While I whole-heartedly agree with you on several of your points (especially FreeBSD's short straw) I see GPL Java going the way of w3.org HTML specifications and Microsoft's HTML "standard". One effective & correct way of doing things, but a more widely distributed audience of crap that makes the entire idea quite muddy and less effective.
Another large potential reason for keeping Java guarded is that it may really screw up Sun's enterprise stack if allowed to be GPL'd. Although I am in no way affiliated with Sun, I would suspect that this would be of a much larger concern than opening up Java alone. However, I can see a OpenJava site similar to OpenSolaris with a source code browser and using a similarly restricted CDDL license with the potential for adopting the new GPL3. Such a collaborative site could serve as the testing code and a base for future production quality code similar to the current Solaris model. This would enable quality back-ports (yay FreeBSD!) and seem to serve all needs I can think of, besides pure GPL2 zealots.
"If SUN plans an OSS strategy they are certainly NOT going to GPL their powerhorse Java. Solaris is nearly just as impressive from a technical standpoint. It's probably that Solaris doesn't have the numbers attached to it SUN would like to see."
Solaris is a platform. Java is supposed to be multi-platform. I fail to see how GPL Java would work well.
Imagine GPL Java under committeee control. Then one day, not to far distant, some member decides to fork the GPL Java because he/she has some other idea. Before long, there are 18 types of Java than are not all multi-platform and can't run the same code. Kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?
You'll certainly love the speed of Solaris 10, with perhaps, only one exception for now. UFS filesystems don't [generally] perform as well as some other more recent filesystems supported by Linux, though you can be certain that will change when ZFS is considered production quality. ZFS is now available in OpenSolaris and [I believe] the latest Solaris Express builds. The "FireEngine" network stack on Solaris 10 is without a doubt the fastest I've ever seen. 64-bit multiprocessing is hands-down better on Solaris than any GNU/Linux system I've yet used.
I personally only hope that whatever becomes of the GPL3 deal gets Solaris 10 the credit it deserves. For mostly historical reasons, Solaris doesn't enjoy the great "buzzword" media hype that Linux gets, though it dominates Linux in many areas - geeky-techno-media-lust is not one of those areas.
For those asking for Java open-sourced, I don't see how that will help the big picture. Linux is open source and look how many different versions do things their own way. How many different binary formats must we have to run on the different Linux boxes with full dependency checking? What a mess. Some control on the direction of Java is a good thing as Java will remain consistent!
"So basically unless you need the excellent latency performance of SCSI, higher than even the WD Raptor can offer, I see no compelling reason to use SCSI for anything anymore."
Unfourtnately you are mostly correct, save one concern of mine. I've personally had horrible luck keeping many Western Digital drives last until the term of their warranties. I've never had a Seagate drive fail on me. Though the Raptors offer good performance and have a better than usual warranty from WD, being produced by WD drives scares me. Seagate SCSI drives are now what I use and am very pleased. Now if only Seagate would make a similar drive as the Raptors...
"Yeah, because saying "www.google.com" is clearly equivalent to saying "just give me a completely random site". All because you left off the URI."
What modern browser doesn't automatically direct you to "http://www" when supplied with only a domain name, thereby NOT requiring users to type the debated prefix?
My point is by making it completely transparent, the average user will not likely ever get any smarter and just bugger up matters worse down the road.
Re:Leaked?
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 1, Informative
"How could that be a good thing? It's entirely redundant to have to type in http:/// in a web browser. That's like being required to write MAIL: on every envelope you send out."
Insightful? Come on Moderators. The OP could have likened it to writing POP3 to send mail but typing http:/// is NOT a stupid idea. As another respondent already stated, HTTPS and FTP are also quite common.
If typing http:/// is too much to ask of idiotic users, perhaps we should just have a big green button users press and it takes them to a random site on the internet where they can just "shuffle" to where they need to go (thanks Apple). If its not the site you want, just keep shuffling through the billions of HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP pages you desire.
We disagree then. I've run a Solaris 10 desktop for some time and think it's great and don't see why, with a little work, the OS X Aqua interface could be ported from a FreeBSD-based OS to Solaris 10 underpinnings. An Aqua interface and Apple apps. on Solaris kernel is what I'm rooting for.
