Are you saying that Websphere and Weblogic don't have any JSF dependencies? The last time I looked, there were very significant Apache dependencies in both Weblogic and Websphere. Even Jetty will have some Apache stuff in its pom.xml, won't it?
He's taking space and other resources that are not available to a violent criminal. At best, he is raising the cost of incarcerating violent criminals. That's harm to society, to the economy, and weakens the value of a criminal justice system.
>You know, this is very puzzling. Why hasn't FOSS come up its own managed runtime+language stack?
The strength of Java is less in the language and more in the widespread adoption of enterprise frameworks. I have less appreciation of the language itself than I do for the ASF toolchain and for Spring. I realize that Python has parallels for these things, but they tend to not be used in the places where Java is used, by which I mean places that have ever given me paychecks.
When these threads come up, I'm usually shocked by how little awareness there seems to be of just how much business software is in Java, and how much of that responsibility rests on various Apache projects over the years. It would be a real surprise to see any Enterprise Java that doesn't link at least some ASF libraries, and usually there are *many*.
Apache, not Sun or Oracle or IBM is the big name in Java. I hope the Apache group can make a unified front and play their cards effectively, but so far they are acting like victims.
If you're developing an enterprise app that is meant to be deployed on the EC2 or something, it's not going to be a big stretch to ask (require) people in certain roles to use Linux.
There are *plenty* of OSX shops, including one very industrial environment where I've worked.
If you're working for someone else... and your job isn't the one with the chief authority for making user or server platform decisions, why are you having this conversation? And if your job *does* have that authority, well, it may or may not suck to have a job for which you are in no way qualified.
If you're developing your own business and you *are* responsible for these things, then you can reasonably open a dialogue for realistic consultation.
The think I take from the article and thread is that the poster wants to *migrate* an *existing* infrastructure at *somebody else's business*.
In other words, the article isn't along the lines of "I'm starting a business and I want to make progressive I.T. decisions, will non-traditional decisions yield any competitive advantage?"
All this talk about change (and inertia and reliance on specific tools) tells me that people are working in entrenched organizations instead of starting new business ventures.
>You can use gmail and have custom domain.. I would take gmail over Exchange in a heartbeat.
A lot of people who post whenever these threads come up don't seem to understand this. Gmail is a TLS-enabled MX and IMAP in your DNS Zone. One of its features is a good webmail system, but it's much more useful than just this.
>Is Gmail for everyone? No, but it certainly is worth looking at for some companies.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that Gmail has a corporate offering. They think of Gmail only as the personal individual Gmail account. Some of them don't seem to know that you can make Gmail work just like a hosting provider's IMAP, you can setup the DNS including MX, it has secure SMTP, etc. It's often a better choice, security-wise, than the typical hosting provider.
What if that happens at your own site? How much does it cost? What's your backup regimen? How long does it take to get everyone's mail archives from Iron Mountain, and are you even getting that scale of backups? If so, how are you doing it and how do you know?
People keep drawing an equivalency between a Gmail outage and an on-site outage. The on-site outage might be *very* expensive, if it is even recoverable. Gmail's "sixth downtime" probably had a lot smaller impact than your first one.
A lot of the people who comment on the subject seem to be familiar with the Java language itself, but not so much with the significance of the frameworks and libraries that are out there. In these threads, I don't usually get the sense that some of the posters are very aware of just how much business software has been built in Java in the past decade. Whenever I see comments dismissing Java based on stuff like applet or Swing performance, it just drives the point home that some people simply don't understand where the Java code is. (Hint, it's not in the end-user GUI or the 2D or 3D animation.)
>Local programmers in both London and New York gotta eat too you know...
From the point of view of London or New York, if you can't afford to live there you can go to Dartmoor or Indiana.
There are people who see enough value in living in New York for a while that they will go there *at a loss*. There are enough of these people that the labor and real estate markets are really competitive. It's tough to have to compete with people who already have enough money that they can burn it while working at a subsistence wage, but what can you do?
There are certain places I would like to relocate to (not NYC), but I can see that I have to compete against people who will take a lot less compensation that I could, just for the privilege of living in those places. And among those who do need to make a living, many have equity in the market there, and only need to cover incremental costs, where for me it would mean going into debt.
>And as a user of a program, I give a shit about the productivity of the developer... why?
In business software, the user of the program is often the one waiting for the developer to finish, and is paying for the time.
This thread took a direction all about user interfaces and algorithm performance. Computationally intensive algorithms tend to be pretty rare in business software, and the user interface often amounts to a report, or a web-based UI. Imperative logic, simple internationalization, abstraction of relational data, and a framework that lets you forget about the concerns of deployment or the web or service interface are all more important that runtime performance or 2D or 3D graphics.
