Sun's license isn't just "rather restrictive", it's viral: if you download the source code, you will not be able to work on any open source Java project again. That is worse than "closed".
C# people claim their language is "better." I've used both - C# is not better enough to justify the baggage of being locked into the world's most notorious vendor.
How does using Mono and Gnome lock me into Microsoft?
The lock-in that has caused problems for me is lock-in into Java: Sun's J2SE implementation has caused me numerous problems, there is no sensible alternative, Sun's willingness to fix bugs has been poor, and since it's closed source, there is no way of fixing it.
Java on the other hand is a cross platform environment supported by multiple competing vendors.
All conforming Java implementations are licensed derivatives of Sun's implementation, so there is really only one implementation.
It is useful that that one implementation has been ported to many platforms, but because Sun controls it, if it hasn't been ported to a platform you need, you're stuck. Also, platform integration (kernel APIs, system libraries, Gnome desktop) is very hard to achieve with Java.
There are some attempts to port C#, but those efforts don't have 10% of the current momentum that java has from a large community of both corporations and volunteer open source contributors.
Quite to the contrary: Mono is more and more becoming an integral part of the Gnome desktop; Java, on the other hand, is essentially dead on the Linux desktop.
The advantage of Java in my mind is that it can be used in a Linux environment
Java's integration into the Linux environment is lousy: getting at Linux kernel or desktop APIs is a lot of work. Furthermore, the only really usable Java implementations are proprietary and don't even ship on many Linux systems.
If the choice comes down to Java and C#, then C# is clearly the better choice in my opinion for anybody who cares about Linux programming: Mono is an open source C# implementation that runs on all major Linux distributions and provides full access to Linux and Gnome APIs.
If other languages are an option, then I'd suggest getting started with Python--it is probably a better language for learning programming than either Java or C#.
If you want to write Linux desktop apps, C# is the obvious choice between those two. Beagle, F-Stop, and a number of other important Gnome apps are written in it. C# has full bindings to Gtk+, has a full-features open source implementation (Mono), and it's also a well-designed programming language.
If you know how to program in C#, you essentially will know how to program in Java anyway--Java is pretty much a subset of C#--so, in terms of education, you don't lose anything.
Yes, that's why the actual explanation is called "evolution": it starts with small, simple self-replicating systems that gradually become more and more complex through replication and selection.
I just thought of something while looking at the graphic -- what if RNA and DNA originally assemble in the pre-planetary cloud and hang around, falling into condensing planets and so forth?
That's one hypothesis of how life may have started. Dust grains may have been involved, however.
Allchin stressed that Microsoft has broken new ground in Longhorn. For example, document icons are no longer a hint of the type of file, but rather a small picture of the file itself. The icon for a Word document, for example, is a tiny iteration of the first page of the file. Folders, too, show glimpses of what's inside. Such images can be rather small, but they offer a visual cue that aids in the searching process, Allchin said.
Kind of like Gnome has been doing for a few years now? How out of touch are these people???
To me that's more of a failure of the desktop environments; we're stuck with C/C++ based ones because of network effects not because of merit.
Taking into account network effects is an important component of language merit, and Java has failed to address this adequately. In contrast, languages like C# and Python integrate much better into the existing environments, which is why they have been much more successful on the desktop.
(Even if we just look at the language itself, and not network effects, Java doesn't rate too well: better languages than Java have been around since before Java was even conceived.)
I'd bet that there is nobody in the whole world who could program a ICCCM compliant window manager from scratch, from memory. So you would have to study some notoriously confusing spec to implement one in Java or port lots of low-level bit-flipping code from C. Or you could lift code from twm or other and start hacking on it, which is what people do.
So you are proposing to throw out the ICCCM altogether and replace it with a bunch of Java windows? That would break a lot of functionality and replace a documented (if complex) standard with a bunch of stuff that's defined implicitly in Java source code. How exactly is that progress?
ICCCM is complicated, but it's complicated because it describes complex interactions. One could only wish that Macintosh and Windows had standards comparable to the ICCCM.
If one of the major desktop environments were implemented in Java, it would represent a massive victory.
I think it would be a massive victory if a major desktop environment were implemented in a garbage collected, safe language, but Java is not the language--it lacks essential functionality for that purpose. Python or Mono are decent platforms to build desktop environments on, and, not surprisingly, more and more desktop components are being built in those languages.
If not, it's more likely than not just another sad but understandable failure of markets, like the dvorak keyboard for instance.
That's a good analogy because the superiority of Dvorak is as much of a myth as the superiority of Java. Both Dvorak and Java have gimmicks that make them sound appealing, but they fail to address the real problems in their domains, and that's why they are ultimately not going to take over the world. Java had the potential to grow into that role, but it is clear at this point that it's not going to happen anymore.
You're right that FOSS is orthogonal to capitalism, but that statement requires some qualification because many people will misinterpret that statement to mean taht FOSS is not trying to compete in the same way that commercial software is.
