I'm just using Java as a point of comparison. I'm saying that if something with so many legal, license, and patent issues hanging over it as Java is acceptable to open source developers, then people have absolutely no reason to complain about Mono.
Well you could have saved us some time if that is all you are saying about this. I absolutely agree with that. There are issues with Java, just as there are with.NET and Mono and pretty much every other major computer advancement.
That said, Mono bashers are indeed missing that no platform is without sin. OpenJDK offers a better choice for those seeking to wash their hands of Microsoft and worries that they might have of the company. Java, however, is not antibacterial soap to wash clean of everything that could happen legally.
Quite incorrect. Both OpenGL and x86 have multiple independent implementations. Java does not.
IBM J9 and GNU classpath don't count as independent implementations?
Oh, but unlike all other platforms, I am required to install and ship the dead weight. It says so right there in the license agreement.
Are you talking about Sun's Class Library? Then yes you are correct. Are you talking about other people's class library? Then you need to consult their license agreement. If they use the Java branding then they must accept the Sun specification for distribution to you, so long as you honor their agreement for their class library and forgo using Java branding or compatibility within your organization you are free to break up the class library as you see fit.
I done this many times to fit the GNU class library when I'm limited on space. I obviously could not do this with the Sun class library since that is forbidden per the license agreement.
Distribution of modified class libraries is pursuant to whatever agreement you got yourself in. The actual JVM is roughly about the same, basically, read the license you agreed to. If you want to implement your own JVM and/or class library, you are free to do so, so long as you either accept to be compliant with the Java standard as given by Sun or refrain from using the Java brand on distribution. This is exactly how Mesa works. Mesa is an open implementation of OpenGL but they can not use the OpenGL brand with distribution unless they agree to the license restrictions imposed by the Khronos Group, which runs counter to the GPL that Mesa is distributed under.
Of course this is all just license agreements, this still does not protect you from infringement on core technologies that are patented. Of course, that's an incredibly larger issue. For example, Mono is looking to implement LINQ. LINQ is not within the ECMA.NET specification. Of course, Microsoft has agreements (not to sue promises) on technology that they add outside of the ECMA spec. At any rate that hasn't stopped people from making implementations of LINQ for other products (PHP, Java, and JavaScript). There is a big question as to what are the legal implications for implementing LINQ outside of an agreement with Microsoft. If they're smart they'll let it all pass; since in the end, it will only make more people develop with a Microsoft technology.
Likewise, there is the same issue with some parts of Java. For example, JavaFX.
Point remains is that the license for Java implementations outside of the Java-sphere (so to say) is that you can not claim jack squat about Java compatibility and you can not distribute as Java, if your implementation is outside the agreement for the Java trademark and brand copyright.
Are you kidding?... agreements and monopolization.
No, are you kidding me? Yeah, Sun has come out swinging a lot. I'm not saying they are totally innocent. However, one of the core things is that J2EE be allowed to be implemented freely. It has been a big point of
No, your idea of "open standard" misses the idea of "open"...you need to pass Sun's compatibility test and because the specifications themselves are owned by Sun.
By that standard, project's like OpenGL and x86 fail to be open standards. However, if we simply use your flawed definition of "open" then you are correct.
Sun never went to ISO, ANSI, or ECMA. Sun requires that you pass the compatibility test in order to slap the label of Java on your product. Sun owns the spec to the Java platform. All of this is true, but it's pulling a Slashdot and twisting the facts to make it look like some evil is going on here.
Oh and by the by: Just for comparison, how many people has Sun brought in for litigation or wiped off the face of the Earth? Now ask yourself, how many has Microsoft done the same?
No one requires you to call your implementation Java, much like how Mesa is not OpenGL. The Java standard is owned and controlled by Sun to protect Java from, well basically, Microsoft. When Microsoft showed no more interest in Java as a platform and came up with their own, it's funny how that GPL of the source code came soon after. I'm sure that if we had more time with Sun Microsystems they would have looked into going to ECMA or ISO for a standard, if only to just show up Microsoft's platform.
I was a Java developer for over a decade and still develop in it occasionally
I am a Java developer and I have been working with Java since 1997, that would put me at 12 years working with Java. You can take that to mean whatever it may be worth to you.
Take it from me: the JCP has produced enormous bloat and few innovative APIs.
Wow, and ECMA or ISO approved things never get any bloat! Let the C++ people know that export keyword isn't useless.
That's a totally subjective point of view and totally misses the fact that most platforms accrue tons of weight as they age. You're not required to use the dead weight, I'm not seeing your point here. The JCP has added much value to Java from it's infant state back in 1992. Again, that's totally subjective. I won't call your wrong on it but I won't call your right either.
worse cross-platform capabilities than Tcl/Tk, plus a lot of marketing to confuse gullible people like you.
