While RMS of course is right that the free Java implementations out there don't yet implement all of Sun's features, things are REALLY beginning to look bright lately! The GNU Classpath project, which can be used with free VMs such as JamVM now even include most of Swing and AWT. For those that prefer working in a familiar environment, the version of GCJ that shipped with GCC 4.1.0 introduced a new enough (late-2005, I believe) checkout of the GNU Classpath that most of Swing and AWT were available.
When I started a mandatory course in Java at my university this semester, I was really demotivated by the fact that I would have to develop on a non-free and also unfamiliar platform. Then I discovered GCJ, and I was able to live in a free and familiar world of using the GNU toolchain for everything. Midway through the semester, we started using Swing, and I thought I had reached the end of how far free software could take me. But lo and behold, GCC 4.1 was released at the right moment. What I'm trying to say is: For those of you who want a free Java platform, you really should investigate what's new in the GCJ that ships with GCC 4.1. Or if speed isn't the most important thing to you, an even more feature-complete free Java can be obtained by using a recent GNU Classpath with a free VM such as JamVM.
I can understand your frustation, it's not hard. But come on, can you really be mad at the Chinese ("unfair") competition? They're essentially just doing what you taught them to do. Extreme capitalism backfiring?
The best of luck to you, though. I have no wish to see the US come crashing down.
This is such a good example of a current gigantic industry failing to adapt to the new world. Take for instance the exceptionally good (well, for TV these days, anyway) series LOST. It airs at a specific time each week, meaning I would have to be at a specific location, namely in front of my television, at that time each week in order to follow the series. That's a lot to demand when you're really busy. Instead, I have been downloading the series from the Internet, so that I can see the episodes whenever I have time and feel like it.
Now, what the industry needs to grasp is that if they provided me a service with:
Fast download speeds
No DRM
Open format video
Acceptable price
, then I would USE IT instead of getting the episodes using BitTorrent without paying for them.
I am not downloading the series because I am cheap, I am downloading the series because of the flexibility it gives me. This is something the TV industry can EXPLOIT to earn money. The Internet will not kill the TV industry, as long as the TV industry understands that it needs to adapt.
That may be true, and even though the general state of the Earth should be highly prioritized, nothing (and I mean NOTHING) can ultimately compare to the question of Human survival.
The Earth is truly nothing without us.
Yep. At least it'll be easy to distinguish the dangerous people from the harmless "criminals". The harmless ones will be in jail for IP infringement / stealing food / doing weak drugs, while the others will be out killing people.
Good to know where you have people.
Either that, or we'll just cut health care to build new prisons!
Why is it particularly heartening to see these things come from state run corporations?
Because it shows that the state has taken notice of free software. You're a bit quick to label someone as pro-communist, I think.
Are you sure you're not a little too emotionally invested in the idea of total capitalism?
What if persons C through ZZZZZZZZ also duplicate this sandwich, and they are no longer hungry? Should the potential earnings of A (who wanted to sell sandwiches based on his secret recipy) still oughtweigh the fact that thousands of rather oddly named people are no longer hungry?
So where is the line drawn when it comes to choosing between someone's earnings and the greater good?
At aristry (for example music)?
At mathematical knowledge (for example computer programs)?
Maybe at a cure for cancer?
And even more importantly; who draws that line?
I am not saying the answer is set in stone, and I am not saying artistic works should be out of the author's control - I am trying to distinguis thieves from something else.
Person A owns a sandwich. Person B does not. The sandwich has a "usefulness value" of 1.
The following is a description of a theft, an action conducted by a thief:
B takes A's sandwich and eats it.
Net change for A: -1.
Net change for B: +1.
B is a thief.
The following is NOT a description of a theft, and the person doing it is NOT a thief:
Someone has a matter duplicator, which can perfectly duplicate any object with very little (as in neglectable) effort and energy. B uses this matter duplicator to copy A's sandwich. Now they both have a sandwich.