Many people use the term "capitalism" almost synonymously with "free market economy", but that's not correct. Capitalism is a mechanism for financing business ventures; free market economies are economies in which goods can be traded freely. Capitalism and free market economies are often associated, because they are synergistic, but they don't have to be. You can have capitalism without a functioning free market, and many of the big players in a capitalist economy are trying to interfere with the functioning of the free market because that is beneficial for their own business.
FOSS is not orthogonal to free market economies; in fact, FOSS is succeeding because it competes very well as a player in a free market economy and because there are economic incentives for creating it. In a centrally planned economy, you wouldn't get a vibrant FOSS culture because there are fewer incentives for creating FOSS.
But there are a lot of open-source JVM's being written.
A JVM is useless by itself for running Java software.
It is an open-standard. The reason why you don't see lots of compliant platforms is simply because there isn't much interest in developing a JVM and making a business out of it. Most companies are more interested in making money using Java, not developing it.
It makes no difference what the reasons are, a language that wants to replace C and C++ needs to have many independent implementations, just like C and C++ do.
Enterprise apps is a huge "segment". It's what most software business do today.
Yeah, but so what? All I was saying is that that's the segment in which Java has been most successful, but even in that segment, Java is not dominant.
The last release for that library was in 2002. And if you look around the web, you'll see that that pretty much sums up the situation with Java and numerics: starting around 1999, there was a lot of interest in fixing up Java for numerical work and a lot of those kinds of projects started. But Sun failed to do their part and people just gave up in frustration around 2002. Java is mostly dead for numerics.
Most people have gone back to C++, Fortran, or Matlab. C# has a chance of taking off for numerical work, however.
Gcj and classpath now have about 95% of the Java core implemented as totally free software.
gcj is not a Java implementation. And "the Java core" is not Java.
Java generics are not deeply flawed
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
The scientific community is still often using FORTRAN for heaven's sake.
The scientific community is using C and C++ extensively. Java would have been a great platform to move to if Sun hadn't screwed up so badly.
Check sourceforge... the majority of Java projects are not in the Web category of trove.
It doesn't matter what the projects are on Sourceforge, what matters is where Java actually gets used.
The real measure of Java's failure as an open, modern application programming platform is the fact that no desktop environment has adopted it: Windows, OS X, Gnome, and KDE are all still based on C/C++. Even Sun's own "Java" desktop is based on C/C++. After 10 years, Java ought to have swept that market.
Yeah, thats why I see tons of ghosting when I move windows around on my Ubuntu box yet my sister's Powerbook (which is far weaker) does not.
That has nothing to do with the X Window System, it has to do with two things: the quality of your X11 implementation (including drivers) and the window redraw strategy your applications choose.
(Quartz isn't actually all that efficient or well implemented even compared to X.org; most of the slickness of OS X seems to be the result of some simple buffering hacks.)
Damage on Xorg is only tolerable for me with xcompmgr running- saying its ahead of either OSX or Windows makes me laugh!
Again, you're confusing an implementation (X.org) with the X Window System. The design of the X window system is far ahead of both OS X and Windows. In terms of code quality, I don't know how they compare (Quartz and Windows being closed source). In terms of drivers, X.org, of course, has to struggle, but they are doing a pretty good job under the circumstances.
I used to be quite enthusiastic about Java--it had a lot of promise when it came out. But I think Java has stagnated and it's time to move on.
What are the problems?
First, Java never turned into an open standard like C or C++. Initially, it looked like there were going to be dozens of independent implementations besides Sun's and Microsoft's, but they have all disappeared. The only way to run a compliant Java platform these days is with Sun's implementation or one of its derivatives (IBM, Oracle, Apple).
Second, Java is focused on niche markets; most of Java's real-world use seems to be in enterprise apps, a market segment that by itself is not enough to sustain a general purpose programming language (Java may well be the new Cobol).
Third, related to the above points, Java has failed to evolve sufficiently. Sun has failed to address concerns and needs of the scientific and numerical communities. And many of Sun's changes have been hampered by backwards compatibility with the JVM (e.g., genericity in Java 1.5 is deeply flawed). And Java never acquired a reasonable native code interface, keeping it out of many applications.
Java has made a valuable contribution by demonstrating to many working programmers that features like garbage collection, reflection, and runtime safety are useful, but those features are essentially 1970's technology. Sun has failed to evolve Java beyond that, and that's why it's time for other languages and other stewards to take over. Fortunately, there are many other excellent languages being created. The Java language itself (but not the platform) will probably be with us for a long time, although probably running in many environments other than the JVM.
Java had the potential to be a lot more than just a transitional language from C/C++ to modern, safe, reflective languages, but Sun unfortunately has failed to realize that potential fully.
Given that the UK government needs to take all these extraordinary measures against terrorism and crime, it is evident that terrorism, violent crime, and property crime must be rampant in Britain; a nation that was actually reasonably safe and prosperous wouldn't need any of these steps.
So, the message to both tourists and investors is: if you value your life and property, stay out of Britain.
I think it's inevitable that this sort of video will be captured, stored, and used--prices for the equipment are getting cheaper and cheaper. In another few years, you'll get solar cell operated cameras the size of a matchbox that transmit their information wirelessly and that you can stick anywhere you like.