I've not had an issue with cross-platform. However, I do know some people who have used JNI to bind specific interfaces that tie them down. I've gone from AS400 to Windows 2000 Server to Linux with the exact same bytecode that was written in 1999. I've had to change none of the core code. Things like JPA to databases have had to change since we've changed database vendors, but I hardly fault Java for that. That's also considering that the core code for the EJB(s) was written before Sun officially accepted EJB from IBM. That's right EJB was invented by IBM not Sun as you may like to think.
Obviously you've had a bad taste of Java. That's fine, maybe it wasn't for you. From where I stand it's a very good platform and has met my needs countless times. It meets what I consider to be an open standard, given the market environment it has had to work in, and it works on the machines and architectures that I use. There are FOSS advocates that support the Java platform and it is used in a lot of the businesses that I have worked for.
I doubt that it is the marketing that has confused me as we all know that Sun sucks in the marketing department, hence the selling out to Oracle.
Finally, I don't want anyone to get me wrong..NET and Mono are great advancements in computers. I encourage everyone to find the product that best fits their needs. However, calling Java not-open and.NET more open is just Java bashing, pure and simple. I would hate to think that the.NET people have nothing to bash Java on except the fact that they didn't go to a standards body and instead opted to form their own community process.
If you consider OpenGL and XML parser bindings "advancements", then Java technology is really starting very low.
As two examples, but I'm sure you can head over to JCP and see everything that they have done. But I'm guessing you won't.
Who cares what reasons Sun gave? The result is the same: Java is not an open standard.
Your idea of "open" misses the idea of "open." However, I'll just fault whoever it was that taught you what "open" means, since you do no research yourself.
Go search on Google Patents; they are say enough to find.
See last point given.
...specifically available for "OpenJDK" under the GPL. However, everybody else has to license their patents.
Please head over to here and read. I know that may be quite a task for you.
Sun/Oracle is a big software bully, too.
And who is it again that was found to be an abusive monopoly? I'll let you research that one too.
Yes. They are also brand names.
Any other small facet of their names that has no meaning on the conversation you'd like to bring up as well?
Sun Java and OpenJDK are largely the same codebase and share most of their APIs.
Please read what the difference between ABI and API are. Thank you.
All there is is Sun Java and its derivatives.
Call me a troll and mod me down like a motherfucker, but I'll have to call it like I see it and call you an idiot or you really like to pull people's legs.
I think quite differently. The JCP has brought us things like JOGL, JAXP, and many more advancements of the Java technology.
They reneged on those promises because it forced them to open up the language too much
Because Sun saw fit to prevent Microsoft from making a bastard version of Java? Because such a version would have destroyed the entire point of Java, Write once/Run everywhere? Much like their MS LDAP? (I mean Active Directory.)
Moot point now that Microsoft has their own Java, er, Runtime.
they have numerous patents on core Java and the libraries.
Do you care to point them out? And how OpenJDK has worked around those?
why should using Mono bother any open source developer?
Because Microsoft is a big software bully. Really, however, the implementation of Mono works around the tricky parts much like OpenJDK does. I know all too well the pain that Mono devs must face. OpenJDK gets dogged for, "Always being behind the one true JVM," or "Java is a patent trap, GPLv2 wasn't enough, now we're making exceptions?!" In the end, I don't think that I'm your target audience for that question because I think Mono does enough to protect itself.
I don't know about.NET, since I don't use it. I do use Mono...but Java is a good example to contrast with Mono because many people regard it as "open"
Java like.NET is a platform. Sun's Java implementation is to Microsoft's.NET implementation as OpenJDK's Java implementation is to Mono's.NET implementation. I can see that you can tell the difference between MS.NET and Mono.NET, I hope I've cleared up the comparison for JVMs as well.
Besides, anyone thinking that MS would attacking Linux using patents isn't giving Microsoft any credit. I figure that they would try to kill Linux (GNOME proper, since GNOME != Linux) via contracts with Linux vendors as opposed to patents. It just seems too obvious to go that (patents) route. Linux isn't the problem with MS, it is more like the vendors pandering Linux that is.
Besides, what is all this seemingly bad blood between.NET and Java? I've been to many PDCs and the people behind.NET seem pretty accepting of Java much like the Samba - Microsoft love (which granted isn't awesome but it is still pretty good). Also, the Mono devs are pretty cool people on IRC. Really? Do we need to build walls?
I know every country in the world would love to get 10% of what Microsoft pays in taxes right now, but they'd be doing with the risk that Microsoft would just swindle them more-so than the US. I don't know much about business but I do know from working with them for six months. The IRS is a really gung-ho type group when it comes to collecting taxes, I know M$ would run over any other country's tax collection agency, except maybe Russia's.
With that knowledge I think a country knows they'd have more trouble than it's worth with Microsoft. But, every (big) company in America does this**, not just Microsoft, and they're all saying the same thing. I attribute this as a withdrawal symptom for American companies, but I blame our congress (not the current one) for even starting this from the get-go.
