"If startup time is important for your app do not use Java. It is not the right tool for that job. There is no one right programing enviroment."
But I do use Java! With GCJ there are no problems with startup times!
"You can include binary only loadable moduals in the kernel if you want."
Then go ahead and do it. We don't need to, because we use GCJ.
"You sir are a fool and not all that amusing of one at that."
I am a fool who doesn't suffer from startup times:-)
By the way, I certainly think you are amusing. For sure you make me laugh. I don't know if you are a fool, or a twit, but to tell you the truth, there's already enough to laugh at.
I don't consider "Java programmer" to be a profession. And true, you can defend "carpenter" or "brick layer".
"I use java in shell scripts. So you are wrong."
You mean: "so it works for me". I'm sorry, but for me, it's not good enough. We simply have different quality standards.
"Yes you can use java in embedded systems."
Are you talking about the J2SE stuff that you can ordinarily run on Windows & Linux? Can you do embedded stuff with that? Ok. Let's first define what we mean by "java", without extending the definition to cover everything under the sun:-)
"Now as to startup time not being important. In many instances it is not."
And what do you do in instances that it is? Learn to live with it?
"The disk foot print for java is no worse then for.net."
By comparing dog turds with hogwash, you will always be able to make a point somehow.
"The solution for the startup time could be solved with a kernel mod in Linux."
Forget it. Never. Linus won't go for this. And if he did, we'd fork the kernel. You just solve your own problems, will you? Why would he have to fix up for someone else's lousy engineering?
"you have yet to have a real job in CS"
I don't know how much you are making, but chances are that my contract's net worth is a multiple of yours.
"But the trick is, you don't start a new JVM for each invocation"
You've admitted by yourself that Java architectures are characterized by the concern to workaround its deficiencies. Workaround upon workaround you stubbornly ignore the facts and you even get upset when someone raises the issue openly.
It's a bit like Sun Microsystems. They've been hearing for 5 years that they should do something about Swing; but they won't do anything about it. Worse, they would sue anybody who does.
"what you perceive as faults make the JDK, JRE, and Swing useless to anyone"
Only in the circumstances that it matters to someone. I've never said that it matters or should matter to you.
By the way, the statement you've quoted can be verified objectively on its vericity. There is not one single reply in the thread that says that the statement would be untrue. It is objectively true.
If with "hypocrite" you mean that I didn't say frankly what I think about you, maybe you're right.
So the vm running on a Nokia is the same one as the one running on a PC? Before arguing about Java, we could at least clearly define what we are talking about.
"ridiculing yourself by publicly posting uneducated statements"
I think I've already insisted on education and the importance for you to get one.
I replied to "You are not a java programmer" in the parent. My answer is: true.
I am not ashamed to program Java. As a matter of fact I like it very much. I just don't believe that programming in a particular language is a profession.
"I think you'd better tell Nokia that. And IBM."
You could ask them what JRE they are using. I doubt the 60 Mb footprint of 1.4.2 will run on a cell phone. Then we get to basic point again: "What is Java?", besides being a Sun Microsystem trademark to cover multiple unrelated things.
In my opinion Java is at least a brilliant grammar. If you strip the bloat, the class libraries are also nicely done.
Very good. You can use the JRE for things that don't need to start up fast, that can do with sluggish user interfaces, that cannot be used in fork(), and so on. Who's stopping you?
In the meanwhile, we can do everything that you can do and everything that you can't as well.
"From your comments it's apparent you're not a Java programmer"
Of course, I don't see myself as a "Java programmer" or a "carpenter" or a "brick layer". I wouldn't take any pride in that. I have a degree in computer science. The day you will get a college degree, or at least some formal qualification, you won't need to go around saying: I am a "Java programmer".
Otherwise, your arguments don't hold water: "startup times are not important", "size is not important". Who are you that you can say what can be important in someone else situation?
Because of the startup time issues you can't use Java programs in shell scripts. Now you're probably going to say that shell scripts are not important...
Because of the size and footprint issues, you can't do embedded with Java. Now you're probably going to say that embedded applications are not important...
GCJ uses the same backend as GCC (C/C++). Its code should therefore be as good or as bad as for that one.
The class library is certainly complete enough to write nice, crisp, fast and beautiful native GUIs with SWT.
The true question is: What can you do with GCJ?
The answer is: everything you can't do with the JDK, because the JDK starts up too slowly, because Swing suffers from obesity, and because both memory and disk footprints of the JRE are a disaster.
You can obviously make a killing at the next elections by promising to get even with the RIAA. It 's just a question of time before it gets on the agenda somewhere.
... of the political process, which may be subverted temporarily by injecting enough money, but in the end the political process will always revert to majority rule.