Net change for A: 0.
Net change for B: 1.
Whoah! Our overall usefulness rating is up! And this is what RIAA/MPAA/pro intellectual property people calls piracy/theft? This is hardly anything like the first act - and surely far from the act of capturing someone's ship and cargo.
For real life objects, we don't have "duplicators" - for digital data we do!
Now Microsoft can make money (even if the program is free, they make money or at least dominance) on anti-spyware applications so that they can save money on not improving the flaws and vulnerabilities in their other products that allow for such spyware to exist in the first place.
You gotta hand it to them - that IS a nice strategy. Not so for the consumers though.
I believe in the existence of invisible, pink, green-speckled, murderous elephants, and dare not go out of my house in fear that they may kill me.
Yes, I am kidding. However childish or silly the above may sound, it is something I often make good use of when debating fanatics (by that I mean people who believe in something without evidence/proof, such as true Christians, Muslims, or whatevers). Many call me silly and ignorant because of this, and I'm sure many moderators here will too, but if you try to move away that blanket of religion for just a second, and try to compare in an objective manner my invisible, pink, green-speckled, murderous elephants to the teachings of say Christianity, you will find that they are about equally plausible (or rather, equally implausible).
You can of course moderate me down all you want (and I reckon that will be quite a bit, given the number of religious fanatics here). Still had to be said though.
To avoid being completely off-topic, I'll add the following: Personally, I don't need to be able to prove things myself to believe them, which the topic could be suggesting. Rather, if enough trained professionals seem to be able to prove it using trusted scientific methods, I accept it. Hell, I won't pretend computers don't work simply because I lack the understanding of their every component.
And yes, the paradigms of science change - what is
"true" changes - the truth, that which I accept, is not set in stone.
Disclaimer: The references to Christianity are pretty random. I don't think that religion stands out compared to other religions, but since it is the dominant one here in Norway, it is the one I am most annoyed by and frustrated over.
Since a significant portion of the world's computers are used for word processing and other office usage, I don't see how these words are any less general and common in the computer world than in the rest of the world.
You are so completely right, but you will probably be modded down the toilet for it. It's a shame, but the religious zealots (which most religious people are anyway, since it is a matter of unquestionable belief without proof) are in power, even here on Slashdot.
1: Impossible. But that doesn't mean that the somewhat less accurate material that we do have can just be ignored.
2: Irrelevant. Example: There have been ice ages before, but that doesn't mean that a new one wouldn't be a disaster to Mankind.
3: I don't know. But I do know the even US Govt. funded scientists have reached conclusions about global warming that your type don't like.
4: Oh yes. No problem. We will just relocate billions of people and buildings along with infrastructure from the low-lying parts of the world to the newly regained lands in Siberia and Antarctica. No sweat. And I'm sure it will be a peace of cake politically too. I mean, isn't it obvious that Russia would give up vast amounts of her territory to other countries?
Norway has long traditions of Antarctic exploration and research, and it was recently reported that we will be stepping up our activity considerably from 2005.
We will once again maintain a year-round presence in Antarctica starting then.
As an astronaut, you must been drawn to the mysteries of the universe outside our own planet. But as a South African, you must also feel drawn to the problems facing your home continent (I KNOW this sounds very ignorant and Western, and I'm not trying to say "Africa is a place full of problems", I'm just referring to the huge problems that exist for a large portion of the continent).
Do you think space exploration can be justified when so many people here on Earth suffer? And why?
This is an important question to me, as I dream of space, and definitely think Mankind should explore all we can. However, I am having a moral problem (which I'm just ignoring at the moment, for the sake of continued dreaming) justifying spending huge amounts of resources when billions of people right here on Earth lack access to clean water, and millions are infected with HIV.