--------
**I know that's a pretty subjective statement.
...something from my favourite book, "Harry Potter and the Dead Horse." But I can't it's DRMed.
Seriously, haven't we covered this topic to death? I think new methods of DRM are more news worthy than say an article highlighting the pitfalls of DRM.
1) It's good to hear that Steve Jobs is doing well. Being ill sucks butt and I wish for everyone to live happy and healthy lives.
2) Apple's cool factor needs to be maintained if they wish to continue to have a business. Apple has pushed themselves into the corner that they are now in. Consumers, of the non-slashdot variety, will drop crap like it's hot once it stops doing it's primary function which, with Apple, is being cool. The app store is great and all, but they need killer apps on the iPhone that will make users want to buy it again, since they'll loose their first purchase once they switch to a new iPhone 3.14152G.
3) I would be willing to bet that Apple too has its head in the clouds. With the iWork.com site and the increase in how much they push how readily connected you are with the iPhone, I'd bet my two cents that they crossover at some point offering cloud services delivered via the iPhone's 4.9G's cool new aqua-cloudUI that makes it so slick to use cloud services.
4) It's a shame that the app store sells binary programs. With everyone coming to the table with their own "app" store you're going to get a ton of fragmentation.
wait a second... Wasn't this how computing was back in the 60's? Basically, some piece of software wouldn't run on a different vendor's hardware so you had to buy the vendor's hardware? Is it just me or are we just setting ourselves up for another Microsoft inquisition and vague promises of software for every machine not just one machine?
Ah yes, but Slashdot suspends all logic. Therefore, one must be an editor, before one becomes a reader, before one becomes an editor, before one becomes a reader... aka, randomly hit a submit button (no one cares just hit any submit button!)
Your argument was originally that it was harder to access C++ API from language bindings. It's not harder but it comes with a trade-off. You loose some of C++ flexibility moving to another language. You don't loose that same flexibility in C because you never had it to begin with.
What I am saying is that if you decide to give up some of the features of C++ then you'd have an implementation that matches C bindings in syntax.
But it's all just syntax sugar really. C++ has the syntax to make object easier than say GObject does. C has the ability to expose all methods with a statically accessible name. But it's just syntax, you can do the exact same thing with either language.
How easy or how hard you make it to access those features is just a matter of taste for the person who implements the bindings. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing but love for the C people, but let's not go splitting hairs about which language is easier than the other. That path is way too well beaten in most newsgroups.
wanted their own environment that looked and behaved differently to KDE in ways they thought were better.
You sir have hit the nail on the head. The thing that corporate software fails to understand about Linux is that we are free to implement what we think is best. There isn't a standard to Linux, and there never should be.
But then you have people like Google and Adobe who stoke people in the KDE and GNOME camps to start these rally calls for standard desktops. Next thing you know, you've got yourself a good ol' fashion KDE vs. GNOME debate/flame war.
That's exactly when people start nit-picking each others API, ABI, History, Philosophy, Documentation, and what have you. These can be health at times but here recently they've started to really splinter people into factions.
Me, I really would care less if Linux ever made it to the desktop. I think that we loose focus on the diversity of our community when we start focusing on desktop aspirations and MS crushing dreams. All and all, I think that just plays us further into MS' hands.
In general, it is much harder to access C++ APIs from various high-level languages with FFI (Python, Ruby etc) then it is to access a C API.
I don't think that's an argument for Gtk+ vs. Qt as it is an argument for C vs. C++.
The argument is pretty moot when you consider PyQT, QtRuby. The only problem with C++ is name mangling. This can be solved with a pretty simple extern "C" call.
Qt is written in C++ with non-standard add-ons to the core of the language which is passed through moc, a pre-processor, that converts those non-standard elements into compliant C++ code that gcc can process.
I fail to see how this is any different from macro expansion. Other than the simple fact that macro expansion is defined in the C++ standard and moc is not.
The "special-purpose nonsense pre-compiling tools" are there to make building your program easier. Besides, GTK+ not only came up with "special-purpose nonsense pre-compiling tools," they came up with a whole language to ease the development with their toolkit.
I'm not going to bash GNOME people for doing what they feel is needed to increase the productivity of their programmers, I'd hope you'd be kind enough to do the same for the Qt people.;-)
Finally, you're not required to use the Qt signal-slot system. You can use any callback system you like sigc++, boost, etc... Same case with GTK+.
As an example, you'd be hard pressed to find a widget in the QT documentation that is not documented. GTK+ has rough around the edges documentation for it's Canvas.
I know that RedHat is putting a lot of weight behind Java technology as one of the first and foremost distros for the OpenJDK. I can attest that the QT Java bindings are way better than the GNOME bindings. It would make sense for RedHat to toss weight behind QT. Google already uses QT for Google Earth. And KHTML is, sorta, WebKit which is Chrome. It all makes more sense to put our weight in QT.