Sun makes great "industry standard" hardware that is more than capable of running OS X well. Likewise, I believe, specific Solaris 10 features would really boost the update of OS X on the server side. Solaris 10 features such as ZFS, xBrands, Zones, dTrace, and more should make this hybrid OS one to reckon with...especially if given the graceful UI of OS X and iTunes for developers to listen to while working.
"Apple is all about style, Sun is about rock solid workhorse machines. I think they're both better off as separate companies."
On the hardware side, perhaps you are right. However, and this is a big one, I firmly believe that if Apple and Sun collaborate OS X desktop UI and applications on top of Solaris 10 that is would be an awe inspiring DESKTOP AND SERVER OS for both to use on their respectivley designed hardware niche.
Imagine the inroads the new hybrid OS could take into corporate computing!
Why not just keep Solaris (10) and setup your environment using adjoining clusters that you could safely delegate some [zone] "root" access to if required? The RBAC is also very good and would likely accomplish the same goals.
"I'd probably buy one of those combos at 70US$ regardless of their fraudulent business practises, though."
Then you are also part of the problem.
Consumers supporting known businesses which have no ethic drive the good businesses with ethics out of business. Why don't you just see what hardware Microsoft has to offer you for your evangelical services?
Slashdot Mirror
"No, it's like having multiple cylinders inside an engine."
Let the dead horse rest. That was another totally brain-dead analogy.
Except on thing: StarOffice
"Google isn't fun anymore (tm). Unclear strategy. Bows for dictators. New pathetic services like Google Video.
What's next?"
Perhaps Google could hire Carly Fiorina as CEO and buy back Compaq?
Time to short Googles over priced stock!
Excellent! I looked in vain for clarification on IBM's site. Thanks for the clarification.
A 4-core server? Are you certain that the "2 processor" limit excludes multi-core CPUs? I wouldn't think so.
While I whole-heartedly agree with you on several of your points (especially FreeBSD's short straw) I see GPL Java going the way of w3.org HTML specifications and Microsoft's HTML "standard". One effective & correct way of doing things, but a more widely distributed audience of crap that makes the entire idea quite muddy and less effective.
Another large potential reason for keeping Java guarded is that it may really screw up Sun's enterprise stack if allowed to be GPL'd. Although I am in no way affiliated with Sun, I would suspect that this would be of a much larger concern than opening up Java alone. However, I can see a OpenJava site similar to OpenSolaris with a source code browser and using a similarly restricted CDDL license with the potential for adopting the new GPL3. Such a collaborative site could serve as the testing code and a base for future production quality code similar to the current Solaris model. This would enable quality back-ports (yay FreeBSD!) and seem to serve all needs I can think of, besides pure GPL2 zealots.
BTW, nice site Raven, I've visited frequently.
"If SUN plans an OSS strategy they are certainly NOT going to GPL their powerhorse Java. Solaris is nearly just as impressive from a technical standpoint. It's probably that Solaris doesn't have the numbers attached to it SUN would like to see."
Solaris is a platform. Java is supposed to be multi-platform. I fail to see how GPL Java would work well.
Imagine GPL Java under committeee control. Then one day, not to far distant, some member decides to fork the GPL Java because he/she has some other idea. Before long, there are 18 types of Java than are not all multi-platform and can't run the same code. Kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?
You'll certainly love the speed of Solaris 10, with perhaps, only one exception for now. UFS filesystems don't [generally] perform as well as some other more recent filesystems supported by Linux, though you can be certain that will change when ZFS is considered production quality. ZFS is now available in OpenSolaris and [I believe] the latest Solaris Express builds. The "FireEngine" network stack on Solaris 10 is without a doubt the fastest I've ever seen. 64-bit multiprocessing is hands-down better on Solaris than any GNU/Linux system I've yet used.
I personally only hope that whatever becomes of the GPL3 deal gets Solaris 10 the credit it deserves. For mostly historical reasons, Solaris doesn't enjoy the great "buzzword" media hype that Linux gets, though it dominates Linux in many areas - geeky-techno-media-lust is not one of those areas.
