreliable) command line utilities that don't do everything the GUI does.
In other words, it's a nightmare.
AND even in a college LAB SETTING, it does weird stuff. Try to follow the examples in the textbook - some of them work, some don't. And the ones that don't - good luck trying to find out why. Multiply this for a production environment and I can easily see why it takes four sys admins to run one Microsoft server...
"MS's stack vs LAMP."
Since companies buy stacks, comparing entire stacks seems reasonable (if not easy) to me.
"Personally I think MS's stack will win on all points, including price."
Oh, I see, this was a joke, right?
And servers tend not to upgrade kernels for no reason.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it - which especially applies to a lot of servers. (I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's what a lot of sys admins do.)
No.
He's an asshole but he's not (technically speaking) stupid.
Ballmer, OTOH, I'm not so sure about. I think HE believes Gates' bullshit.
Nice. It does PROVE that Veritest is definitely into skewing benchmarks for their clients (or at least that their clients are always going to quote the tests in a skewed way.)
That alone is enough to remove this Windows test from consideration.
The Windows trolls moderators are at work again today, I see. No time to take the weekend off, eh?
This guy reports what is obviously his experience at a given company, and he gets modded "troll"?
Gimme a break.
I'm learning Windows 2003 Server this semester at City College of San Francisco. My teacher in a LAB SETTING can't keep the product from doing weird shit - and he's an experienced Windows sys admin who does consulting as his primary job. (He and I like to go round and round, to the class's amusement, about which is better - Windows or Linux. He's a good guy - just doesn't know Linux.)
That's because it's easy to believe that a stripped-down DBMS without half the features of Oracle would be faster than Oracle.
Excuse me, but it's hard to believe a bloated, complicated, over-featured piece of shit like Windows 2003 Server can possibly run faster than ANY even-slightly-bloated version of Linux.
I will admit that if they were comparing Windows GUI to KDE, that Windows might actually be faster - given that I was downloading babe pictures from the Net the other night via FireFox on Mandrake 10.1, and it was taking 15-20 seconds to save a freaking image file, whereas FireFox on Windows can do it in a couple seconds... I dunno, might have been something wrong with either KDE on my system or the Linux version of FireFox...
Again - SO WHAT?
Apache needs something to underpin their numerous Java projects. That stuff runs on what is current Java. So if it takes five years to get a free Java JVM and class libraries, it's no big deal. Even if the Java-based projects move ahead to newer versions of Sun's Java, they won't do so immediately nor completely, so the Apache project can catch up enough to be useful for the Apache Java-based projects.
Also, while Sun is working on the next version of Java, any new project can just watch that and plan for it while doing the basic stuff. It's no different than any other software project - just because you're starting from scratch doesn't mean you can't integrate the new stuff. In fact, it's better if you ARE aware that a new version is coming out.
Yet another person who doesn't get it...
Did you use Linux the day it came out?
Or Java for that matter?
"It's gonna take years! " SO WHAT? It took Linux over ten years to be a truly useful OS - did you tell Linus and the others to stop ten years ago because "you don't think it's gonna happen"?
"Thirty seven full time work years!" SO WHAT? The project starts with a couple dozen people to begin with - how many more will join if it gains traction? Two hundred? Cuts your estimate to peanuts, doesn't it?
The point is not how long it takes (provided we're talking years, not decades) but the end result will either be a free Java - or force Sun to truly OSS Java. Either result is a victory.
If Sun ever does do a completely OSS license, projects such as this are likely to be the cause.
That alone justifies the project.
Why do people complain about the "current" implementations?
Did you use Java the day it came out?
OSS does not spring full-blown into the world. If it takes ten years to get a useful free Java, like it did Linux, what's the problem? You going somewhere?
While I agree that having many Java projects ported to Mono might be a good thing, I see the same problem with Mono as with Java - the primary implementor is a corporation - and unlike Sun, this one has a major problem with ANY kind of competitor.
We have yet to see whether Miquel can keep Mono going in the face of a Microsoft lawsuit.
In my view, both this project and Mono are good ideas and should be pursued (along with Perl and the other scripting languages) - and it would be nice if someone came up with yet another language that is even better and has no dangling strings to a major corporation.
In any event, the Apache Project supports many Java-based projects and having a totally free Java is obviously a good idea from their standpoint.
And as usual with OSS, if you don't like it, don't participate.
Certainly not "in the Microsoft way". "Embrace and Extend" are perfectly all right - as long as the goal is not "Exterminate" which is Microsoft's method.
I shouldn't have posted above while I had mod points, since this troll crap is modded "Insightful" by the Windows trolls moderators and other idiots.
Look, stupid, this is not just a "licensing fetish" (although as has been discussed, there is a perfectly good reason for Apache to not use the GPL or like Sun's license.)
The point of this project is to provide a compatible free Java that Apache can use to underpin its numerous Java-based projects.
It's an excellent idea - unless Sun ever comes out with a truly OSS license. And if they do, it will probably be because such a project is gaining traction.
So? The world isn't going anywhere (just yet). If it takes another ten years to get a free Java, what's the harm?
It took over ten years for Linux to be truly useful to people. Should the Linux hackers all have stopped because of that?
As for the JVM, do note that the list of people involved includes at least half a dozen with "commercial JVM experience."
If they come up with a JVM that can implement the core of Java, the existing Java class libraries would presumably not have to be entirely rewritten immediately but would run on the compatible JVM. The class libraries could then be rewritten over time.
Obviously somebody thinks that Sun is not going to open source Java anytime soon and has decided to up the ante. Given the amount of projects Apache is supporting which are Java based, this is a good idea. It can only improve the spread of these OSS projects if the underlying language is also open source.
Another concept that should be explored is porting these Java projects to Mono - assuming that Miquel can keep the Mono project from being sued out of existence by Microsoft at some point.
As Blofeld observed, "Well, if we destroy Kansas, the world may not hear of it for years!"
The article is about online extortion via botnets and the entire first 200 pages of responses are about the Battle of Britain and how America saved the world from the evil Europeans...again.
Morons.