I realize that there is stuff out there to compete with enterprise java (I happen to like Django, and I also think PHP has a place in this world), but for a lot of business development, it's pretty hard to beat e.g., Spring and Hibernate, and using that stuff means using Java, and implies a whole bunch of things about Java in the middle tier.
I'm not in disagreement with you, but I still am really interested in knowing how much of the "cost" of launching a shuttle is amortized into the space program's sunk costs, how much is in the market value of natural resources, how much is in salaries and real estate expenses and stuff, and how much is marginal costs... Not just "how much", but "who gets the money" and "for what?"
I have no doubt the program could have been far more efficient. But given the non-negotiable parameters of the shuttle as it will launch, how much of that price we're quoted is "real?"
If we *had to* launch the shuttle one last time in order to save The American Way Of Life or something, and everyone involved chose not to profit from it, all resources were applied at cost or whatever, what would the price tag be? Less than $1.3 billion or $450 million or whatever, I am sure.
I hate to be the devil's advocate, but this is a two-way civil rights issue.
The artists' rights (unfortunately represented by a cartel, but not legally relevant) are the ones being abridged.
It's hard to make a meaningful argument that some rights can be abridged with impunity but others can't. If you think about it, making a special dispensation for one civil right (copyright) is pretty hard to justify in an unbiased and disinterested way.
I agree with much of what is said in the defendant's defense here, but I also note a significant amount of misunderstanding of the basic issue. I especially am disappointed by the many analogies to "theft". Theft deprives someone of their *property*. Copyright infringement deprives them of their *rights*. It's a fundamentally different issue.
I'm sure if I did something to deprive *you* of *your* rights (not just copyright) you wouldn't be complaining about the injustice of a large tort awarded in your favor. But when it's *copyright* and in particular, the copyright held by someone in the music publishing cartel, I'm to understand that different rules should apply. I tend to agree, because I hold some of the same personal and cultural biases. But I cannot for the life of me explain how it could be so, and still have a toe in "equal protection" ideals.
If this were presented to you in a way that you could be disinterested, you might not see it as such a travesty.
One party's rights are abridged by the actions of another. The party whose rights were abridged sought and received a large civil judgment in a jury trial.
If you didn't know the specific rights that were abridged, or the specific nature of the infraction, or the size of the judgment, you might be able to give a nod to the fact that justice was served.
You have biases about whether corporations have rights that can be abridged, whether copyright is equivalent to other rights, whether file sharing is a (two-way) civil rights issue, whether certain torts are excessive, etc.
>When are people going to wise up and ask the question of how much would it have cost if she'd actually stolen the CDs in question?
If she had stolen them, and then ripped and encoded them, and then distributed the encoded version, you're out of the territory of seemingly relevant but completely invalid analogies and back to the point of civil responsibility for copyright infringement.
The argument isn't that she deprived someone of property. It's not at all the same thing as theft. Your stolen CD example is no better than a car analogy.
She *abridged someone else's rights.*
The verdict and civil judgment are a punishment for abridging another person's rights, not for stealing their property.
Very few people who comment on copyright cases seem to understand this basic fundamental point.
If someone abridges your rights (ANY rights, not just copyright), and you seek justices for being deprived of your rights, who will you allow to decide what your rights were worth?
I have always been asked either "What magazines do you subscribe to?" or "Do you have any bumper stickers on your car?"
With questions like that, *anybody* should be able to get himself onto or off of any jury panel.
I'm pretty much on the jury "no fly list" nowadays. I still get notified but I never get put into a pool.
In the old days, when I would do things like wear my Karl Marx t-shirt under a suit jacket, or the time I put "naturist" in the form where it asked for "religion", none of this ever kept me out of the jury room. But having bumper stickers that I made myself certainly seems to make them exclude me.
Expressing that kind of opinion directly also happens to be a great way to get out of jury duty. My favorite part of voir dire is when they ask what magazines you read. You don't even have to give radical answers to get yourself rejected. You just have to be clearly biased, and it helps a lot if it seems like you don't *understand* that you're biased.
I used to get called up quite often, and derived a great deal of enjoyment from messing with the minds of the authority figures (who *must* deal with you in a disinterested way) and the occasional laugh I'd get from the one or two other jurors who had a pulse.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you saying that Websphere and Weblogic don't have any JSF dependencies?
The last time I looked, there were very significant Apache dependencies in both Weblogic and Websphere.
Even Jetty will have some Apache stuff in its pom.xml, won't it?
>What damage is it you want to mitigate here?
He's taking space and other resources that are not available to a violent criminal. At best, he is raising the cost of incarcerating violent criminals. That's harm to society, to the economy, and weakens the value of a criminal justice system.
>You know, this is very puzzling. Why hasn't FOSS come up its own managed runtime+language stack?
