I used to laugh at habitable moons in Science Fiction (Example: 'The Forest Moon of Endor'). Sure, you would have a great night sky there, but it couldn't happen! After all, if you use our solar system for a guide, Jovian sized planets just didn't happen that close to their suns. And, even if they did, high levels of radiation from the 'Van Allen' belts of the super-jovian would make any satellites uninhabitable...
But these recent discoveries show this view to be as short-sighted as a redneck's color vision. Clearly such systems exist, even if they are not common. Of course the only planetary systems we can detect with current techonology include such super-jovian planets, so we still don't know if our own planetary system is 'normal' or not. I suppose it will be fun finding out though!
So the scenario I see is this: Super-Jovian planet located somewhere between the equivalent temperature zone of Earth and Mars with a host of puny to Earth sized moons, one of which (located far outside the super-jovian primary's radiation belts) supports oceans and life. If the primary has a set of rings, well, that would be frosting on the cake. Imagine parking with your sweetie and looking up at the night sky!
On the other hand, imagine two hundred foot tides rushing around the 'moon' in sync with its rotation...
I suspect we'll see a lot more energetic, imaginative young programmers following in Miguel's footsteps instead of going into the highest-paying jobs they can find as soon as they can find them.
They claim that, for one thing, the movie is a bomb simply because it sucks. The preposterousness of the subject and the chance it might cause lusers, er, ordinary folk, to panic only makes it worse. Read the Wired article here.
Multiple competing versions of windows wouldn't be competing to try and define the defacto standard API. What they would be aiming for is to be the one that would run the most legacy apps. . . . The thing is, there is just so much software out there written to the various versions of the win32 API that any new windows OS would die a very quick death if they tried to introduce incompatibilities with that API.
What you say is true only for those legacy applications you mention. And it would have the effect you suggest if software was a static field. But it isn't!
Software development is always changing, morphing, upgrading. It can seem strange that a word processor that was great only two years ago is crap today, but that is the way it is (or a processor for that matter). It keeps people like me in business and, while the users may bitch, they keep paying for the upgrades.
himi also said:
If this was a normal case of OS competition then yes, things would probably pan out the way that you think, but it wouldn't be normal. New windows versions would be competing to make money from an established set of applications, rather than from an entirely new platform, and so incompatibilities that broke those applications would be suicidal. And if the applications work, who cares about anything else?
But, like I said. We are dealing with a moving target. Sure, you want to remain downward compatible. But the point here isn't legacy applications. It is new applications that do things made possible by changes to the underlying API set.
I am not simply basing my opinion on wishful thinking you know. I have the benefit of long experience in the field. And historically things always fall out the way I outlined them in my original post. First everyone tries to differentiate based on features, then all the developers and users flock to one platform, then they move on to the next big thing. If the platform vendor is smart they provide that next big thing themselves in a way that leverages their current lock on the market. If they fail to do so we call them (pick one) IBM, DEC, SGI, Apple, (insert your favorite flavor here). Of course I am over simplifying...
I've said it before, here on/. and elsewhere, the only thing that really matters is programmer mindshare. Everything else follows that. And the best thing the Open Source movement could do is to create a standard API set that can be implemented in such a way that the OS it runs on is entirely beside the point. We should wrest the mindshare away from the vendors of proprietary systems. And we should do it in this current 'window' of opportunity.
You're buying into the idea that multiple competing flavours of the operating system is bad. This 'fracturing' of the Unix market has lead to an extremely competitive and fast moving market.
Absoloutely. I firmly believe this is a bad thing for developers and (by definition) consumers. Moreover I believe that the reason Microsoft has managed to get a stranglehold on the market in the first place is because there are natural market forces that tend to cause developers to standardize on a particular set of API's. Even if those API's are in flux, so long as they come from one source.
Please re-read my original post. Then show me, with examples, where I am wrong...
That tactic only works if a single company controls both the OS and apps. If several different companies had rights to the OS (which would make no sense unless the apps were spun off independent of the OS companies), then no OS company could incompatibly extend the OS without wasting their time because the app companies would not follow; by doing so, the app companies would be tying their products to a single supplier's version.... The app companies would have every incentive to stick with the legacy or consensus API's...
But historically this is just not true. In every case where multiple vendors were providing licensed copies of the same operating system they have chosen to differentiate their offering with proprietary 'enhancements'. It is really hard to market something as being 'Just like theirs -- no different at all.' But if you say 'Just like theirs, only better.' you stand a chance.
Like I have been saying for a long time now, we need to remove the profit motive from the business of designing API's. And, IMHO, an OS is just a vehicle for delivering API's...
It seems clear to me that most legal scholars fail to understand the fundemental drivers of the software industry. I guess being a 'legal scholar' tends to focus one on the legal issues (Duh). Unfortunately the practical issues of either a breakup or of licensing Windows are very scary. The 'experts' answering here in/. do seem to understand that. Still many others in the legal world seem to miss the point entirely.
For example, in an Infoworld article published on the nineth, one such expert by the name of Horvath was quoted as wanting to force the licensing of Windows so that different companys could create competing versions. He claims the following result:
"...there might be an IBM or a Compaq Computer version (or both) of Windows. Those versions would then be licensed to OEMs or sold on the retail market, somewhat like software for preparing U.S. federal income tax returns, Hovenkamp said. In other words, the software might be different, but it all helps users file tax returns based on the same income tax regulations. The versions of Windows, therefore, would all be basically compatible with one another.
"In fact, such a remedy would force compatibility because companies, even while technically competing in the Windows marketplace, would have an incentive to make their products work together. If they did not, consumers would have the option to simply buy a different version of Windows."
When I read something like the above I immediately realize the person making these statements doesn't understand how things really work at all. The actual result would be a fracturing of the API's (Application Programmer Interfaces) where non-compatible versions of Windows would proliferate accross the landscape. This would be followed by a shakeout as one version becomes dominant and gains the largest amount of marketshare.
This would happen because the software industry tends towards standards, and the company that owns the standards (or seems to) owns the marketplace. So, if you are a windows licensee that wants to own the market, the first thing you do is something Microsoft calls 'Embrace and Extend'. This is where you create a version of the operating system that is compatible with the standard, but which has unique enhancements only your version supplies. You do this because you know your competitors are also doing it. This has always happened, it will always happen...