Slashdot Mirror
http://xkcd.com/768/
While RMS of course is right that the free Java implementations out there don't yet implement all of Sun's features, things are REALLY beginning to look bright lately! The GNU Classpath project, which can be used with free VMs such as JamVM now even include most of Swing and AWT. For those that prefer working in a familiar environment, the version of GCJ that shipped with GCC 4.1.0 introduced a new enough (late-2005, I believe) checkout of the GNU Classpath that most of Swing and AWT were available.
When I started a mandatory course in Java at my university this semester, I was really demotivated by the fact that I would have to develop on a non-free and also unfamiliar platform. Then I discovered GCJ, and I was able to live in a free and familiar world of using the GNU toolchain for everything. Midway through the semester, we started using Swing, and I thought I had reached the end of how far free software could take me. But lo and behold, GCC 4.1 was released at the right moment. What I'm trying to say is: For those of you who want a free Java platform, you really should investigate what's new in the GCJ that ships with GCC 4.1. Or if speed isn't the most important thing to you, an even more feature-complete free Java can be obtained by using a recent GNU Classpath with a free VM such as JamVM.
1) Access? Excuse me? OK, fine, there are alot of bad things to say about MySQL, but it'll beat Access any day, between breakfast and lunch!
2) Heard of X's networking abilities? Or VNC, if you want something more in the style of Remote Desktop.
3) I don't even know what the hell that is...
Well, at least us Europeans won't have trouble with the metric system...
I can understand your frustation, it's not hard. But come on, can you really be mad at the Chinese ("unfair") competition? They're essentially just doing what you taught them to do. Extreme capitalism backfiring?
The best of luck to you, though. I have no wish to see the US come crashing down.
Now, what the industry needs to grasp is that if they provided me a service with:
- Fast download speeds
- No DRM
- Open format video
- Acceptable price
, then I would USE IT instead of getting the episodes using BitTorrent without paying for them.I am not downloading the series because I am cheap, I am downloading the series because of the flexibility it gives me. This is something the TV industry can EXPLOIT to earn money. The Internet will not kill the TV industry, as long as the TV industry understands that it needs to adapt.
That may be true, and even though the general state of the Earth should be highly prioritized, nothing (and I mean NOTHING) can ultimately compare to the question of Human survival.
The Earth is truly nothing without us.
Yep. At least it'll be easy to distinguish the dangerous people from the harmless "criminals". The harmless ones will be in jail for IP infringement / stealing food / doing weak drugs, while the others will be out killing people.
Good to know where you have people.
Either that, or we'll just cut health care to build new prisons!
Why is it particularly heartening to see these things come from state run corporations?
Because it shows that the state has taken notice of free software. You're a bit quick to label someone as pro-communist, I think.
Are you sure you're not a little too emotionally invested in the idea of total capitalism?
What if persons C through ZZZZZZZZ also duplicate this sandwich, and they are no longer hungry? Should the potential earnings of A (who wanted to sell sandwiches based on his secret recipy) still oughtweigh the fact that thousands of rather oddly named people are no longer hungry?
So where is the line drawn when it comes to choosing between someone's earnings and the greater good?
At aristry (for example music)?
At mathematical knowledge (for example computer programs)?
Maybe at a cure for cancer?
And even more importantly; who draws that line?
I am not saying the answer is set in stone, and I am not saying artistic works should be out of the author's control - I am trying to distinguis thieves from something else.
Person A owns a sandwich. Person B does not. The sandwich has a "usefulness value" of 1.
The following is a description of a theft, an action conducted by a thief:
B takes A's sandwich and eats it.
Net change for A: -1.
Net change for B: +1.
B is a thief.
The following is NOT a description of a theft, and the person doing it is NOT a thief:
Someone has a matter duplicator, which can perfectly duplicate any object with very little (as in neglectable) effort and energy. B uses this matter duplicator to copy A's sandwich. Now they both have a sandwich.
Net change for A: 0.
Net change for B: 1.
Whoah! Our overall usefulness rating is up! And this is what RIAA/MPAA/pro intellectual property people calls piracy/theft? This is hardly anything like the first act - and surely far from the act of capturing someone's ship and cargo.