Therefore, the public *owns* the political process.
When the RIAA says they want to educate the public about the law, the public may eventually lash back by educating the RIAA about what it means to be at the receiving end of the public's wrath.
" If you click the "I Agree" button, you have agreed to the contract."
That is what Microsoft would like you to believe. Except for one state, all other states have refused to implement UCITA (which would make it binding) though. In absense of UCITA, clicking an "I agree" button does not constitute consent.
Your purchase of a copy from a retailer/third party demonstrates in no way that your intent is to enter into an agreement with the copyright holder of the copy.
Therefore clicking any such buttons does not make you enter into agreements with whoever.
"So even though your agreement would be with me, it would be an agreement to consider yourself under contract with Microsoft, so to speak."
That would violate one of the basic tenets of contract law saying that contracts are binding inter partes only. Therefore, Microsoft would still not be able to claim anything beyond copyright law from Sysem Builder B.
This case has been argued extensively. The Supreme Court first adopted the first sale doctrine in the case of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). Congress codified it in section 109(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 109(a). Microsoft can try as hard as they want, reality will still come crashing down on them.
"In the retail case, the agreement would be between Microsoft and the retailer"
That is exactly why the agreement would only be binding for the retailer and never for his retail customer.
"Unless a piece of software requires you to agree to a license before installing it, you don't have to agree to any license at all."
You seem to accept that clicking on a button in a clickthrough request establishes a binding agreement. Most states refused to implement UCITA, however. And in absence of UCITA, while reverting to ordinary contract law, clickthrough requests do not constitute consent or a binding agreement.
"provided such other System Builder accepts all the terms of this license. [...] You are required to retain records to establish compliance with this section."
If the first System Builder fails to make the "other System Builder" sign such agreement, Microsoft may have a recourse against him (or may not), but certainly not against the "other System Builder" who would be bound only by copyright law (and not by an agreement that he didn't sign).
And even if this "other System Builder" signed this agreement (with the first one), he would have obligations to the first system builder and not to Microsoft. Microsoft would still have failed to establish additional rights for themselves against this "other System Builder". They would have to request the first system builder to assert their rights under this contract against the second one. But then again, there is never any obligation in law to enforce your rights.
I doubt that this system really works in practice. It is sufficient that the chain gets broken at any point for all subsequent purchasers to revert to copyright law.
By the way, I've never seen any retailer require that his retail customer sign such agreement. So again, retail customers are automatically bound only by copyright law.
An attempt to establish a contract. Usually nothing more than bluff.
"The courts in both US and Europe have already upheld the validity of these agreements."
They haven't.
"the license has been ruled to be valid by a court"
It is very easy to mix up a First Sale (case law, 1919) license in which the copyright holder deals and contracts directly with the buyer, and a subsequent sale.
While the first sale license may very well establish rights for the copyright holder beyond his rights under copyright law, subsequent sales do not, that is, *NOT*, carry anything beyond copyright law.
But even in the case of a first sale, a copyright holder may still be constrained by the fact that copyright law establishes a balance between the rights of the copyright holder and the rights of the public.
The First Sale doctrine (case law, 1919) establishes that a copyright holder cannot create contractual obligations beyond the first party to whom he has sold a copy and that there is no basis for cascading obligations in copyright law.
As a matter of fact, the First Sale doctrine is just a special case for the general rule that agreements are only valid inter partes (while the law is valid erga omnes).
Therefore, unless you buy directly from Microsoft themselves, you are not bound by the terms of their so-called "agreement" and which would give them rights in excess of what copyright law grants them..
You pre-suppose that linux distributors and their users would be "agreeing" on anything and that such document would be part of such agreement.
Copyright holders cannot acquire any more rights in excess of what the law grants them simply by adding a license document to their copyrighted works.
Any such document will anyway not be an agreement as it even fails the minimum test of "consent". UCITA has not been adopted by the individual states (except for Virginia) and nowhere else in the world either.
Slashdot Mirror
"If startup time is important for your app do not use Java. It is not the right tool for that job. There is no one right programing enviroment."
:-)
But I do use Java! With GCJ there are no problems with startup times!
"You can include binary only loadable moduals in the kernel if you want."
Then go ahead and do it. We don't need to, because we use GCJ.
"You sir are a fool and not all that amusing of one at that."
I am a fool who doesn't suffer from startup times
By the way, I certainly think you are amusing. For sure you make me laugh. I don't know if you are a fool, or a twit, but to tell you the truth, there's already enough to laugh at.
" No, of course you can't "do embedded" with Java."
:-)
That depends on what you call "Java". Are you sure the 60 Mb footprint of the stuff you download at Sun will run on a phone?