Usually the winner at this game is the one most willing to court the software developers (people like me). Because it is our work (applications) that makes an operating system something people want. Because we are the ones who recommend the Client and Server platforms our companies use. Because without us there would be no software industry. And, most importantly, because we tend to move as a herd towards the one platform that guarentees us the most potential users.
I remember the bad old days of the early 1980's very well. At least 15 competing PC platforms (some little more than toys) and no standards at all. The reason the IBM PC platform running DOS and then Windows became the primary developement platforms is not because they were the best. It was because they were good enough, because they were correctly marketed to programmers and because there was a network effect that brought in more developers as the number of users grew.
My point is this: The software industry will always tend towards a single OS with the vendor of that OS owning an effective monopoly. However this doesn't mean the vendor of that OS can rest on their laurels, as the other constant of the software industry is change. The reason Microsoft was dominant for so long is simple; they understood these facts.
I do not think you can 'end' the Microsoft monopoly by breaking up the company or doing anything that allows the API's to remain closed. However, as was pointed out by several of the/. legal experts above, opening the source is an unlikly remedy because of the licensing issues it raises and the fact it would represent a 'taking' by the government.
So, how about something completly different? How about finding a way to get Microsoft to fund the development of competing Open Source operating systems? I am not certain what form this would take, but I do think it is the only real answer here other than goverment oversight of all Microsoft contracts. Everything else we might do will, because of the natural forces of the software market, tend to the same situation we have now. Personally I would rather the natural monopoly was in the hands of an Open Source group of one kind or another...
IBM was found to be a monopoly that acted in illegal restraint of trade back in the 1970's. Fifteen years of appeals later they got it thrown out of court...
Don't expect anything right away from this. Other than the stock tanking that is:-)
But one important point: While IBM was fighting the Justice Dept. they took their eye off the ball for just a little bit. It wouldn't be important, except that little bit was more than long enough for Microsoft to pull a fast one and end up owning the PC OS market. What happened before can happen again.
My take? Don't count on the slow, grinding wheel of the courts to achieve any particular end. Look for an opportunity and do it yourself!
Jack
Jeez! What a lot of whining!
on
NetSlaves
·
· Score: 2
The authors of that book had horror stories to tell. So do a lot of other people. But I gotta wonder; why all the angst?
Seriously, how many of you had a gun to your head when you took that job as a 'netslave'? Come on, you know you have a choice! We all do. If you don't like it then move on! If you can't find another job in the industry more to your liking then start selling shoes for a living!
Real slaves never had a choice and it is a great wrong to claim your priveliged lives have any relationship with their hardship and plight!
I like what I do. In many ways my job is the brightest spot in my life. Coding is fun! Sometimes it seems like a scam that I get paid to do it. And I have plenty of experience outside the industry; there was a time in my life when I thought I would be a mechanic for a living.
Sure I have had to deal with PHB's and unrealistic deadlines and flawed specifications and unqualified co-workers. But that comes with the territory. In my case I did it for a while and then opted out (I am currently working a non-net related business systems job with more realistic hours). But I also took a 20 grand a year pay cut. It was my choice. I live my life and work where I want to because, as a highly qualified programming geek, I have more choice than ninety percent of the poor bastards out there. If I don't like things I vote with my feet. I don't whine about it...
First, let me say that I am actually considering Bamboo as one of the underpinnings of the COA. As you pointed out -- in this case being lightweight is an advantage. Actually a huge advantage.
But let me quote from my original post (referring to Bamboo, Corba and ZOPE): "But none of them go as far as I would like." As a basic technology underlying the COA Bamboo is very nearly perfect. Much as the ZOPE Object Database design (ZODB) is nearly perfect for COA persistent storage. Only thing is, these are peices of what I see as a larger whole...
The real point is that I want to design first and develop afterwards (what a thought!). Not being a foolish egoist, I have every intention of incorporating any existing technology that would work as part of the whole. And I do see Bamboo as possibly filling a specific role, both in code and architecture. I would welcome your help in making this so!
So what do I need right now? Something you are probably doing anyway: Architectural documentation for Bamboo. Preferably with UML diagrams and with more detail than the overviews I found drilling down from the Bamboo web site. And I would really appreciate your active participation in the COA effort. Everyone involved has real jobs of course, and so we will probably proceed in fits and starts. Plus there is the usual possibility of the whole thing just fading away. But I can guarentee you one thing; this is an idea whose time has come. If it isn't the COA it will be something else.
Only I want to take it even further. First off, let me reference two previous posts on SlashDot: 'Its the API's Stupid!' and 'Again: Its the API's Stupid!'. In those posts I made the case for developing an API that was both an Open Source Component development/delivery/runtime system and a set of standard Components built with/for it. Quote from those posts:
"We need a fast, simple, powerful and complete Open Source solution for component based development. An API (preferably a cross platform one) that you can write code to in any of the most popular languages. And it must have a reference implementation that is open source with a GPL license. It should be highly Object Oriented and should provide base objects for every major Design Pattern. It should front-end the OS so completely that you can write a new OS which directly provided the relevant API's (making it a kind of Meta-OS). The API itself should be open and there should be a standards committee that isn't loaded with representatives from the big companies. Plus, no-one is penalized for producing a non-compatible version (other than the fact that compatible versions would probably receive a greater market share)."
Also Quote:
"I have been working on my own for some time to develop the beginings of such a standard. A kind of hobby for me. And I know there are plenty of people out there who will claim such a thing already exists in (choose one) PERL, Python, Smalltalk, Gnome or some flavor of the month. I don't think any of those things meet all the criteria of the environment I want to see, but I can state one thing rather confidently... Until we pull together a produce such a thing the Open Source movement will have a lot of difficulty competing against Sun and Microsoft in the Business Systems space. "
One person sent me a pointer to Bamboo, an Open Source project to develop a component runtime system (partially using Mozilla code, which is cool). Others have referred me to CORBA and even ZOPE. Personally I think all of these things are good (although CORBA may be too heavyweight). But none of them go as far as I would like.
Although I want to see real code as well, I think the process should start the way any good development process should start: With a good design. With an architecture. I am currently calling this the 'COA' or 'Common Object Architecture'...
In one of my design documents I describe it this way: "A shared set of class and interface specifications that may be implemented in any language and/or with any distributed object methodology. The COA is a Specification, a Platonic Ideal - any implementation of the architecture is coupled to the COA only to the extent to which it correctly exposes the interfaces of the architecture. The intent is to create a standard system workspace for programmers to use that transcends operating systems and programming languages. Furthermore the COA is intended to facilitate the creation of distributed applications where the objects may reside on any system on a network, but look like they are local to the calling application."