I've got nothing but love for the GTK+ people. Also, don't kill QT just because of the KDE 4.0 issue. They've made good on their latest desktop, but don't knock a good Toolkit because of the DE.
I agree. Look at all the different implementations for Java EE standards. For example TopLink essentials vs. the actual product from Oracle, or all of the different JSF implementations out there.
This isn't anything new and in fact I consider it one of the great points of Java. You can pick and choose which JVM flavor best meets your needs / taste and implement it in your total stack. You can have different Application Servers (Glassfish, JBoss...), different persistence layers (Hibernate, TopLink...), different database back ends (MySQL, Derby, Oracle...), different GUI tool sets (Swing, AWT, SWT), different presentation layers (JSF, Struts...), and so on.
I know a few.NET programmers (I've got nothing but love for you guys) who find this all very confusing and find it hard to understand how any of this can be healthy when they just have the MS runtime, ADO.NET, ASP.NET and third party add-ons for those first three items. (IANA.NP, I am not a.NET programmer, or at least professionally)
For me, the Year of the Linux Desktop was 1994. I've been addicted to Slackware ever since. I run a couple of Ubuntu/Kubuntu in VirtualBox every now and then.
You mean Windows still exist?!
I haven't bought a Microsoft product since the change. (Couldn't stand the changes going forward in Windows 95.)
As far as Office compatibility... I've not come across an Office document since 1996. Usually it's PDF, HTML, RTF, Text, CSV, and now recently ODF (Was a big fan of KOffice format but they've gone ODF too). I know that my case is like 1% of the world's population. Even though I can now convert the "Office" documents that are out there, I still haven't come across one.
I hear the unification issue come up a lot when people talk about the Linux Desktop.
"Standardize on GTK+ or Qt but don't have both." "There should be one vendor, so many distributions add confusion." "Everything should be open to the GUI."
And so on...
My two cents and everyone is free to take it with whatever size of gain of mineral you find.
A) Unification would indeed ease confusion. In turn it would make the Linux desktop a very easy target for competition. Imaging if we all went with GNOME, dropped Qt/KDE et al, and then MS kills GNOME because of ___ (insert random patent that some distro violates.)
BOOM, no Linux desktop. Same is true if everyone went KDE. I thought we were learning from Microsoft not to put all our eggs in one basket?
B) The whole one vendor for Linux argument is silly. Should we have one vendor for Laptops? One vendor for email software? One vendor for web browsers (*cough* IE *cough*)? There again it comes to that whole egg/basket interaction thingy.
C) Create a standard API for the Linux Desktop. Sure, that sounds lovely. Let EA, Valve, Blizzard, etc. know that 3D Realms is going to create a standard 3D engine that they'll use in all of their games.
The whole issue is that different people find different APIs easier. It's not like there is a GTK+, GTK+Super, GTK+Exxxtream. There are different bindings but they all work with the same standard GTK+ API. Likewise with Qt. It's no different from the.NET and Java and the other dozen vendors who make different APIs for Windows.
D) Default fonts look ugly? Is this really a desktop killer? I know I'm from the 80's and all but I really haven't been paying that much attention in this area.
I would continue but I'm getting tired of enumerating points here.
Summary, this guy is like most Microsoft people I know. Point and click knowledge. If making everything unified so that it's easier to attack, more GUI so it's less able to be configured and more bloated, and more focused on fewer tools and less choice so that everyone knows what's under the hood of a Linux box; makes Linux ready for the Desktop, then I'd love if Linux never made it to the Desktop.
To me it sounds like the Desktop is the ninth circle of hell for computers.
Also don't even get me started with the fact that DOS was the home computing OS for quite some time. CLI arguments be damned.
PS: I love how AD and DFS is tossed in with a Desktop ready report. Because I know how my Grandma loves configuring the GPO for her OUs.
The smell of cocaine and opiates fills the thick air. Dusk is coming and an unsavory(?) group of people are starting to form around you.
To the North is a vendor selling tourist souvenirs, you think, to the South is a guy hunched over a small folding table. There are exits to the North-East and West.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just using Java as a point of comparison. I'm saying that if something with so many legal, license, and patent issues hanging over it as Java is acceptable to open source developers, then people have absolutely no reason to complain about Mono.
Well you could have saved us some time if that is all you are saying about this. I absolutely agree with that. There are issues with Java, just as there are with .NET and Mono and pretty much every other major computer advancement.
That said, Mono bashers are indeed missing that no platform is without sin. OpenJDK offers a better choice for those seeking to wash their hands of Microsoft and worries that they might have of the company. Java, however, is not antibacterial soap to wash clean of everything that could happen legally.
Quite incorrect. Both OpenGL and x86 have multiple independent implementations. Java does not.
IBM J9 and GNU classpath don't count as independent implementations?
Oh, but unlike all other platforms, I am required to install and ship the dead weight. It says so right there in the license agreement.
