How is one supposed to compile the open source solaris?
It is very well known that gcc generates slow code for Sparc, and I don't even know if it can compile it at all.
They should at least provide a free beer version of their compiler.
I have a sparc server at work and it pisses me off that they don't provide a C compiler.
Throw in Hibernate to get rid of the SQL-specifics of the database and reduce the OO-RDBMS nightmare.
Yes. Get rid of SQL specific and go to HQL specifics. I do not know why products like hibernate call themselves Object Relational mappers.
They are Object Tabular mappers. They can only map tables or views to objects, but not other types of relations such as queries.
For something closer to a true Object Relational mapper, try iBatis SQL Maps. Ironically, they say their product is not an object relational mapper, but is the only product I have seen that actually can map any relation to objects.
SQL rules. HQL, JDOQL, EJBQL, and *QL (except SQL suck.
Re:C# is not an open standard.
on
IT, Be Free!
·
· Score: 1
C# *is* an open standard, certified by ECMA (ECMA-334 to be exact)
Then Windows (Win32) is an open standard (ECMA-234 to be exact).
I used to have a Nokia 2160 phone a long time ago and it was great.
Not so long ago I purchased a Nokia 3310 GSM and it sucked. After a few months it became crazy. A lot of funny things appeared on the screen. Here in the third world warranties don't last long so I had to buy another phone.
This time I sent nokia to hell and bought a Siemens C35. That phone rocks. It has better features (the only thing that sucks is the tune editor) than the nokia, was less expensive and has way better quality.
I have a friend who has an siemens phone from about 5 years ago and he sais the phone has never broke. It even fell on a bucket with water and soap (for a mop) and it didn't break. He continues to use it and says it's the best pohne in the world.
He should change the hard drive for a flash memory based drive.
The vibration and outdoors ambient will break it.
The same applies to the CPU fan. He should go with a low power CPU that can be cooled with only a heatsink.
I am using this filter and after some training it is very effective. Especially useful is the inoculation feature, which you can use to register a spam only address to spam sending sites so that it trains faster.
That was the blue one, IIRC. The red one included a Windows licence.
The red one didn't include windows, you had to have it. The blue one did include windows.
I don't think there is any COM wrapping done in the class library
There is no wrapping in things like ArrayList, but many of the enterprise services (Managed components, message oriented midleware and others) are wrappers for old COM+ stuff. In fact the protocol for distributed objects in.Net is COM/DCOM/COM+/whatever you want to call it.
Actually, it should be Héctor Ruiz. Ruiz is a common second name in Latin América (and I suppose Spain). I have never seen someone called de Ruiz. Several documents in AMD website confirm it is Héctor Ruiz.
The linux distributions could ofcause sidestep tha t licence by making and including a java program, but then who has to deside if the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software
Some well known linux distributions are distributing the JRE and Sun hasn't complained. Probably the programs they include add significant functionality to the software according to Sun.
Platform independence. That's achieved, of course, because the JVM *is* the platform, but at work I write Java code on my Windows XP box that others use on their Linux and Win 2K boxes, that is then deployed on machines running various flavours of Linux - generally RedHat. Can't do that with native compilation.
You would have to recompile. In some cases this wouldn't be practical.
Code optimisation with the JIT compiler. Having the code compiled by a JIT compiler means that the JVM can optimise it taking advantage of knowledge about how its being run that simply is not available to a traditional compiler.
I doubt a JIT compiler is better than an ahead of time compiler. However, Java JVM's are very fast. But I think that good optimizing ahead of time compilers can always be better than virtual machines. The only important advantage of VMs is the ability to run the binary on different platforms without recompiling. That might be useful, for example, in heterogeneous clusters. But VM's will always have a performance penalty that AOT compiled code won't have (including speed of execution and memory use).
I have to ask - what is your level of experience with Java? I get the impression that you're not particularly experienced with it,
Actually, I consider myself a very experienced Java programmer.
No, it's because some distributions are less cavalier about Sun's license than others.
That is another way of saying they don't want to include it. I did not make judgement about the reasons they have for not including it, but there is nothing in the Sun's JRE license that prevents a linux distribution from including it. Proof of that is that many do include it.