For real life objects, we don't have "duplicators" - for digital data we do!
Now Microsoft can make money (even if the program is free, they make money or at least dominance) on anti-spyware applications so that they can save money on not improving the flaws and vulnerabilities in their other products that allow for such spyware to exist in the first place.
You gotta hand it to them - that IS a nice strategy. Not so for the consumers though.
I believe in the existence of invisible, pink, green-speckled, murderous elephants, and dare not go out of my house in fear that they may kill me.
Yes, I am kidding. However childish or silly the above may sound, it is something I often make good use of when debating fanatics (by that I mean people who believe in something without evidence/proof, such as true Christians, Muslims, or whatevers). Many call me silly and ignorant because of this, and I'm sure many moderators here will too, but if you try to move away that blanket of religion for just a second, and try to compare in an objective manner my invisible, pink, green-speckled, murderous elephants to the teachings of say Christianity, you will find that they are about equally plausible (or rather, equally implausible).
You can of course moderate me down all you want (and I reckon that will be quite a bit, given the number of religious fanatics here). Still had to be said though.
To avoid being completely off-topic, I'll add the following: Personally, I don't need to be able to prove things myself to believe them, which the topic could be suggesting. Rather, if enough trained professionals seem to be able to prove it using trusted scientific methods, I accept it. Hell, I won't pretend computers don't work simply because I lack the understanding of their every component.
And yes, the paradigms of science change - what is "true" changes - the truth, that which I accept, is not set in stone.
Disclaimer: The references to Christianity are pretty random. I don't think that religion stands out compared to other religions, but since it is the dominant one here in Norway, it is the one I am most annoyed by and frustrated over.
How long before everyone needs to carry around 5 different RSA keys just to perform daily task?
It's not like a million keys are harder to carry around than one...
Correct.
...you see, I'm going to live forever, or die trying!
Time to build the Great Tin Foil Hat of China!
Since a significant portion of the world's computers are used for word processing and other office usage, I don't see how these words are any less general and common in the computer world than in the rest of the world.
You are so completely right, but you will probably be modded down the toilet for it. It's a shame, but the religious zealots (which most religious people are anyway, since it is a matter of unquestionable belief without proof) are in power, even here on Slashdot.
Heh, typical. *"piece of cake", *"that even US govt."
1: Impossible. But that doesn't mean that the somewhat less accurate material that we do have can just be ignored.
2: Irrelevant. Example: There have been ice ages before, but that doesn't mean that a new one wouldn't be a disaster to Mankind.
3: I don't know. But I do know the even US Govt. funded scientists have reached conclusions about global warming that your type don't like.
4: Oh yes. No problem. We will just relocate billions of people and buildings along with infrastructure from the low-lying parts of the world to the newly regained lands in Siberia and Antarctica. No sweat. And I'm sure it will be a peace of cake politically too. I mean, isn't it obvious that Russia would give up vast amounts of her territory to other countries?
Norway has long traditions of Antarctic exploration and research, and it was recently reported that we will be stepping up our activity considerably from 2005.
We will once again maintain a year-round presence in Antarctica starting then.
Do they have leather seats for the operators like the 1980s models did?
As an astronaut, you must been drawn to the mysteries of the universe outside our own planet. But as a South African, you must also feel drawn to the problems facing your home continent (I KNOW this sounds very ignorant and Western, and I'm not trying to say "Africa is a place full of problems", I'm just referring to the huge problems that exist for a large portion of the continent).
Do you think space exploration can be justified when so many people here on Earth suffer? And why?
This is an important question to me, as I dream of space, and definitely think Mankind should explore all we can. However, I am having a moral problem (which I'm just ignoring at the moment, for the sake of continued dreaming) justifying spending huge amounts of resources when billions of people right here on Earth lack access to clean water, and millions are infected with HIV.