Are you talking about Sun's Class Library? Then yes you are correct. Are you talking about other people's class library? Then you need to consult their license agreement. If they use the Java branding then they must accept the Sun specification for distribution to you, so long as you honor their agreement for their class library and forgo using Java branding or compatibility within your organization you are free to break up the class library as you see fit.
.NET specification. Of course, Microsoft has agreements (not to sue promises) on technology that they add outside of the ECMA spec. At any rate that hasn't stopped people from making implementations of LINQ for other products (PHP, Java, and JavaScript). There is a big question as to what are the legal implications for implementing LINQ outside of an agreement with Microsoft. If they're smart they'll let it all pass; since in the end, it will only make more people develop with a Microsoft technology.
I done this many times to fit the GNU class library when I'm limited on space. I obviously could not do this with the Sun class library since that is forbidden per the license agreement.
Distribution of modified class libraries is pursuant to whatever agreement you got yourself in. The actual JVM is roughly about the same, basically, read the license you agreed to. If you want to implement your own JVM and/or class library, you are free to do so, so long as you either accept to be compliant with the Java standard as given by Sun or refrain from using the Java brand on distribution. This is exactly how Mesa works. Mesa is an open implementation of OpenGL but they can not use the OpenGL brand with distribution unless they agree to the license restrictions imposed by the Khronos Group, which runs counter to the GPL that Mesa is distributed under.
Of course this is all just license agreements, this still does not protect you from infringement on core technologies that are patented. Of course, that's an incredibly larger issue. For example, Mono is looking to implement LINQ. LINQ is not within the ECMA
Likewise, there is the same issue with some parts of Java. For example, JavaFX.
Point remains is that the license for Java implementations outside of the Java-sphere (so to say) is that you can not claim jack squat about Java compatibility and you can not distribute as Java, if your implementation is outside the agreement for the Java trademark and brand copyright.
Are you kidding? ... agreements and monopolization.
No, are you kidding me? Yeah, Sun has come out swinging a lot. I'm not saying they are totally innocent. However, one of the core things is that J2EE be allowed to be implemented freely. It has been a big point of
No, your idea of "open standard" misses the idea of "open"...you need to pass Sun's compatibility test and because the specifications themselves are owned by Sun.
By that standard, project's like OpenGL and x86 fail to be open standards. However, if we simply use your flawed definition of "open" then you are correct.
Sun never went to ISO, ANSI, or ECMA. Sun requires that you pass the compatibility test in order to slap the label of Java on your product. Sun owns the spec to the Java platform. All of this is true, but it's pulling a Slashdot and twisting the facts to make it look like some evil is going on here.
Oh and by the by: Just for comparison, how many people has Sun brought in for litigation or wiped off the face of the Earth? Now ask yourself, how many has Microsoft done the same?
No one requires you to call your implementation Java, much like how Mesa is not OpenGL. The Java standard is owned and controlled by Sun to protect Java from, well basically, Microsoft. When Microsoft showed no more interest in Java as a platform and came up with their own, it's funny how that GPL of the source code came soon after. I'm sure that if we had more time with Sun Microsystems they would have looked into going to ECMA or ISO for a standard, if only to just show up Microsoft's platform.
I was a Java developer for over a decade and still develop in it occasionally
I am a Java developer and I have been working with Java since 1997, that would put me at 12 years working with Java. You can take that to mean whatever it may be worth to you.
Take it from me: the JCP has produced enormous bloat and few innovative APIs.
Wow, and ECMA or ISO approved things never get any bloat! Let the C++ people know that export keyword isn't useless.
That's a totally subjective point of view and totally misses the fact that most platforms accrue tons of weight as they age. You're not required to use the dead weight, I'm not seeing your point here. The JCP has added much value to Java from it's infant state back in 1992. Again, that's totally subjective. I won't call your wrong on it but I won't call your right either.
worse cross-platform capabilities than Tcl/Tk, plus a lot of marketing to confuse gullible people like you.
I've not had an issue with cross-platform. However, I do know some people who have used JNI to bind specific interfaces that tie them down. I've gone from AS400 to Windows 2000 Server to Linux with the exact same bytecode that was written in 1999. I've had to change none of the core code. Things like JPA to databases have had to change since we've changed database vendors, but I hardly fault Java for that. That's also considering that the core code for the EJB(s) was written before Sun officially accepted EJB from IBM. That's right EJB was invented by IBM not Sun as you may like to think.
.NET and Mono are great advancements in computers. I encourage everyone to find the product that best fits their needs. However, calling Java not-open and .NET more open is just Java bashing, pure and simple. I would hate to think that the .NET people have nothing to bash Java on except the fact that they didn't go to a standards body and instead opted to form their own community process.
Obviously you've had a bad taste of Java. That's fine, maybe it wasn't for you. From where I stand it's a very good platform and has met my needs countless times. It meets what I consider to be an open standard, given the market environment it has had to work in, and it works on the machines and architectures that I use. There are FOSS advocates that support the Java platform and it is used in a lot of the businesses that I have worked for.