It certainly is not free software, but that doesn't mean it cannot be included in a linux distribution.
Each distributor has a policy about what they include or not. Some only include free software (and don't include sun's java, but an alternative), others do include non-free software.
I mean no disrespect to the GCJ project, or Classpath or any of the other contributions to the goal of a fully compatible free software Java implementation. But...
Saying that GCJ's existence proves Java is not proprietary is a bit like saying that WINE proves Windows is not proprietary.
Java is a language defined by a specification. The spacification is not proprietary in the sense that anyone can develop a clean room implementation of it without being subject to IP/patents infringement.
Sun's implementation of Java can be considered by some as proprietary because it is not free software, but it is not the only implementation.
BTW, according to ECMA (the origanization who says C# is a standard) Windows is a standard. See ECMA standard 234.
So, to me, the fact that the Java specification is not controlled by an organization like ECMA is of no great importance. Who really considers the windows api an international standard?
I would trust more the JCP (the organization that drives the Java and related specifications) than an organization who states windows is a non-proprietary standard.
Re:"Even more open-source than it is already"...
on
Gosling on Opening Java
·
· Score: 5, Informative
When you download java, you get the source files along with it. GPL is not the only license that makes something open source.
Actually, the source code you get is for the standard library, not the JVM source code. That one is a separate download.
"Java" is a programming language, right? Programming langagues doesn't have source code, they have specifications. Are they talking about open-sourcing a specific compiler for Java? Or are they talking about releasing or loosening license restrictions on the specifications for the language?
They are talking about open-sourcing Sun's compiler and runtime. The Java language specification is very open. It literally says:
"Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN) hereby grants you a fully-paid, nonexclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide limited license (without the right to sublicense) under SUN's intellectual property rights that are essential to practice this specification. This license allows and is limited to the creation and distribution of clean room implementations of this specification...".
I don't like programming in Java, but having a free Java (as in speech) would be really great !
There is a very good free java implementaiton. GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java). The library lacks a few things (e.g. AWT/Swing), though, but other than that it is a great implementation. And it is not based on a JVM, but is a traditional ahead of time compiler, so the related disadvantages (as well as the advantages, if any) dissapear. It uses the same (or at least a very similar) object model as C++, so interoperation with it is much easier.
Think about how it can be easy to include Java in a Linux Distro.
Sun's Java JVM can be included in linux distributions without problems. Knoppix, SuSE and SoL include it. Don't know about others. The reason some distributions don't include Sun's Java implementation is because they don't want to include it.
If Java becomes free, I can imagine a lot of thing. Why not bindings with GTK for example
They already exist. Check Java-GNOME. It includes GTK and GNOME bindings for Java.
There are also bindings for Qt and KDE.
You can also use GTK via the SWT toolkit .
Java is NOT a proprietary language (despite some ignorant people who say so), you can find many open source libraries for it, and there is at least a high quality free (as in speech) implementation of it.
GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java) works on any platform supported by GCC. It is a great implementation of Java. The only important missing thing is AWT/Swing, but you can use SWT (the Eclipse toolkit), which most people think provides better performance.
I haven't tried, but I think you can use Sun's Java library if you conpile it to native with GCJ.
Using java without swing is like using C without malloc.
This is ridiculous. Java is mostly used for server side/distributed applications where you don't need GUI libraries.
If you happen to need a GUI library you can use SWT. An example client java application that uses this toolkit is the azureus bittorrent client.
BTW, many people think SWT provides much better performance than Swing since it uses native widgets (there are GTK and Motif SWT implementations).
I've never understood why the Open Source community is so quick to praise Sun, and pretend like Java it's an Open/Free technology? it's not.
AFAIK most people in the Open Source community critizices Sun and says Java is a proprietary Language. Most are crazy enough to say it is as proprietary as Visual Basic, for example.
Is it a good, elegant language? Yes.
I agree with you. There are many who disagree however.
Is it Open? No.
You are wrong. Java is an open language. Java is a Language. You are confusing the Java language with Sun's implementation.
The Java language specification literally says: "Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN) hereby grants you a fully-paid, nonexclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide limited license (without the right to sublicense) under SUN's intellectual property rights that are essential to practice this specification. This license allows and is limited to the creation and distribution of clean room implementations of this specification...".