The strength of Java is less in the language and more in the widespread adoption of enterprise frameworks. I have less appreciation of the language itself than I do for the ASF toolchain and for Spring. I realize that Python has parallels for these things, but they tend to not be used in the places where Java is used, by which I mean places that have ever given me paychecks.
When these threads come up, I'm usually shocked by how little awareness there seems to be of just how much business software is in Java, and how much of that responsibility rests on various Apache projects over the years. It would be a real surprise to see any Enterprise Java that doesn't link at least some ASF libraries, and usually there are *many*.
Apache, not Sun or Oracle or IBM is the big name in Java. I hope the Apache group can make a unified front and play their cards effectively, but so far they are acting like victims.
Start a business. Make the most of the competitive advantage that open source and other progressive adoptions will give you.
It depends on what business you're in.
If you're developing an enterprise app that is meant to be deployed on the EC2 or something, it's not going to be a big stretch to ask (require) people in certain roles to use Linux.
There are *plenty* of OSX shops, including one very industrial environment where I've worked.
If you're working for someone else... and your job isn't the one with the chief authority for making user or server platform decisions, why are you having this conversation? And if your job *does* have that authority, well, it may or may not suck to have a job for which you are in no way qualified.
If you're developing your own business and you *are* responsible for these things, then you can reasonably open a dialogue for realistic consultation.
The think I take from the article and thread is that the poster wants to *migrate* an *existing* infrastructure at *somebody else's business*.
In other words, the article isn't along the lines of "I'm starting a business and I want to make progressive I.T. decisions, will non-traditional decisions yield any competitive advantage?"
All this talk about change (and inertia and reliance on specific tools) tells me that people are working in entrenched organizations instead of starting new business ventures.
>You can use gmail and have custom domain .. I would take gmail over Exchange in a heartbeat.
A lot of people who post whenever these threads come up don't seem to understand this. Gmail is a TLS-enabled MX and IMAP in your DNS Zone. One of its features is a good webmail system, but it's much more useful than just this.
People who have gone from managing their own MX and and MTA to (corporate) Gmail are *not* going back.
We did it at my shop. Everyone (few hundred users) is happy and there's *no way* they'd go back.
>Is Gmail for everyone? No, but it certainly is worth looking at for some companies.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that Gmail has a corporate offering. They think of Gmail only as the personal individual Gmail account.
Some of them don't seem to know that you can make Gmail work just like a hosting provider's IMAP, you can setup the DNS including MX, it has secure SMTP, etc. It's often a better choice, security-wise, than the typical hosting provider.
What if that happens at your own site? How much does it cost? What's your backup regimen? How long does it take to get everyone's mail archives from Iron Mountain, and are you even getting that scale of backups? If so, how are you doing it and how do you know?
People keep drawing an equivalency between a Gmail outage and an on-site outage. The on-site outage might be *very* expensive, if it is even recoverable. Gmail's "sixth downtime" probably had a lot smaller impact than your first one.
>Nobody has ever lay on their death bed and uttered with their final breath, "I wish I had more money."
What if they died because they couldn't afford surgery or drugs?
>The majority of Open Source projects have shitty, old or no documentation at all.
PostgreSQL is not in this set.
A lot of the people who comment on the subject seem to be familiar with the Java language itself, but not so much with the significance of the frameworks and libraries that are out there. In these threads, I don't usually get the sense that some of the posters are very aware of just how much business software has been built in Java in the past decade. Whenever I see comments dismissing Java based on stuff like applet or Swing performance, it just drives the point home that some people simply don't understand where the Java code is. (Hint, it's not in the end-user GUI or the 2D or 3D animation.)
I have mustard in my refrigerator. Is it competing with mayonnaise? Does it matter to mustard that ketchup is dominating?
>Local programmers in both London and New York gotta eat too you know...
From the point of view of London or New York, if you can't afford to live there you can go to Dartmoor or Indiana.
There are people who see enough value in living in New York for a while that they will go there *at a loss*.
There are enough of these people that the labor and real estate markets are really competitive. It's tough to have to compete with people who already have enough money that they can burn it while working at a subsistence wage, but what can you do?
There are certain places I would like to relocate to (not NYC), but I can see that I have to compete against people who will take a lot less compensation that I could, just for the privilege of living in those places. And among those who do need to make a living, many have equity in the market there, and only need to cover incremental costs, where for me it would mean going into debt.
I dare you to look that up on Monster/Dice :-)
>And as a user of a program, I give a shit about the productivity of the developer... why?
In business software, the user of the program is often the one waiting for the developer to finish, and is paying for the time.