Then, once the design is complete, we throw it open for development. Much like a protocol, anyone can develop both open and closed source versions of the COA. Of course I expect the Open Source versions to get more use...
And these versions might be developed for any platform and in any language because one basic part of the COA would be a split of the class definitions into two types: Native and External. Native classes have standard method calls that may be directly implemented in whatever language/object environment is being used. External classes may only be accessed through a common messaging interface defined in the COA Messaging library.
This means that Native classes are generally 'synchronous'. They return control to the calling code immediately, allowing them to be implemented as 'In-Process' and 'In-Thread' with the calling code. In most cases Native classes will be fairly small grained 'tool' classes used as components in building larger, more functional, objects.
External classes are extremely large grained 'Actor' objects that expect 'prompts' and execute 'behaviors'. They operate asynchronously, the only way that calling code can know they have completed a requested function is when they return a message indicating this fact. Although an External class may actually be implemented to run in the same process space and even in the same thread space as the calling code they function as external servers where the calling code is the client. In many cases the calling code may only be connecting to a lightweight message interface class which front-ends an External class running on another machine entirely.
These two types of classes exist to provide an opportunity to "Have our cake and eat it too." The Native classes may be bound at compile time (for those implementations that support it) and will operate with the least possible amount of interface overhead. Plus they make it possible to create implementations of the COA in environments that do not provide for multi-threaded programming. Meanwhile the External classes allow for disconnected operation and execution across system boundaries with the least amount of overhead possible.
Sometime soon I expect to set up a discussion group on this topic. Anyone interested? Email me and let me know...
Could you possibly give us some answers to my original questions (speed, availability, etc.)? And perhaps tell us your opinion of the viability of this technology? Not just "Can it work?" but "Can it compete against hologramatic storage and other new technologies coming down the pike?"
I read the article and came up with more questions than answers... How does it work? What are the 'off' and 'on' states? How do you read/write it? How fast can you cycle it?
I followed the link from the article to 'Mark A. Reed', one of the scientists mentioned. A quote from his personal site (deep breath): "My areas of research are quantum electron device physics; tunneling and transport phenomena in semiconductor heterojunction and nanostructured systems; reduced dimensionality effects in nanostructures; resonant tunneling transistors, circuits, and novel heterojunction devices; investigations into the physics and technology of quantum-confined electronic devices; investigation of resonant tunneling physics in a variety of heterojunction systems and materials, including 0D quantum dots and resonant tunneling transistors; and molecular electronics, nanotechnology."
...wheeze...
OK, now I know as much as I did before, and am buzz-worded to death besides. So I drilled deeper into the site and found some pictures of his current work that do give some clues. Most interesting is the illustration titled "Molecules in nanopores."
And, of course, there is his List of Publications which I probably wouldn't understand anyway. Even if they were online... Perhaps someone more competent can read these, and peruse the 'Break Junction Lab' description for us.
My take at this point is: the guy probably knows what he is talking about, but I still don't have enough information to determine if the end result would work well enough to actually be useful in '3 to 5 years'. The thing is, there are plenty of technologies that work. But only a few of them have survived the true test of fitness in the marketplace.
The idea that oil and natural gas are derived from natural hydrocarbons in the earth's core is not new. In fact it has been around for a long time and the theory is bolstered by the fact that volcano eruptions contain huge amounts of hydrocarbons and by the natural hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of Titan (amoung other places).
But that doesn't mean the resource is endless. What it means is that it is renewable at a somewhat higher rate than it would be were it purely squeezed out of fossilized swamps. The point is that our consumption can still outstrip the natural production of oil. Not a pardon, only a reprieve.
I have heard arguments like this before. the gist of them is generally that, due to outstanding debt in the form of unvested or vested but not yet cashed stock options (which are not kept on the books), Microsoft is actually losing money. Or, at least, does not have the valuation they would otherwise claim.
Of course these amounts really are kept on the books, they just get fiddled with before they end up as a footnote to the balance sheet. In accordance with law and prevailing accounting methods mind you (doesn't mean it is honest though). So I don't think I would personally go so far as to term it 'fraud' or a 'pyramid scheme' as the author of this piece has done. But he goes farther yet -- claiming that this could result in a complete collapse of the financial markets if it is not dealt with...
The weird thing is, Bill Parish appears to have some credibility on the surface. He mentions talking to the SEC Chairman, Arthur Levitt, and providing information on this to several fund managers. The article itself is well written and cogent.
Intersting notes -- One of the author's suggested 'fixes' is to "Prohibit Microsoft from buying back its own stock, instituting stock splits or selling put contracts and engaging in other hedging activity for 10 years. These are tricks used to manipulate the stock price and have contributed greatly to building the financial pyramid. It might make sense to outlaw this practice all together."
This is unlikely to happen, being as these activities are common among nearly all publicly held companies. But then he goes on to suggest that someone should "Prohibit Microsoft from offering employee stock options or any employee based ownership program for 10 years. The truth is most people go to Microsoft for stock options."
Huh! ***OUTLAW STOCK OPTIONS?*** Even as a one-time thing this would be a precedent that could destroy the high-tech economy we have grown in the last few years!
Of course another author suggested remedy is to "Request to have me as a guest on your talk show, radio station or other media outlet or speak at your convention. You might also send my Web site link to friends and people of influence such as other business leaders, political leaders and journalists, both here in the U.S. and abroad."
I sense several levels of hidden agendas here. Especially considering the harsh tone of the second half of the article. He even accuses Microsoft of 'Money Laundering' in Brazil and 'Corrupting Higher Education'. Such claims tend to marginalize his other arguments by making the Mr. Parish seem looney and fixated in his hatred of Microsoft. This is sad, because there more than a little merit here.
Charge what the market will bear. This fits perfectly into capitalist ideals. And it is fitting the price to the demand, something you can only do with modern computing systems.
We already see stuff like this all the time. It is neither illegal or immoral. It is, however, illegal to 'profiteer' (for example to raise the prices of emergency supplies to extortionite levels right before or after a natural disaster). But this wouldn't be profiteering. People would still have a choice of drinking water or finding a store that hasn't raised the prices.
I had the same feelings about the ending of Darwin's Radio as the reviewer. When I loaned my copy of the book to my girlfriend I told her that I thought the ending was not entirely what I would have liked. Not bad, just not what I had hoped for.