"You're a fucking moron."
You'd better do some more of the fucking by yourself, otherwise I'll get a piece of her
" That is all."
" Any job you do will is worth taking pride in."
:-)
.net."
I don't consider "Java programmer" to be a profession. And true, you can defend "carpenter" or "brick layer".
"I use java in shell scripts. So you are wrong."
You mean: "so it works for me".
I'm sorry, but for me, it's not good enough. We simply have different quality standards.
"Yes you can use java in embedded systems."
Are you talking about the J2SE stuff that you can ordinarily run on Windows & Linux? Can you do embedded stuff with that? Ok. Let's first define what we mean by "java", without extending the definition to cover everything under the sun
"Now as to startup time not being important. In many instances it is not."
And what do you do in instances that it is? Learn to live with it?
"The disk foot print for java is no worse then for
By comparing dog turds with hogwash, you will always be able to make a point somehow.
"The solution for the startup time could be solved with a kernel mod in Linux."
Forget it. Never. Linus won't go for this. And if he did, we'd fork the kernel. You just solve your own problems, will you? Why would he have to fix up for someone else's lousy engineering?
"you have yet to have a real job in CS"
I don't know how much you are making, but chances are that my contract's net worth is a multiple of yours.
"But the trick is, you don't start a new JVM for each invocation"
You've admitted by yourself that Java architectures are characterized by the concern to workaround its deficiencies. Workaround upon workaround you stubbornly ignore the facts and you even get upset when someone raises the issue openly.
It's a bit like Sun Microsystems. They've been hearing for 5 years that they should do something about Swing; but they won't do anything about it. Worse, they would sue anybody who does.
"what you perceive as faults make the JDK, JRE, and Swing useless to anyone"
Only in the circumstances that it matters to someone. I've never said that it matters or should matter to you.
By the way, the statement you've quoted can be verified objectively on its vericity. There is not one single reply in the thread that says that the statement would be untrue. It is objectively true.
If with "hypocrite" you mean that I didn't say frankly what I think about you, maybe you're right.
So the vm running on a Nokia is the same one as the one running on a PC? Before arguing about Java, we could at least clearly define what we are talking about.
"ridiculing yourself by publicly posting uneducated statements"
I think I've already insisted on education and the importance for you to get one.
We've again landed at the point where people abuse Moore's Law to justify lousy engineering.
"please, quit this wine"
As far as I'm concerned you wine as much as you want.
"I'm not in the least ashamed to tell people so."
I replied to "You are not a java programmer" in the parent. My answer is: true.
I am not ashamed to program Java. As a matter of fact I like it very much. I just don't believe that programming in a particular language is a profession.
"I think you'd better tell Nokia that. And IBM."
You could ask them what JRE they are using. I doubt the 60 Mb footprint of 1.4.2 will run on a cell phone. Then we get to basic point again: "What is Java?", besides being a Sun Microsystem trademark to cover multiple unrelated things.
In my opinion Java is at least a brilliant grammar. If you strip the bloat, the class libraries are also nicely done.
"Has it ever occurred to you that not everybody needs the speed?"
You don't need speed and that's ok.That's no reason for me to refer to your ass and shit.
Fortunately, for anybody who does need speed, there is still gcj.
In the meanwhile, let me wish you good luck with your ass and your shit!
The counter-argument against "the JRE suffers from slow startup times" happens to be again and again "startup times are not important".
Why would startup times not be important? To me it is important. Full stop.
By the way, what is it then, that you can do with the JDK that you can't do with gcj?
Why is it that people like to abuse Moore's law as a lame excuse for lousy engineering?
Very good. You can use the JRE for things that don't need to start up fast, that can do with sluggish user interfaces, that cannot be used in fork(), and so on. Who's stopping you?
In the meanwhile, we can do everything that you can do and everything that you can't as well.
"From your comments it's apparent you're not a Java programmer"
...
...
Of course, I don't see myself as a "Java programmer" or a "carpenter" or a "brick layer". I wouldn't take any pride in that. I have a degree in computer science. The day you will get a college degree, or at least some formal qualification, you won't need to go around saying: I am a "Java programmer".
Otherwise, your arguments don't hold water: "startup times are not important", "size is not important". Who are you that you can say what can be important in someone else situation?
Because of the startup time issues you can't use Java programs in shell scripts. Now you're probably going to say that shell scripts are not important
Because of the size and footprint issues, you can't do embedded with Java. Now you're probably going to say that embedded applications are not important
GCJ uses the same backend as GCC (C/C++). Its code should therefore be as good or as bad as for that one.
The class library is certainly complete enough to write nice, crisp, fast and beautiful native GUIs with SWT.
The true question is: What can you do with GCJ?