This is an open language.
The fact that an specific implementation is proprietary does not make the language proprietary (although, as you point out, Sun's implementation is free as in beer and you can see the source code).
If you want a high quality open source implementation, check out GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java). It is truly great, and it is not based on a JVM, but compiled to native code,(many Java critics might like this). It is complete enough to fully compile large applications like the Eclipse IDE.
The only more or less important library it misses is AWT and Swing, but you can use SWT (the eclipse toolkit), which provides better performance than Swing. And AWT/Swing are coming.
You can use a huge library of open source Java libraries with it.
GCJ has great features like the ability to compile java libraries (normally JAR files) as shared libraries, with full support for dynamic class loading (very useful for things like application servers). GCJ also supports the same object model as C++, so you can interoperate with C and C++ very easily.
I recommend you to check it out. It is a very good implementaiton of the Java specification and is constantly improving and it is as free as can be.
I'm using linux since many years ago and have never had problems with 'mainstream'sound cards.
I don't know if there are problems with advanced sound cards, but I have had no problem with the mainstream ones I have used.
You mean that in capitalism there IS a difference between people and things? If so, what is meant by "human capital" or "human resources"?
The concept of human capital is used both in capitalism and marxism and it refers to the skills of individuals. It is not a concept of capitalism, but a concept of economics in general, capitalist or not.
Some people think human capital is a contradiction of terms. Besides, materialism does not set goals, just seek explanations. I do prefer explanations that dont use concepts such as "spirit" or "soul".
You can prefer whatever you want. My original post only intended to state clear that capitalism is not based on materialism as other poster suggested, but that marxism is. Materialism states the only thing that exists is matter, and everything is reduced to matter. People exist, so according to materialism they are matter, just like other things. You may agree or disagree.
The one who doesn't undertand materialism is you. In materialism there is no difference between people and things. There is no spirit/soul. That's why many people complain that in marxist systems people are slaves. That's why those systems always fail. People are not things.
I think you also miss what capitalism is (not that it is the best thing anyway). Go to this place to learn more about it.
Slashdot Mirror
How is one supposed to compile the open source solaris?
It is very well known that gcc generates slow code for Sparc, and I don't even know if it can compile it at all.
They should at least provide a free beer version of their compiler.
I have a sparc server at work and it pisses me off that they don't provide a C compiler.
Throw in Hibernate to get rid of the SQL-specifics of the database and reduce the OO-RDBMS nightmare.
Yes. Get rid of SQL specific and go to HQL specifics. I do not know why products like hibernate call themselves Object Relational mappers.
They are Object Tabular mappers. They can only map tables or views to objects, but not other types of relations such as queries.
For something closer to a true Object Relational mapper, try iBatis SQL Maps. Ironically, they say their product is not an object relational mapper, but is the only product I have seen that actually can map any relation to objects.
SQL rules. HQL, JDOQL, EJBQL, and *QL (except SQL suck.
C# *is* an open standard, certified by ECMA (ECMA-334 to be exact)
Then Windows (Win32) is an open standard (ECMA-234 to be exact).
I used to have a Nokia 2160 phone a long time ago and it was great. Not so long ago I purchased a Nokia 3310 GSM and it sucked. After a few months it became crazy. A lot of funny things appeared on the screen. Here in the third world warranties don't last long so I had to buy another phone. This time I sent nokia to hell and bought a Siemens C35. That phone rocks. It has better features (the only thing that sucks is the tune editor) than the nokia, was less expensive and has way better quality. I have a friend who has an siemens phone from about 5 years ago and he sais the phone has never broke. It even fell on a bucket with water and soap (for a mop) and it didn't break. He continues to use it and says it's the best pohne in the world.
He should change the hard drive for a flash memory based drive. The vibration and outdoors ambient will break it. The same applies to the CPU fan. He should go with a low power CPU that can be cooled with only a heatsink.
I am using this filter and after some training it is very effective. Especially useful is the inoculation feature, which you can use to register a spam only address to spam sending sites so that it trains faster.
K&R, also the authers of the C language, but I suppose the book was more of an achievement?
Only Dennis Ritchie is the author of the C language. Kernighan was involved only in the book.