Being hooked into the Seattle SF scene, my girlfriend asked around and found out that Greg Bear does have a sequel planned. Meaning that the ending is intended to set up the next part of the story.
This is a repost to see if I can get the correct HTML in. Note that I picked the stuff below up by using the browser back button...
Or does it seem to others like Alan G. Carter is wandering through some new-age philosophical wasteland? For example 'M0' as a "...previously unsuspected public health problem." Huh? People addicted to boredom? Ritual junkies picking on the 'immune'?
I would think an easier explanation (and better if you apply Occam's Razor) is that most people are either intellectually incapable or intellectually lazy. In other words, some people can learn to actually use their brains and enjoy novelty, but it requires work. Others are born with it and yet others are missing a crucial component. But the author is so in love with this concept of Ritual Junkies that he nearly bursts into song. For example the following passage makes more sense as free verse than it does in context:
"There is an Inner Not at the base of all thinking that ends up as an invisible and unremovable Ghost Not that makes the conclusions invalid. It is because of this generality that the effect is so mathematically elegant."
Then add in some of the other stuff the web site meanders through, like 'Hypertime' and 'Reciprocal Cosmology', and you realize this stuff is straight out of a ketamine dream. I prefer my physics straight, thank you...
I didn't really buy into Carter's 'Programmer's Stone' thing all that much anyway. After all it seemed kinda self-evident. No need to use funny phrases like 'Mappers' and 'Packers' when we already know that some people are capable of seeing the big picture and others cannot (unless they get some major training). Personally I think the Myers Briggs Type Indicator personality test is a better predictor of someones ability than anything else. Basically, the people that Carter describes as 'Mappers' are 'NT' types (iNtuitive Thinking).
I previewed my post above and it looked fine. But when I post some of the HTML tags get stripped and it looks like crap. Good looking posts are important to me and I really don't like it when this happens...
Or does it seem to others like Alan G. Carter is wandering through some new-age philosophical problem." Huh? People addicted to boredom? Ritual junkies picking on the 'immune'?
wasteland? For example 'M0' as a "...previously unsuspected public health
I would think an easier explanation (and better if you apply Occam's Razor) is that most people are either intellectually incapable or intellectually lazy. In other words, some people can learn to actually use their brains and enjoy novelty, but it requires work. Others are born with it and yet others are missing a crucial component. But the author is so in love with this concept of Ritual Junkies that he nearly bursts into song. For example the following passage makes more sense as free verse than it does in context:
"There is an Inner Not at the base of all thinking that ends up as an invisible and unremovable Ghost Not that makes the conclusions invalid. It is because of this generality that the effect is so mathematically elegant."
Then add in some of the other stuff the web site meanders through, like 'Hypertime' and 'Reciprocal Cosmology', and you realize this stuff is straight out of a ketamine dream. I prefer my physics straight, thank you...
I didn't really buy into Carter's 'Programmer's Stone' thing all that much anyway. After all it seemed kinda self-evident. No need to use funny phrases like 'Mappers' and 'Packers' when we already know that some people are capable of seeing the big picture and others cannot (unless they get some major training). Personally I think the Myers Briggs Type Indicator personality test is a better predictor of this ability than anything else. Basically, the people that Carter describes as 'Mappers' are 'NT' types (iNtuitive Thinking).
What I find interesting is that any questions raised about Christianity are always met so defensively. Katz didn't critisize any religion in the slightest - at all.
No, Katz did not critisize religion. He critisized the members of a religion, by lumping them together as a group and otherwise acting in the way he claims the traditional media does towards geeks. The whole tone of his article is dismissive and, well, nasty. It almost seems like he has a personal axe to grind, and it is certainly hypocritical of him. Hence my post.
You loonitics are just so paranoid about someone raising questions about anything included in the little Christian club that you blast anyone who questions you.
Who, me? What makes you think that I am a christian, much less that I consider myself one? I am certain I never made that claim, and I hadn't thought my post would make it seem so. In fact I am not, but I do intensely dislike anyone putting people down as a group on the basis of something like religion, skin color or political belief. I am for freedom and tolerance, and Katz's article just didn't seem very tolerant to me...
On the other hand I think your choice of words says volumes about you. Plus you mispelled 'lunatics'. And no, I won't go into your grammar.
Katz is questioning the inconsistancy that somehow a very violent Christian game is hailed as morally pure, while games like Quake are blamed for violence.
I agree with that point. I only take exception with the way it was made. Katz was either deliberately making intolerant sounding remarks or he was expressing a personal opinion that had no place here. Either way, I feel correct in referring to the article as 'flamebait'.
On the one hand Jon Katz pushes tolerance for those who are different and freedom of speech for all. On the other, as in this article, he seems to be doing the opposite. Why all the venom against Christians Jon? Would you make the same nasty, baseless, comments about a game representing Jewish or Muslim mythology? How about Hindu? Paganism?
Not that I really care about the game in question myself. I doubt I will ever play it, much less pay money for the privilege. Nor am I in the target audience. And the idea of a violent game intended for christians does seem a bit hypocritical. Although perhaps not, if you read the old testement.
But it doesn't reach the same heighth of hypocrisy as Jon here! He speaks in a harsh tone about one segment of the populace, yet writes so many impassioned articles questioning why the general populace and traditional media do the same with geeks. Perhaps Jon thinks Christians are safe targets right now...
And notice that at no point is the game reviewed on its own merits as a game. Only on the content. I wish I could moderate articles down -- I would count this one as 'flamebait'.
Hmm... I was referring to the 'Babboon' Document Object architecture for Gnome which uses CORBA as opposed to COM. I guess it would run on multiple *nix boxen, so that was my mistake. But it still isn't cross platform enough for me:-)
One factor I didn't point out was NPSR and XPCOM from the Mozilla effort. They are putting together some interesting stuff which could be used as the basis for a true cross platform solution. Someone pointed me (via email) to the Bamboo project which is an attempt to produce a cross platform pluggable module architecture. It looks rather interesting as the basis for what I am talking about and it uses NPSR and they are looking at XPCOM.
You said: Sorry, but to me, this whole thing smacks of the Open Source community being unable to come up with ideas of its own and then slamming other companies when they won't hand over their creations. If you don't like the license, then don't use it -- find someone else's code to tweak or (Wow, here's an idea!), actually create something yourself. As Joy himself said, they "are not doing SCSL for the Linux community. If they believe they are a 'gift' culture, fine, but we are working to enable commercial and entrepreneurial investment."