I doubt that it is the marketing that has confused me as we all know that Sun sucks in the marketing department, hence the selling out to Oracle.
Finally, I don't want anyone to get me wrong.
If you consider OpenGL and XML parser bindings "advancements", then Java technology is really starting very low.
As two examples, but I'm sure you can head over to JCP and see everything that they have done. But I'm guessing you won't.
Who cares what reasons Sun gave? The result is the same: Java is not an open standard.
Your idea of "open" misses the idea of "open." However, I'll just fault whoever it was that taught you what "open" means, since you do no research yourself.
Go search on Google Patents; they are say enough to find.
See last point given.
...specifically available for "OpenJDK" under the GPL. However, everybody else has to license their patents.
Please head over to here and read. I know that may be quite a task for you.
Sun/Oracle is a big software bully, too.
And who is it again that was found to be an abusive monopoly? I'll let you research that one too.
Yes. They are also brand names.
Any other small facet of their names that has no meaning on the conversation you'd like to bring up as well?
Sun Java and OpenJDK are largely the same codebase and share most of their APIs.
Please read what the difference between ABI and API are. Thank you.
All there is is Sun Java and its derivatives.
Call me a troll and mod me down like a motherfucker, but I'll have to call it like I see it and call you an idiot or you really like to pull people's legs.
I think the JCP has pretty much destroyed Java.
I think quite differently. The JCP has brought us things like JOGL, JAXP, and many more advancements of the Java technology.
They reneged on those promises because it forced them to open up the language too much
Because Sun saw fit to prevent Microsoft from making a bastard version of Java? Because such a version would have destroyed the entire point of Java, Write once/Run everywhere? Much like their MS LDAP? (I mean Active Directory.)
Moot point now that Microsoft has their own Java, er, Runtime.
they have numerous patents on core Java and the libraries.
Do you care to point them out? And how OpenJDK has worked around those?
why should using Mono bother any open source developer?
Because Microsoft is a big software bully. Really, however, the implementation of Mono works around the tricky parts much like OpenJDK does. I know all too well the pain that Mono devs must face. OpenJDK gets dogged for, "Always being behind the one true JVM," or "Java is a patent trap, GPLv2 wasn't enough, now we're making exceptions?!" In the end, I don't think that I'm your target audience for that question because I think Mono does enough to protect itself.
I don't know about .NET, since I don't use it. I do use Mono...but Java is a good example to contrast with Mono because many people regard it as "open"
Java like .NET is a platform. Sun's Java implementation is to Microsoft's .NET implementation as OpenJDK's Java implementation is to Mono's .NET implementation. I can see that you can tell the difference between MS .NET and Mono .NET, I hope I've cleared up the comparison for JVMs as well.
If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate, please file an issue report against the Mono project;
I know it is a bit old but, we'll file one once they publish which part they're going to patent, of course, that shouldn't be long. PS: The only complaint I have of .NET is the syntax of LINQ, but what'cha going do?
Besides, anyone thinking that MS would attacking Linux using patents isn't giving Microsoft any credit. I figure that they would try to kill Linux (GNOME proper, since GNOME != Linux) via contracts with Linux vendors as opposed to patents. It just seems too obvious to go that (patents) route. Linux isn't the problem with MS, it is more like the vendors pandering Linux that is.
Also I develop on OpenJDK, I was wondering if you could provide a list of patents that the OpenJDK is infringing on? I'm sure we could work out what it is that you feel is something we may have overlooked.
Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because, unlike Java, Mono is based on an open standard
Could you clear that up? I'm not sure I follow what you are talking about. Is it because .NET is a standard through an organized body? Whereas, Java is basically a community process with Sun at the head of the community? If this is your beef with Java then what exactly is different between how Java is made versus something like, Linux or GNU HURD?
.NET and Java? I've been to many PDCs and the people behind .NET seem pretty accepting of Java much like the Samba - Microsoft love (which granted isn't awesome but it is still pretty good). Also, the Mono devs are pretty cool people on IRC. Really? Do we need to build walls?
Besides, what is all this seemingly bad blood between
Farnsworth's voice?! I'll be sure to remind you that the universe ends at Dogdoo six.
Also I'm surprised that no one pointed out the si!Toda gloria al Hypnotoad!
That's great! Now they'll DRM my keyboard!
I know every country in the world would love to get 10% of what Microsoft pays in taxes right now, but they'd be doing with the risk that Microsoft would just swindle them more-so than the US. I don't know much about business but I do know from working with them for six months. The IRS is a really gung-ho type group when it comes to collecting taxes, I know M$ would run over any other country's tax collection agency, except maybe Russia's.