This thread took a direction all about user interfaces and algorithm performance. Computationally intensive algorithms tend to be pretty rare in business software, and the user interface often amounts to a report, or a web-based UI. Imperative logic, simple internationalization, abstraction of relational data, and a framework that lets you forget about the concerns of deployment or the web or service interface are all more important that runtime performance or 2D or 3D graphics.
I realize that there is stuff out there to compete with enterprise java (I happen to like Django, and I also think PHP has a place in this world), but for a lot of business development, it's pretty hard to beat e.g., Spring and Hibernate, and using that stuff means using Java, and implies a whole bunch of things about Java in the middle tier.
I'm not in disagreement with you, but I still am really interested in knowing how much of the "cost" of launching a shuttle is amortized into the space program's sunk costs, how much is in the market value of natural resources, how much is in salaries and real estate expenses and stuff, and how much is marginal costs... Not just "how much", but "who gets the money" and "for what?"
I have no doubt the program could have been far more efficient. But given the non-negotiable parameters of the shuttle as it will launch, how much of that price we're quoted is "real?"
If we *had to* launch the shuttle one last time in order to save The American Way Of Life or something, and everyone involved chose not to profit from it, all resources were applied at cost or whatever, what would the price tag be? Less than $1.3 billion or $450 million or whatever, I am sure.
I hate to be the devil's advocate, but this is a two-way civil rights issue.
The artists' rights (unfortunately represented by a cartel, but not legally relevant) are the ones being abridged.
It's hard to make a meaningful argument that some rights can be abridged with impunity but others can't. If you think about it, making a special dispensation for one civil right (copyright) is pretty hard to justify in an unbiased and disinterested way.
I agree with much of what is said in the defendant's defense here, but I also note a significant amount of misunderstanding of the basic issue. I especially am disappointed by the many analogies to "theft". Theft deprives someone of their *property*.
Copyright infringement deprives them of their *rights*. It's a fundamentally different issue.
I'm sure if I did something to deprive *you* of *your* rights (not just copyright) you wouldn't be complaining about the injustice of a large tort awarded in your favor. But when it's *copyright* and in particular, the copyright held by someone in the music publishing cartel, I'm to understand that different rules should apply. I tend to agree, because I hold some of the same personal and cultural biases. But I cannot for the life of me explain how it could be so, and still have a toe in "equal protection" ideals.
If this were presented to you in a way that you could be disinterested, you might not see it as such a travesty.
One party's rights are abridged by the actions of another.
The party whose rights were abridged sought and received a large civil judgment in a jury trial.
If you didn't know the specific rights that were abridged, or the specific nature of the infraction, or the size of the judgment, you might be able to give a nod to the fact that justice was served.
You have biases about whether corporations have rights that can be abridged, whether copyright is equivalent to other rights, whether file sharing is a (two-way) civil rights issue, whether certain torts are excessive, etc.
>When are people going to wise up and ask the question of how much would it have cost if she'd actually stolen the CDs in question?
If she had stolen them, and then ripped and encoded them, and then distributed the encoded version, you're out of the territory of seemingly relevant but completely invalid analogies and back to the point of civil responsibility for copyright infringement.
The argument isn't that she deprived someone of property. It's not at all the same thing as theft. Your stolen CD example is no better than a car analogy.
She *abridged someone else's rights.*
The verdict and civil judgment are a punishment for abridging another person's rights, not for stealing their property.
Very few people who comment on copyright cases seem to understand this basic fundamental point.
If someone abridges your rights (ANY rights, not just copyright), and you seek justices for being deprived of your rights, who will you allow to decide what your rights were worth?
I have always been asked either "What magazines do you subscribe to?" or "Do you have any bumper stickers on your car?"
With questions like that, *anybody* should be able to get himself onto or off of any jury panel.
I'm pretty much on the jury "no fly list" nowadays. I still get notified but I never get put into a pool.
In the old days, when I would do things like wear my Karl Marx t-shirt under a suit jacket, or the time I put "naturist" in the form where it asked for "religion", none of this ever kept me out of the jury room.
But having bumper stickers that I made myself certainly seems to make them exclude me.
"statistically, half of them are going to be of below average intelligence."
NOT THIS AGAIN!
95.4 % of them are within two standard deviations of the mean.
In any statistically meaningful sample, about two percent of people are more than two standard deviations below average intelligence.
Maybe things were different where you studied statistics.
Expressing that kind of opinion directly also happens to be a great way to get out of jury duty.
My favorite part of voir dire is when they ask what magazines you read. You don't even have
to give radical answers to get yourself rejected. You just have to be clearly biased, and it helps
a lot if it seems like you don't *understand* that you're biased.
I used to get called up quite often, and derived a great deal of enjoyment from messing with the minds of the authority figures (who *must* deal with you in a disinterested way) and the occasional laugh I'd get from the one or two other jurors who had a pulse.