That was the blue one, IIRC. The red one included a Windows licence.
The red one didn't include windows, you had to have it. The blue one did include windows.
Aren't conventional hard drives solid too?
I don't think there is any COM wrapping done in the class library There is no wrapping in things like ArrayList, but many of the enterprise services (Managed components, message oriented midleware and others) are wrappers for old COM+ stuff. In fact the protocol for distributed objects in .Net is COM/DCOM/COM+/whatever you want to call it.
a common second name
I meant a family name.
Actually, it should be Héctor Ruiz. Ruiz is a common second name in Latin América (and I suppose Spain). I have never seen someone called de Ruiz. Several documents in AMD website confirm it is Héctor Ruiz.
The linux distributions could ofcause sidestep tha t licence by making and including a java program, but then who has to deside if the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software
Some well known linux distributions are distributing the JRE and Sun hasn't complained. Probably the programs they include add significant functionality to the software according to Sun.
Platform independence. That's achieved, of course, because the JVM *is* the platform, but at work I write Java code on my Windows XP box that others use on their Linux and Win 2K boxes, that is then deployed on machines running various flavours of Linux - generally RedHat. Can't do that with native compilation.
You would have to recompile. In some cases this wouldn't be practical.
Code optimisation with the JIT compiler. Having the code compiled by a JIT compiler means that the JVM can optimise it taking advantage of knowledge about how its being run that simply is not available to a traditional compiler.
I doubt a JIT compiler is better than an ahead of time compiler. However, Java JVM's are very fast. But I think that good optimizing ahead of time compilers can always be better than virtual machines. The only important advantage of VMs is the ability to run the binary on different platforms without recompiling. That might be useful, for example, in heterogeneous clusters. But VM's will always have a performance penalty that AOT compiled code won't have (including speed of execution and memory use).
I have to ask - what is your level of experience with Java? I get the impression that you're not particularly experienced with it,
Actually, I consider myself a very experienced Java programmer.
No, it's because some distributions are less cavalier about Sun's license than others.
That is another way of saying they don't want to include it. I did not make judgement about the reasons they have for not including it, but there is nothing in the Sun's JRE license that prevents a linux distribution from including it. Proof of that is that many do include it.
It certainly is not free software, but that doesn't mean it cannot be included in a linux distribution.
Each distributor has a policy about what they include or not. Some only include free software (and don't include sun's java, but an alternative), others do include non-free software.
I mean no disrespect to the GCJ project, or Classpath or any of the other contributions to the goal of a fully compatible free software Java implementation. But... Saying that GCJ's existence proves Java is not proprietary is a bit like saying that WINE proves Windows is not proprietary.
Java is a language defined by a specification. The spacification is not proprietary in the sense that anyone can develop a clean room implementation of it without being subject to IP/patents infringement.
Sun's implementation of Java can be considered by some as proprietary because it is not free software, but it is not the only implementation.
BTW, according to ECMA (the origanization who says C# is a standard) Windows is a standard. See ECMA standard 234.
So, to me, the fact that the Java specification is not controlled by an organization like ECMA is of no great importance. Who really considers the windows api an international standard?
I would trust more the JCP (the organization that drives the Java and related specifications) than an organization who states windows is a non-proprietary standard.
When you download java, you get the source files along with it. GPL is not the only license that makes something open source.
Actually, the source code you get is for the standard library, not the JVM source code. That one is a separate download.
"Java" is a programming language, right? Programming langagues doesn't have source code, they have specifications. Are they talking about open-sourcing a specific compiler for Java? Or are they talking about releasing or loosening license restrictions on the specifications for the language?
They are talking about open-sourcing Sun's compiler and runtime. The Java language specification is very open. It literally says:
"Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN) hereby grants you a fully-paid, nonexclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide limited license (without the right to sublicense) under SUN's intellectual property rights that are essential to practice this specification. This license allows and is limited to the creation and distribution of clean room implementations of this specification...".
I don't like programming in Java, but having a free Java (as in speech) would be really great !
There is a very good free java implementaiton. GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java). The library lacks a few things (e.g. AWT/Swing), though, but other than that it is a great implementation. And it is not based on a JVM, but is a traditional ahead of time compiler, so the related disadvantages (as well as the advantages, if any) dissapear. It uses the same (or at least a very similar) object model as C++, so interoperation with it is much easier.