With that knowledge I think a country knows they'd have more trouble than it's worth with Microsoft. But, every (big) company in America does this**, not just Microsoft, and they're all saying the same thing. I attribute this as a withdrawal symptom for American companies, but I blame our congress (not the current one) for even starting this from the get-go.
--------
**I know that's a pretty subjective statement.
...something from my favourite book, "Harry Potter and the Dead Horse." But I can't it's DRMed.
Seriously, haven't we covered this topic to death? I think new methods of DRM are more news worthy than say an article highlighting the pitfalls of DRM.
1) It's good to hear that Steve Jobs is doing well. Being ill sucks butt and I wish for everyone to live happy and healthy lives.
2) Apple's cool factor needs to be maintained if they wish to continue to have a business. Apple has pushed themselves into the corner that they are now in. Consumers, of the non-slashdot variety, will drop crap like it's hot once it stops doing it's primary function which, with Apple, is being cool. The app store is great and all, but they need killer apps on the iPhone that will make users want to buy it again, since they'll loose their first purchase once they switch to a new iPhone 3.14152G.
3) I would be willing to bet that Apple too has its head in the clouds. With the iWork.com site and the increase in how much they push how readily connected you are with the iPhone, I'd bet my two cents that they crossover at some point offering cloud services delivered via the iPhone's 4.9G's cool new aqua-cloudUI that makes it so slick to use cloud services.
4) It's a shame that the app store sells binary programs. With everyone coming to the table with their own "app" store you're going to get a ton of fragmentation.
wait a second... Wasn't this how computing was back in the 60's? Basically, some piece of software wouldn't run on a different vendor's hardware so you had to buy the vendor's hardware? Is it just me or are we just setting ourselves up for another Microsoft inquisition and vague promises of software for every machine not just one machine?
Tin foil hat?
You forgot
8) Java for web pages = JavaScript (or vice versa)
I'm sure there is more.
Ah yes, but Slashdot suspends all logic. Therefore, one must be an editor, before one becomes a reader, before one becomes an editor, before one becomes a reader... aka, randomly hit a submit button (no one cares just hit any submit button!)
Great fun!
Your argument was originally that it was harder to access C++ API from language bindings. It's not harder but it comes with a trade-off. You loose some of C++ flexibility moving to another language. You don't loose that same flexibility in C because you never had it to begin with.
What I am saying is that if you decide to give up some of the features of C++ then you'd have an implementation that matches C bindings in syntax.
But it's all just syntax sugar really. C++ has the syntax to make object easier than say GObject does. C has the ability to expose all methods with a statically accessible name. But it's just syntax, you can do the exact same thing with either language.
How easy or how hard you make it to access those features is just a matter of taste for the person who implements the bindings. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing but love for the C people, but let's not go splitting hairs about which language is easier than the other. That path is way too well beaten in most newsgroups.
Wait. I don't see where the comparison is. Both took two lines (Qt and GTK+.) I'm wondering where the argument is?
wanted their own environment that looked and behaved differently to KDE in ways they thought were better.
You sir have hit the nail on the head. The thing that corporate software fails to understand about Linux is that we are free to implement what we think is best. There isn't a standard to Linux, and there never should be.
But then you have people like Google and Adobe who stoke people in the KDE and GNOME camps to start these rally calls for standard desktops. Next thing you know, you've got yourself a good ol' fashion KDE vs. GNOME debate/flame war.
That's exactly when people start nit-picking each others API, ABI, History, Philosophy, Documentation, and what have you. These can be health at times but here recently they've started to really splinter people into factions.
Me, I really would care less if Linux ever made it to the desktop. I think that we loose focus on the diversity of our community when we start focusing on desktop aspirations and MS crushing dreams. All and all, I think that just plays us further into MS' hands.
In general, it is much harder to access C++ APIs from various high-level languages with FFI (Python, Ruby etc) then it is to access a C API.
I don't think that's an argument for Gtk+ vs. Qt as it is an argument for C vs. C++.
The argument is pretty moot when you consider PyQT, QtRuby. The only problem with C++ is name mangling. This can be solved with a pretty simple extern "C" call.
Qt is written in C++ with non-standard add-ons to the core of the language which is passed through moc, a pre-processor, that converts those non-standard elements into compliant C++ code that gcc can process.
;-)
I fail to see how this is any different from macro expansion. Other than the simple fact that macro expansion is defined in the C++ standard and moc is not.
The "special-purpose nonsense pre-compiling tools" are there to make building your program easier. Besides, GTK+ not only came up with "special-purpose nonsense pre-compiling tools," they came up with a whole language to ease the development with their toolkit.
I'm not going to bash GNOME people for doing what they feel is needed to increase the productivity of their programmers, I'd hope you'd be kind enough to do the same for the Qt people.
Finally, you're not required to use the Qt signal-slot system. You can use any callback system you like sigc++, boost, etc... Same case with GTK+.
I have no idea why GTK+ is still around since Qt went LGPL.
Qt has better documentation than GTK+.