I say that this was exactly the point of my post. I do not want to deal the SCSL. I don't like Sun's attitude about the Java API's. (Why can't I improve it and provide my improvements to community? Why can't we let the marketplace decide what is best instead of trusting Sun?) So I am saying exactly what you are criticizing me for!
I say that the Open Source community needs to get off its collective duff and come up with something better than Java. Better than COM/WinAPI. Better than (for that matter) Gnome/CORBA (which is Linux only currently). And then make it so complete and so cool that it becomes a compelling reason for business to migrate to open source solutions.
Am I really having such a hard time making myself clear? I am, of course, assuming that you are not a Sun shill...
Slashdot Mirror
I used to laugh at habitable moons in Science Fiction (Example: 'The Forest Moon of Endor'). Sure, you would have a great night sky there, but it couldn't happen! After all, if you use our solar system for a guide, Jovian sized planets just didn't happen that close to their suns. And, even if they did, high levels of radiation from the 'Van Allen' belts of the super-jovian would make any satellites uninhabitable...
But these recent discoveries show this view to be as short-sighted as a redneck's color vision. Clearly such systems exist, even if they are not common. Of course the only planetary systems we can detect with current techonology include such super-jovian planets, so we still don't know if our own planetary system is 'normal' or not. I suppose it will be fun finding out though!
So the scenario I see is this: Super-Jovian planet located somewhere between the equivalent temperature zone of Earth and Mars with a host of puny to Earth sized moons, one of which (located far outside the super-jovian primary's radiation belts) supports oceans and life. If the primary has a set of rings, well, that would be frosting on the cake. Imagine parking with your sweetie and looking up at the night sky!
On the other hand, imagine two hundred foot tides rushing around the 'moon' in sync with its rotation...
Jack
Young? But what about old farts like me?
Jack
They claim that, for one thing, the movie is a bomb simply because it sucks. The preposterousness of the subject and the chance it might cause lusers, er, ordinary folk, to panic only makes it worse. Read the Wired article here.
Jack
himi said:
What you say is true only for those legacy applications you mention. And it would have the effect you suggest if software was a static field. But it isn't!
Software development is always changing, morphing, upgrading. It can seem strange that a word processor that was great only two years ago is crap today, but that is the way it is (or a processor for that matter). It keeps people like me in business and, while the users may bitch, they keep paying for the upgrades.
himi also said:
But, like I said. We are dealing with a moving target. Sure, you want to remain downward compatible. But the point here isn't legacy applications. It is new applications that do things made possible by changes to the underlying API set.
I am not simply basing my opinion on wishful thinking you know. I have the benefit of long experience in the field. And historically things always fall out the way I outlined them in my original post. First everyone tries to differentiate based on features, then all the developers and users flock to one platform, then they move on to the next big thing. If the platform vendor is smart they provide that next big thing themselves in a way that leverages their current lock on the market. If they fail to do so we call them (pick one) IBM, DEC, SGI, Apple, (insert your favorite flavor here). Of course I am over simplifying...
I've said it before, here on /. and elsewhere, the only thing that really matters is programmer mindshare. Everything else follows that. And the best thing the Open Source movement could do is to create a standard API set that can be implemented in such a way that the OS it runs on is entirely beside the point. We should wrest the mindshare away from the vendors of proprietary systems. And we should do it in this current 'window' of opportunity.
Jack
Ami Ganguli said:
Absoloutely. I firmly believe this is a bad thing for developers and (by definition) consumers. Moreover I believe that the reason Microsoft has managed to get a stranglehold on the market in the first place is because there are natural market forces that tend to cause developers to standardize on a particular set of API's. Even if those API's are in flux, so long as they come from one source.
Please re-read my original post. Then show me, with examples, where I am wrong...
Jack
Tau Zero said:
But historically this is just not true. In every case where multiple vendors were providing licensed copies of the same operating system they have chosen to differentiate their offering with proprietary 'enhancements'. It is really hard to market something as being 'Just like theirs -- no different at all.' But if you say 'Just like theirs, only better.' you stand a chance.
Like I have been saying for a long time now, we need to remove the profit motive from the business of designing API's. And, IMHO, an OS is just a vehicle for delivering API's...
Jack
It seems clear to me that most legal scholars fail to understand the fundemental drivers of the software industry. I guess being a 'legal scholar' tends to focus one on the legal issues (Duh). Unfortunately the practical issues of either a breakup or of licensing Windows are very scary. The 'experts' answering here in /. do seem to understand that. Still many others in the legal world seem to miss the point entirely.
For example, in an Infoworld article published on the nineth, one such expert by the name of Horvath was quoted as wanting to force the licensing of Windows so that different companys could create competing versions. He claims the following result:
When I read something like the above I immediately realize the person making these statements doesn't understand how things really work at all. The actual result would be a fracturing of the API's (Application Programmer Interfaces) where non-compatible versions of Windows would proliferate accross the landscape. This would be followed by a shakeout as one version becomes dominant and gains the largest amount of marketshare.
This would happen because the software industry tends towards standards, and the company that owns the standards (or seems to) owns the marketplace. So, if you are a windows licensee that wants to own the market, the first thing you do is something Microsoft calls 'Embrace and Extend'. This is where you create a version of the operating system that is compatible with the standard, but which has unique enhancements only your version supplies. You do this because you know your competitors are also doing it. This has always happened, it will always happen...
Usually the winner at this game is the one most willing to court the software developers (people like me). Because it is our work (applications) that makes an operating system something people want. Because we are the ones who recommend the Client and Server platforms our companies use. Because without us there would be no software industry. And, most importantly, because we tend to move as a herd towards the one platform that guarentees us the most potential users.
I remember the bad old days of the early 1980's very well. At least 15 competing PC platforms (some little more than toys) and no standards at all. The reason the IBM PC platform running DOS and then Windows became the primary developement platforms is not because they were the best. It was because they were good enough, because they were correctly marketed to programmers and because there was a network effect that brought in more developers as the number of users grew.
My point is this: The software industry will always tend towards a single OS with the vendor of that OS owning an effective monopoly. However this doesn't mean the vendor of that OS can rest on their laurels, as the other constant of the software industry is change. The reason Microsoft was dominant for so long is simple; they understood these facts.
I do not think you can 'end' the Microsoft monopoly by breaking up the company or doing anything that allows the API's to remain closed. However, as was pointed out by several of the /. legal experts above, opening the source is an unlikly remedy because of the licensing issues it raises and the fact it would represent a 'taking' by the government.