The answer is: everything you can't do with the JDK, because the JDK starts up too slowly, because Swing suffers from obesity, and because both memory and disk footprints of the JRE are a disaster.
GCJ aka "native Java" now really seems to be ready for its day under the spotlights.
You can obviously make a killing at the next elections by promising to get even with the RIAA. It 's just a question of time before it gets on the agenda somewhere.
There is an unfullfilled political need amongst the 60 million Americans file sharing to get back at the RIAA.
I mean, the guys who promise to settle scores with RIAA will make a splash at the next elections.
... of the political process, which may be subverted temporarily by injecting enough money, but in the end the political process will always revert to majority rule.
Therefore, the public *owns* the political process.
When the RIAA says they want to educate the public about the law, the public may eventually lash back by educating the RIAA about what it means to be at the receiving end of the public's wrath.
" If you click the "I Agree" button, you have agreed to the contract."
That is what Microsoft would like you to believe. Except for one state, all other states have refused to implement UCITA (which would make it binding) though. In absense of UCITA, clicking an "I agree" button does not constitute consent.
Your purchase of a copy from a retailer/third party demonstrates in no way that your intent is to enter into an agreement with the copyright holder of the copy.
Therefore clicking any such buttons does not make you enter into agreements with whoever.
"So even though your agreement would be with me, it would be an agreement to consider yourself under contract with Microsoft, so to speak."
That would violate one of the basic tenets of contract law saying that contracts are binding inter partes only. Therefore, Microsoft would still not be able to claim anything beyond copyright law from Sysem Builder B.
This case has been argued extensively. The Supreme Court first adopted the first sale doctrine in the case of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). Congress codified it in section 109(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 109(a). Microsoft can try as hard as they want, reality will still come crashing down on them.
"In the retail case, the agreement would be between Microsoft and the retailer"
That is exactly why the agreement would only be binding for the retailer and never for his retail customer.
"Unless a piece of software requires you to agree to a license before installing it, you don't have to agree to any license at all."
You seem to accept that clicking on a button in a clickthrough request establishes a binding agreement. Most states refused to implement UCITA, however. And in absence of UCITA, while reverting to ordinary contract law, clickthrough requests do not constitute consent or a binding agreement.
"provided such other System Builder accepts all the terms of this license. [...] You are required to retain records to establish compliance with this section."
If the first System Builder fails to make the "other System Builder" sign such agreement, Microsoft may have a recourse against him (or may not), but certainly not against the "other System Builder" who would be bound only by copyright law (and not by an agreement that he didn't sign).
And even if this "other System Builder" signed this agreement (with the first one), he would have obligations to the first system builder and not to Microsoft. Microsoft would still have failed to establish additional rights for themselves against this "other System Builder". They would have to request the first system builder to assert their rights under this contract against the second one. But then again, there is never any obligation in law to enforce your rights.
I doubt that this system really works in practice. It is sufficient that the chain gets broken at any point for all subsequent purchasers to revert to copyright law.
By the way, I've never seen any retailer require that his retail customer sign such agreement. So again, retail customers are automatically bound only by copyright law.
"What do you think a EULA is?"
An attempt to establish a contract. Usually nothing more than bluff.
"The courts in both US and Europe have already upheld the validity of these agreements."
They haven't.
"the license has been ruled to be valid by a court"
It is very easy to mix up a First Sale (case law, 1919) license in which the copyright holder deals and contracts directly with the buyer, and a subsequent sale.
While the first sale license may very well establish rights for the copyright holder beyond his rights under copyright law, subsequent sales do not, that is, *NOT*, carry anything beyond copyright law.
But even in the case of a first sale, a copyright holder may still be constrained by the fact that copyright law establishes a balance between the rights of the copyright holder and the rights of the public.
"only if you agree to submit to the restrictions"
.
The First Sale doctrine (case law, 1919) establishes that a copyright holder cannot create contractual obligations beyond the first party to whom he has sold a copy and that there is no basis for cascading obligations in copyright law.
As a matter of fact, the First Sale doctrine is just a special case for the general rule that agreements are only valid inter partes (while the law is valid erga omnes).
Therefore, unless you buy directly from Microsoft themselves, you are not bound by the terms of their so-called "agreement" and which would give them rights in excess of what copyright law grants them.
" have licensing agreements with end users "
You pre-suppose that linux distributors and their users would be "agreeing" on anything and that such document would be part of such agreement.
Copyright holders cannot acquire any more rights in excess of what the law grants them simply by adding a license document to their copyrighted works.
Any such document will anyway not be an agreement as it even fails the minimum test of "consent". UCITA has not been adopted by the individual states (except for Virginia) and nowhere else in the world either.