As an example, you'd be hard pressed to find a widget in the QT documentation that is not documented. GTK+ has rough around the edges documentation for it's Canvas.
I know that RedHat is putting a lot of weight behind Java technology as one of the first and foremost distros for the OpenJDK. I can attest that the QT Java bindings are way better than the GNOME bindings. It would make sense for RedHat to toss weight behind QT. Google already uses QT for Google Earth. And KHTML is, sorta, WebKit which is Chrome. It all makes more sense to put our weight in QT.
I've got nothing but love for the GTK+ people. Also, don't kill QT just because of the KDE 4.0 issue. They've made good on their latest desktop, but don't knock a good Toolkit because of the DE.
My two cents.
I agree. Look at all the different implementations for Java EE standards. For example TopLink essentials vs. the actual product from Oracle, or all of the different JSF implementations out there.
...), different database back ends (MySQL, Derby, Oracle...), different GUI tool sets (Swing, AWT, SWT), different presentation layers (JSF, Struts...), and so on.
.NET programmers (I've got nothing but love for you guys) who find this all very confusing and find it hard to understand how any of this can be healthy when they just have the MS runtime, ADO.NET, ASP.NET and third party add-ons for those first three items. (IANA.NP, I am not a .NET programmer, or at least professionally)
This isn't anything new and in fact I consider it one of the great points of Java. You can pick and choose which JVM flavor best meets your needs / taste and implement it in your total stack. You can have different Application Servers (Glassfish, JBoss...), different persistence layers (Hibernate, TopLink
I know a few
Since everyone else is doing it, hooray!
bridge, friends, jump, profit!
For me, the Year of the Linux Desktop was 1994. I've been addicted to Slackware ever since. I run a couple of Ubuntu/Kubuntu in VirtualBox every now and then.
You mean Windows still exist?!
I haven't bought a Microsoft product since the change. (Couldn't stand the changes going forward in Windows 95.)
As far as Office compatibility... I've not come across an Office document since 1996. Usually it's PDF, HTML, RTF, Text, CSV, and now recently ODF (Was a big fan of KOffice format but they've gone ODF too). I know that my case is like 1% of the world's population. Even though I can now convert the "Office" documents that are out there, I still haven't come across one.
I hear the unification issue come up a lot when people talk about the Linux Desktop.
"Standardize on GTK+ or Qt but don't have both."
"There should be one vendor, so many distributions add confusion."
"Everything should be open to the GUI."
And so on...
My two cents and everyone is free to take it with whatever size of gain of mineral you find.
A) Unification would indeed ease confusion. In turn it would make the Linux desktop a very easy target for competition. Imaging if we all went with GNOME, dropped Qt/KDE et al, and then MS kills GNOME because of ___ (insert random patent that some distro violates.)
BOOM, no Linux desktop. Same is true if everyone went KDE. I thought we were learning from Microsoft not to put all our eggs in one basket?
B) The whole one vendor for Linux argument is silly. Should we have one vendor for Laptops? One vendor for email software? One vendor for web browsers (*cough* IE *cough*)? There again it comes to that whole egg/basket interaction thingy.
C) Create a standard API for the Linux Desktop. Sure, that sounds lovely. Let EA, Valve, Blizzard, etc. know that 3D Realms is going to create a standard 3D engine that they'll use in all of their games.
The whole issue is that different people find different APIs easier. It's not like there is a GTK+, GTK+Super, GTK+Exxxtream. There are different bindings but they all work with the same standard GTK+ API. Likewise with Qt. It's no different from the .NET and Java and the other dozen vendors who make different APIs for Windows.
D) Default fonts look ugly? Is this really a desktop killer? I know I'm from the 80's and all but I really haven't been paying that much attention in this area.
I would continue but I'm getting tired of enumerating points here.
Summary, this guy is like most Microsoft people I know. Point and click knowledge. If making everything unified so that it's easier to attack, more GUI so it's less able to be configured and more bloated, and more focused on fewer tools and less choice so that everyone knows what's under the hood of a Linux box; makes Linux ready for the Desktop, then I'd love if Linux never made it to the Desktop.
To me it sounds like the Desktop is the ninth circle of hell for computers.
Also don't even get me started with the fact that DOS was the home computing OS for quite some time. CLI arguments be damned.
PS: I love how AD and DFS is tossed in with a Desktop ready report. Because I know how my Grandma loves configuring the GPO for her OUs.
You are standing in the Plaza Mayor De Madird.
The smell of cocaine and opiates fills the thick air. Dusk is coming and an unsavory(?) group of people are starting to form around you.
To the North is a vendor selling tourist souvenirs, you think, to the South is a guy hunched over a small folding table. There are exits to the North-East and West.
You will likely be eaten by El Grue de Espana.
What will you do?
and the lunar lander.
Because we all know games = Good selling OS.
That's why AS400 is used in my company! Man, oh man I can't wait for Tetris for iSeries.