Think about how it can be easy to include Java in a Linux Distro.
Sun's Java JVM can be included in linux distributions without problems. Knoppix, SuSE and SoL include it. Don't know about others. The reason some distributions don't include Sun's Java implementation is because they don't want to include it.
If Java becomes free, I can imagine a lot of thing. Why not bindings with GTK for example They already exist. Check Java-GNOME. It includes GTK and GNOME bindings for Java.
There are also bindings for Qt and KDE.
You can also use GTK via the SWT toolkit .
Java is NOT a proprietary language (despite some ignorant people who say so), you can find many open source libraries for it, and there is at least a high quality free (as in speech) implementation of it.
GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java) works on any platform supported by GCC. It is a great implementation of Java. The only important missing thing is AWT/Swing, but you can use SWT (the Eclipse toolkit), which most people think provides better performance.
I haven't tried, but I think you can use Sun's Java library if you conpile it to native with GCJ.
Using java without swing is like using C without malloc. This is ridiculous. Java is mostly used for server side/distributed applications where you don't need GUI libraries.
If you happen to need a GUI library you can use SWT. An example client java application that uses this toolkit is the azureus bittorrent client.
BTW, many people think SWT provides much better performance than Swing since it uses native widgets (there are GTK and Motif SWT implementations).
I've never understood why the Open Source community is so quick to praise Sun, and pretend like Java it's an Open/Free technology? it's not.
AFAIK most people in the Open Source community critizices Sun and says Java is a proprietary Language. Most are crazy enough to say it is as proprietary as Visual Basic, for example.
Is it a good, elegant language? Yes.
I agree with you. There are many who disagree however.
Is it Open? No. You are wrong. Java is an open language. Java is a Language. You are confusing the Java language with Sun's implementation.
The Java language specification literally says: "Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN) hereby grants you a fully-paid, nonexclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide limited license (without the right to sublicense) under SUN's intellectual property rights that are essential to practice this specification. This license allows and is limited to the creation and distribution of clean room implementations of this specification...".
This is an open language.
The fact that an specific implementation is proprietary does not make the language proprietary (although, as you point out, Sun's implementation is free as in beer and you can see the source code).
If you want a high quality open source implementation, check out GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java). It is truly great, and it is not based on a JVM, but compiled to native code,(many Java critics might like this). It is complete enough to fully compile large applications like the Eclipse IDE.
The only more or less important library it misses is AWT and Swing, but you can use SWT (the eclipse toolkit), which provides better performance than Swing. And AWT/Swing are coming.
You can use a huge library of open source Java libraries with it. GCJ has great features like the ability to compile java libraries (normally JAR files) as shared libraries, with full support for dynamic class loading (very useful for things like application servers). GCJ also supports the same object model as C++, so you can interoperate with C and C++ very easily.
I recommend you to check it out. It is a very good implementaiton of the Java specification and is constantly improving and it is as free as can be.
I'm using linux since many years ago and have never had problems with 'mainstream'sound cards.
I don't know if there are problems with advanced sound cards, but I have had no problem with the mainstream ones I have used.
You mean that in capitalism there IS a difference between people and things? If so, what is meant by "human capital" or "human resources"?
The concept of human capital is used both in capitalism and marxism and it refers to the skills of individuals. It is not a concept of capitalism, but a concept of economics in general, capitalist or not.
Some people think human capital is a contradiction of terms.
Besides, materialism does not set goals, just seek explanations. I do prefer explanations that dont use concepts such as "spirit" or "soul".
You can prefer whatever you want. My original post only intended to state clear that capitalism is not based on materialism as other poster suggested, but that marxism is. Materialism states the only thing that exists is matter, and everything is reduced to matter. People exist, so according to materialism they are matter, just like other things. You may agree or disagree.
The one who doesn't undertand materialism is you. In materialism there is no difference between people and things. There is no spirit/soul. That's why many people complain that in marxist systems people are slaves. That's why those systems always fail. People are not things.
I think you also miss what capitalism is (not that it is the best thing anyway). Go to this place to learn more about it.