So, how about something completly different? How about finding a way to get Microsoft to fund the development of competing Open Source operating systems? I am not certain what form this would take, but I do think it is the only real answer here other than goverment oversight of all Microsoft contracts. Everything else we might do will, because of the natural forces of the software market, tend to the same situation we have now. Personally I would rather the natural monopoly was in the hands of an Open Source group of one kind or another...
Jack
Team up with Amazon? Why would they promote a free competitor to their own service?
JackIBM was found to be a monopoly that acted in illegal restraint of trade back in the 1970's. Fifteen years of appeals later they got it thrown out of court...
Don't expect anything right away from this. Other than the stock tanking that is :-)
But one important point: While IBM was fighting the Justice Dept. they took their eye off the ball for just a little bit. It wouldn't be important, except that little bit was more than long enough for Microsoft to pull a fast one and end up owning the PC OS market. What happened before can happen again.
My take? Don't count on the slow, grinding wheel of the courts to achieve any particular end. Look for an opportunity and do it yourself!
Jack
The authors of that book had horror stories to tell. So do a lot of other people. But I gotta wonder; why all the angst?
Seriously, how many of you had a gun to your head when you took that job as a 'netslave'? Come on, you know you have a choice! We all do. If you don't like it then move on! If you can't find another job in the industry more to your liking then start selling shoes for a living!
Real slaves never had a choice and it is a great wrong to claim your priveliged lives have any relationship with their hardship and plight!
I like what I do. In many ways my job is the brightest spot in my life. Coding is fun! Sometimes it seems like a scam that I get paid to do it. And I have plenty of experience outside the industry; there was a time in my life when I thought I would be a mechanic for a living.
Sure I have had to deal with PHB's and unrealistic deadlines and flawed specifications and unqualified co-workers. But that comes with the territory. In my case I did it for a while and then opted out (I am currently working a non-net related business systems job with more realistic hours). But I also took a 20 grand a year pay cut. It was my choice. I live my life and work where I want to because, as a highly qualified programming geek, I have more choice than ninety percent of the poor bastards out there. If I don't like things I vote with my feet. I don't whine about it...
Jack
Thank you for responding Kent!
First, let me say that I am actually considering Bamboo as one of the underpinnings of the COA. As you pointed out -- in this case being lightweight is an advantage. Actually a huge advantage.
But let me quote from my original post (referring to Bamboo, Corba and ZOPE): "But none of them go as far as I would like." As a basic technology underlying the COA Bamboo is very nearly perfect. Much as the ZOPE Object Database design (ZODB) is nearly perfect for COA persistent storage. Only thing is, these are peices of what I see as a larger whole...
The real point is that I want to design first and develop afterwards (what a thought!). Not being a foolish egoist, I have every intention of incorporating any existing technology that would work as part of the whole. And I do see Bamboo as possibly filling a specific role, both in code and architecture. I would welcome your help in making this so!
So what do I need right now? Something you are probably doing anyway: Architectural documentation for Bamboo. Preferably with UML diagrams and with more detail than the overviews I found drilling down from the Bamboo web site. And I would really appreciate your active participation in the COA effort. Everyone involved has real jobs of course, and so we will probably proceed in fits and starts. Plus there is the usual possibility of the whole thing just fading away. But I can guarentee you one thing; this is an idea whose time has come. If it isn't the COA it will be something else.
Jack
Only I want to take it even further. First off, let me reference two previous posts on SlashDot: 'Its the API's Stupid!' and 'Again: Its the API's Stupid!'. In those posts I made the case for developing an API that was both an Open Source Component development/delivery/runtime system and a set of standard Components built with/for it. Quote from those posts:
"We need a fast, simple, powerful and complete Open Source solution for component based development. An API (preferably a cross platform one) that you can write code to in any of the most popular languages. And it must have a reference implementation that is open source with a GPL license. It should be highly Object Oriented and should provide base objects for every major Design Pattern. It should front-end the OS so completely that you can write a new OS which directly provided the relevant API's (making it a kind of Meta-OS). The API itself should be open and there should be a standards committee that isn't loaded with representatives from the big companies. Plus, no-one is penalized for producing a non-compatible version (other than the fact that compatible versions would probably receive a greater market share)."
Also Quote:
"I have been working on my own for some time to develop the beginings of such a standard. A kind of hobby for me. And I know there are plenty of people out there who will claim such a thing already exists in (choose one) PERL, Python, Smalltalk, Gnome or some flavor of the month. I don't think any of those things meet all the criteria of the environment I want to see, but I can state one thing rather confidently... Until we pull together a produce such a thing the Open Source movement will have a lot of difficulty competing against Sun and Microsoft in the Business Systems space. "
One person sent me a pointer to Bamboo, an Open Source project to develop a component runtime system (partially using Mozilla code, which is cool). Others have referred me to CORBA and even ZOPE. Personally I think all of these things are good (although CORBA may be too heavyweight). But none of them go as far as I would like.
Although I want to see real code as well, I think the process should start the way any good development process should start: With a good design. With an architecture. I am currently calling this the 'COA' or 'Common Object Architecture'...
In one of my design documents I describe it this way: "A shared set of class and interface specifications that may be implemented in any language and/or with any distributed object methodology. The COA is a Specification, a Platonic Ideal - any implementation of the architecture is coupled to the COA only to the extent to which it correctly exposes the interfaces of the architecture. The intent is to create a standard system workspace for programmers to use that transcends operating systems and programming languages. Furthermore the COA is intended to facilitate the creation of distributed applications where the objects may reside on any system on a network, but look like they are local to the calling application."
Then, once the design is complete, we throw it open for development. Much like a protocol, anyone can develop both open and closed source versions of the COA. Of course I expect the Open Source versions to get more use...
And these versions might be developed for any platform and in any language because one basic part of the COA would be a split of the class definitions into two types: Native and External. Native classes have standard method calls that may be directly implemented in whatever language/object environment is being used. External classes may only be accessed through a common messaging interface defined in the COA Messaging library.
This means that Native classes are generally 'synchronous'. They return control to the calling code immediately, allowing them to be implemented as 'In-Process' and 'In-Thread' with the calling code. In most cases Native classes will be fairly small grained 'tool' classes used as components in building larger, more functional, objects.