For those asking for Java open-sourced, I don't see how that will help the big picture. Linux is open source and look how many different versions do things their own way. How many different binary formats must we have to run on the different Linux boxes with full dependency checking? What a mess. Some control on the direction of Java is a good thing as Java will remain consistent!
"Who even gets out of bed for $20 these days? I'd want at least $50"
Apparently you've never even used windows. $20 is a rip-off!
"So basically unless you need the excellent latency performance of SCSI, higher than even the WD Raptor can offer, I see no compelling reason to use SCSI for anything anymore."
Unfourtnately you are mostly correct, save one concern of mine. I've personally had horrible luck keeping many Western Digital drives last until the term of their warranties. I've never had a Seagate drive fail on me. Though the Raptors offer good performance and have a better than usual warranty from WD, being produced by WD drives scares me. Seagate SCSI drives are now what I use and am very pleased. Now if only Seagate would make a similar drive as the Raptors...
I wouldn't have left the Java inventor's offerings out of that list.
In particular, this list summarizes the offerings quite well, to include their Portal Server.
"Yeah, because saying "www.google.com" is clearly equivalent to saying "just give me a completely random site". All because you left off the URI."
What modern browser doesn't automatically direct you to "http://www" when supplied with only a domain name, thereby NOT requiring users to type the debated prefix?
My point is by making it completely transparent, the average user will not likely ever get any smarter and just bugger up matters worse down the road.
"How could that be a good thing? It's entirely redundant to have to type in http:/// in a web browser. That's like being required to write MAIL: on every envelope you send out."
Insightful? Come on Moderators. The OP could have likened it to writing POP3 to send mail but typing http:/// is NOT a stupid idea. As another respondent already stated, HTTPS and FTP are also quite common.
If typing http:/// is too much to ask of idiotic users, perhaps we should just have a big green button users press and it takes them to a random site on the internet where they can just "shuffle" to where they need to go (thanks Apple). If its not the site you want, just keep shuffling through the billions of HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP pages you desire.
"I am inclined to believe in incompetence before conspiracy theories..."
or... "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor
We disagree then. I've run a Solaris 10 desktop for some time and think it's great and don't see why, with a little work, the OS X Aqua interface could be ported from a FreeBSD-based OS to Solaris 10 underpinnings. An Aqua interface and Apple apps. on Solaris kernel is what I'm rooting for.
Sun makes great "industry standard" hardware that is more than capable of running OS X well. Likewise, I believe, specific Solaris 10 features would really boost the update of OS X on the server side. Solaris 10 features such as ZFS, xBrands, Zones, dTrace, and more should make this hybrid OS one to reckon with...especially if given the graceful UI of OS X and iTunes for developers to listen to while working.
"Apple is all about style, Sun is about rock solid workhorse machines. I think they're both better off as separate companies."
On the hardware side, perhaps you are right. However, and this is a big one, I firmly believe that if Apple and Sun collaborate OS X desktop UI and applications on top of Solaris 10 that is would be an awe inspiring DESKTOP AND SERVER OS for both to use on their respectivley designed hardware niche.
Imagine the inroads the new hybrid OS could take into corporate computing!
"Why isn't there a "Spread Thunderbird" website? mmm... Spread..."
On the heels of the Bird Flu pandemic, I'm not convinced this would be good publicity.
Why not just keep Solaris (10) and setup your environment using adjoining clusters that you could safely delegate some [zone] "root" access to if required? The RBAC is also very good and would likely accomplish the same goals.
"Is today pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft?
I left my cheat-sheet at home..."
This is Slashdot. Since when do we have "pro-Microsoft" days?
"If your running Solaris, explore metainit for the RAID.""
Excuse me, if you are on Solaris look at ZFS for RAID!
{waving toilet tissue in hands}
"Anyone need a vipe?"
How about GNSQL language?
GNSQL's Not a Structured Query Language language.
I was using the IBM...since sold - sig corrected.
What you describe is the unethical use of business technology, not the unethical business.
"I'd probably buy one of those combos at 70US$ regardless of their fraudulent business practises, though."
Then you are also part of the problem.
Consumers supporting known businesses which have no ethic drive the good businesses with ethics out of business. Why don't you just see what hardware Microsoft has to offer you for your evangelical services?