External classes are extremely large grained 'Actor' objects that expect 'prompts' and execute 'behaviors'. They operate asynchronously, the only way that calling code can know they have completed a requested function is when they return a message indicating this fact. Although an External class may actually be implemented to run in the same process space and even in the same thread space as the calling code they function as external servers where the calling code is the client. In many cases the calling code may only be connecting to a lightweight message interface class which front-ends an External class running on another machine entirely.
These two types of classes exist to provide an opportunity to "Have our cake and eat it too." The Native classes may be bound at compile time (for those implementations that support it) and will operate with the least possible amount of interface overhead. Plus they make it possible to create implementations of the COA in environments that do not provide for multi-threaded programming. Meanwhile the External classes allow for disconnected operation and execution across system boundaries with the least amount of overhead possible.
Sometime soon I expect to set up a discussion group on this topic. Anyone interested? Email me and let me know...
Jack
Thank you for your informitive post. But...
Could you possibly give us some answers to my original questions (speed, availability, etc.)? And perhaps tell us your opinion of the viability of this technology? Not just "Can it work?" but "Can it compete against hologramatic storage and other new technologies coming down the pike?"
Anyone else remember Magnetic Bubble Storage?
Jack
I read the article and came up with more questions than answers... How does it work? What are the 'off' and 'on' states? How do you read/write it? How fast can you cycle it?
I followed the link from the article to 'Mark A. Reed', one of the scientists mentioned. A quote from his personal site (deep breath): "My areas of research are quantum electron device physics; tunneling and transport phenomena in semiconductor heterojunction and nanostructured systems; reduced dimensionality effects in nanostructures; resonant tunneling transistors, circuits, and novel heterojunction devices; investigations into the physics and technology of quantum-confined electronic devices; investigation of resonant tunneling physics in a variety of heterojunction systems and materials, including 0D quantum dots and resonant tunneling transistors; and molecular electronics, nanotechnology."
...wheeze...
OK, now I know as much as I did before, and am buzz-worded to death besides. So I drilled deeper into the site and found some pictures of his current work that do give some clues. Most interesting is the illustration titled "Molecules in nanopores."
And, of course, there is his List of Publications which I probably wouldn't understand anyway. Even if they were online... Perhaps someone more competent can read these, and peruse the 'Break Junction Lab' description for us.
My take at this point is: the guy probably knows what he is talking about, but I still don't have enough information to determine if the end result would work well enough to actually be useful in '3 to 5 years'. The thing is, there are plenty of technologies that work. But only a few of them have survived the true test of fitness in the marketplace.
Jack
The idea that oil and natural gas are derived from natural hydrocarbons in the earth's core is not new. In fact it has been around for a long time and the theory is bolstered by the fact that volcano eruptions contain huge amounts of hydrocarbons and by the natural hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of Titan (amoung other places).
But that doesn't mean the resource is endless. What it means is that it is renewable at a somewhat higher rate than it would be were it purely squeezed out of fossilized swamps. The point is that our consumption can still outstrip the natural production of oil. Not a pardon, only a reprieve.
Jack
I have heard arguments like this before. the gist of them is generally that, due to outstanding debt in the form of unvested or vested but not yet cashed stock options (which are not kept on the books), Microsoft is actually losing money. Or, at least, does not have the valuation they would otherwise claim.
Of course these amounts really are kept on the books, they just get fiddled with before they end up as a footnote to the balance sheet. In accordance with law and prevailing accounting methods mind you (doesn't mean it is honest though). So I don't think I would personally go so far as to term it 'fraud' or a 'pyramid scheme' as the author of this piece has done. But he goes farther yet -- claiming that this could result in a complete collapse of the financial markets if it is not dealt with...
The weird thing is, Bill Parish appears to have some credibility on the surface. He mentions talking to the SEC Chairman, Arthur Levitt, and providing information on this to several fund managers. The article itself is well written and cogent.
Intersting notes -- One of the author's suggested 'fixes' is to "Prohibit Microsoft from buying back its own stock, instituting stock splits or selling put contracts and engaging in other hedging activity for 10 years. These are tricks used to manipulate the stock price and have contributed greatly to building the financial pyramid. It might make sense to outlaw this practice all together."
This is unlikely to happen, being as these activities are common among nearly all publicly held companies. But then he goes on to suggest that someone should "Prohibit Microsoft from offering employee stock options or any employee based ownership program for 10 years. The truth is most people go to Microsoft for stock options."
Huh! ***OUTLAW STOCK OPTIONS?*** Even as a one-time thing this would be a precedent that could destroy the high-tech economy we have grown in the last few years!
Of course another author suggested remedy is to "Request to have me as a guest on your talk show, radio station or other media outlet or speak at your convention. You might also send my Web site link to friends and people of influence such as other business leaders, political leaders and journalists, both here in the U.S. and abroad."
I sense several levels of hidden agendas here. Especially considering the harsh tone of the second half of the article. He even accuses Microsoft of 'Money Laundering' in Brazil and 'Corrupting Higher Education'. Such claims tend to marginalize his other arguments by making the Mr. Parish seem looney and fixated in his hatred of Microsoft. This is sad, because there more than a little merit here.
Jack
Charge what the market will bear. This fits perfectly into capitalist ideals. And it is fitting the price to the demand, something you can only do with modern computing systems.
We already see stuff like this all the time. It is neither illegal or immoral. It is, however, illegal to 'profiteer' (for example to raise the prices of emergency supplies to extortionite levels right before or after a natural disaster). But this wouldn't be profiteering. People would still have a choice of drinking water or finding a store that hasn't raised the prices.
Jack
I had the same feelings about the ending of Darwin's Radio as the reviewer. When I loaned my copy of the book to my girlfriend I told her that I thought the ending was not entirely what I would have liked. Not bad, just not what I had hoped for.
Being hooked into the Seattle SF scene, my girlfriend asked around and found out that Greg Bear does have a sequel planned. Meaning that the ending is intended to set up the next part of the story.
Jack
This is a repost to see if I can get the correct HTML in. Note that I picked the stuff below up by using the browser back button...
Or does it seem to others like Alan G. Carter is wandering through some new-age philosophical wasteland? For example 'M0' as a "...previously unsuspected public health problem." Huh? People addicted to boredom? Ritual junkies picking on the 'immune'?
I would think an easier explanation (and better if you apply Occam's Razor) is that most people are either intellectually incapable or intellectually lazy. In other words, some people can learn to actually use their brains and enjoy novelty, but it requires work. Others are born with it and yet others are missing a crucial component. But the author is so in love with this concept of Ritual Junkies that he nearly bursts into song. For example the following passage makes more sense as free verse than it does in context:
"There is an Inner Not at the base of all thinking that ends up as an invisible and unremovable Ghost Not that makes the conclusions invalid. It is because of this generality that the effect is so mathematically elegant."
Then add in some of the other stuff the web site meanders through, like 'Hypertime' and 'Reciprocal Cosmology', and you realize this stuff is straight out of a ketamine dream. I prefer my physics straight, thank you...
I didn't really buy into Carter's 'Programmer's Stone' thing all that much anyway. After all it seemed kinda self-evident. No need to use funny phrases like 'Mappers' and 'Packers' when we already know that some people are capable of seeing the big picture and others cannot (unless they get some major training). Personally I think the Myers Briggs Type Indicator personality test is a better predictor of someones ability than anything else. Basically, the people that Carter describes as 'Mappers' are 'NT' types (iNtuitive Thinking).
Jack (who is an INTP)
I previewed my post above and it looked fine. But when I post some of the HTML tags get stripped and it looks like crap. Good looking posts are important to me and I really don't like it when this happens...
Jack
Or does it seem to others like Alan G. Carter is wandering through some new-age philosophical problem." Huh? People addicted to boredom? Ritual junkies picking on the 'immune'?
wasteland? For example 'M0' as a "...previously unsuspected public healthI would think an easier explanation (and better if you apply Occam's Razor) is that most people are either intellectually incapable or intellectually lazy. In other words, some people can learn to actually use their brains and enjoy novelty, but it requires work. Others are born with it and yet others are missing a crucial component. But the author is so in love with this concept of Ritual Junkies that he nearly bursts into song. For example the following passage makes more sense as free verse than it does in context:
"There is an Inner Not at the base of all thinking that ends up as an invisible and unremovable Ghost Not that makes the conclusions invalid. It is because of this generality that the effect is so mathematically elegant."
Then add in some of the other stuff the web site meanders through, like 'Hypertime' and 'Reciprocal Cosmology', and you realize this stuff is straight out of a ketamine dream. I prefer my physics straight, thank you...
I didn't really buy into Carter's 'Programmer's Stone' thing all that much anyway. After all it seemed kinda self-evident. No need to use funny phrases like 'Mappers' and 'Packers' when we already know that some people are capable of seeing the big picture and others cannot (unless they get some major training). Personally I think the Myers Briggs Type Indicator personality test is a better predictor of this ability than anything else. Basically, the people that Carter describes as 'Mappers' are 'NT' types (iNtuitive Thinking).
Jack (who is an INTP, aka 'The Architect')
What I find interesting is that any questions raised about Christianity are always met so defensively. Katz didn't critisize any religion in the slightest - at all.
No, Katz did not critisize religion. He critisized the members of a religion, by lumping them together as a group and otherwise acting in the way he claims the traditional media does towards geeks. The whole tone of his article is dismissive and, well, nasty. It almost seems like he has a personal axe to grind, and it is certainly hypocritical of him. Hence my post.
You loonitics are just so paranoid about someone raising questions about anything included in the little Christian club that you blast anyone who questions you.
Who, me? What makes you think that I am a christian, much less that I consider myself one? I am certain I never made that claim, and I hadn't thought my post would make it seem so. In fact I am not, but I do intensely dislike anyone putting people down as a group on the basis of something like religion, skin color or political belief. I am for freedom and tolerance, and Katz's article just didn't seem very tolerant to me...
On the other hand I think your choice of words says volumes about you. Plus you mispelled 'lunatics'. And no, I won't go into your grammar.
Katz is questioning the inconsistancy that somehow a very violent Christian game is hailed as morally pure, while games like Quake are blamed for violence.
I agree with that point. I only take exception with the way it was made. Katz was either deliberately making intolerant sounding remarks or he was expressing a personal opinion that had no place here. Either way, I feel correct in referring to the article as 'flamebait'.
Jack
On the one hand Jon Katz pushes tolerance for those who are different and freedom of speech for all. On the other, as in this article, he seems to be doing the opposite. Why all the venom against Christians Jon? Would you make the same nasty, baseless, comments about a game representing Jewish or Muslim mythology? How about Hindu? Paganism?
Not that I really care about the game in question myself. I doubt I will ever play it, much less pay money for the privilege. Nor am I in the target audience. And the idea of a violent game intended for christians does seem a bit hypocritical. Although perhaps not, if you read the old testement.
But it doesn't reach the same heighth of hypocrisy as Jon here! He speaks in a harsh tone about one segment of the populace, yet writes so many impassioned articles questioning why the general populace and traditional media do the same with geeks. Perhaps Jon thinks Christians are safe targets right now...
And notice that at no point is the game reviewed on its own merits as a game. Only on the content. I wish I could moderate articles down -- I would count this one as 'flamebait'.
Jack
Hmm... I was referring to the 'Babboon' Document Object architecture for Gnome which uses CORBA as opposed to COM. I guess it would run on multiple *nix boxen, so that was my mistake. But it still isn't cross platform enough for me :-)
One factor I didn't point out was NPSR and XPCOM from the Mozilla effort. They are putting together some interesting stuff which could be used as the basis for a true cross platform solution. Someone pointed me (via email) to the Bamboo project which is an attempt to produce a cross platform pluggable module architecture. It looks rather interesting as the basis for what I am talking about and it uses NPSR and they are looking at XPCOM.
Jack
You said: Sorry, but to me, this whole thing smacks of the Open Source community being unable to come up with ideas of its own and then slamming other companies when they won't hand over their creations. If you don't like the license, then don't use it -- find someone else's code to tweak or (Wow, here's an idea!), actually create something yourself. As Joy himself said, they "are not doing SCSL for the Linux community. If they believe they are a 'gift' culture, fine, but we are working to enable commercial and entrepreneurial investment."
I say that this was exactly the point of my post. I do not want to deal the SCSL. I don't like Sun's attitude about the Java API's. (Why can't I improve it and provide my improvements to community? Why can't we let the marketplace decide what is best instead of trusting Sun?) So I am saying exactly what you are criticizing me for!
I say that the Open Source community needs to get off its collective duff and come up with something better than Java. Better than COM/WinAPI. Better than (for that matter) Gnome/CORBA (which is Linux only currently). And then make it so complete and so cool that it becomes a compelling reason for business to migrate to open source solutions.
Am I really having such a hard time making myself clear? I am, of course, assuming that you are not a Sun shill...
Jack