The problem is that the police have special access to this sort of information. That way, when you are accused of something, you can't even construct a defense--the government can select specific information to pressure you or blackmail you.
Rather than trying to fight these developments, maybe we should fight for making all the information public: the president's trip to his mistress or bar should be as much public knowledge as your own trip to the mall.
But the "autothis-and-that" tools all are written for Unix features, like the file specification, syntax of options, compilation tools etc.. None of the differences among various operating systems are addressed in the new scheme and somehow I doubt they will be in the future.
Your problem is with XFree86 and/or X.org, not with "the X Window System".
The X Window System is and remains platform independent, with interoperable, multiple client and server implementations for many different platforms.
Because you wrote "Somehow I question the claim that the X Window System is still platform-independent". "The X Window System" is not a piece of software.
If you meant something different, you have to express yourself more clearly if you want people to understand you.
How your desktop exposes screen rotation depends on your desktop, not X11. I have used X11 desktops that provided a gesture, a button, or a gravity sensor for rotation.
Of course, the "xrandr" command works pretty much with every server/driver combo that supports rotation.
I mean, in terms of being able to remote-log-on to a computer and get the GUI? Windows Remote Desktop runs quite well.
X11's network transparency is a lot more than just remote desktop display; neither Windows nor OS X have anything like it.
But that's only a small part of it. Window management, damage, rendering, automation, and a lot of other facilities are far better designed and more powerful in X11 than on other platforms.
X11 clients and servers run on Linux, UNIX, Windows, OS X, and dozens of other operating systems.
but I like to suggest that either the people who are developing the X Window System work on this part of their software or drop the claim that they produce platform-independent software.
You don't understand. X11 is a protocol; there are dozens of different client implementations and dozens of different server implementations. X.org and XFree86 happen to be UNIX-centric, but other implementations are not.
But I sure would like to know when X will support today's new technologies and trends. rotating your screen is very difficult. and you can't have accelleration when you do. even resolution changes are difficult (xrandr helps, but you still can only move between the resolutions provided at the X server start, which doesn't help if you've plugged in a different monitor.) Switching between dual displays is hard.
X11 has support for all of those, plus more. It's up to driver writers and server implementors to support those features properly.
The real question is when Windows and Macintosh will catch up to X11, because they are far behind.
Your analysis is quite right: you will not be able to create open content without paying for patent licenses and keys (directly or indirectly).
Additionally, however, one should be aware that this is likely no accident: the RIAA and MPAA members are probably more concerned about new competitors entering the market and the distribution of open content than about piracy. So, while the ostensible goal of DRM is to curb privacy, it is ultimately more about creating barriers to entry.
Slashdot Mirror
Sun's license isn't just "rather restrictive", it's viral: if you download the source code, you will not be able to work on any open source Java project again. That is worse than "closed".
C# people claim their language is "better." I've used both - C# is not better enough to justify the baggage of being locked into the world's most notorious vendor.
How does using Mono and Gnome lock me into Microsoft?
The lock-in that has caused problems for me is lock-in into Java: Sun's J2SE implementation has caused me numerous problems, there is no sensible alternative, Sun's willingness to fix bugs has been poor, and since it's closed source, there is no way of fixing it.
Java on the other hand is a cross platform environment supported by multiple competing vendors.
All conforming Java implementations are licensed derivatives of Sun's implementation, so there is really only one implementation.
It is useful that that one implementation has been ported to many platforms, but because Sun controls it, if it hasn't been ported to a platform you need, you're stuck. Also, platform integration (kernel APIs, system libraries, Gnome desktop) is very hard to achieve with Java.
There are some attempts to port C#, but those efforts don't have 10% of the current momentum that java has from a large community of both corporations and volunteer open source contributors.
Quite to the contrary: Mono is more and more becoming an integral part of the Gnome desktop; Java, on the other hand, is essentially dead on the Linux desktop.
The advantage of Java in my mind is that it can be used in a Linux environment
Java's integration into the Linux environment is lousy: getting at Linux kernel or desktop APIs is a lot of work. Furthermore, the only really usable Java implementations are proprietary and don't even ship on many Linux systems.
If the choice comes down to Java and C#, then C# is clearly the better choice in my opinion for anybody who cares about Linux programming: Mono is an open source C# implementation that runs on all major Linux distributions and provides full access to Linux and Gnome APIs.
If other languages are an option, then I'd suggest getting started with Python--it is probably a better language for learning programming than either Java or C#.
If you want to write Linux desktop apps, C# is the obvious choice between those two. Beagle, F-Stop, and a number of other important Gnome apps are written in it. C# has full bindings to Gtk+, has a full-features open source implementation (Mono), and it's also a well-designed programming language.
If you know how to program in C#, you essentially will know how to program in Java anyway--Java is pretty much a subset of C#--so, in terms of education, you don't lose anything.
Random trial and error seems our of the question.
Yes, that's why the actual explanation is called "evolution": it starts with small, simple self-replicating systems that gradually become more and more complex through replication and selection.
I just thought of something while looking at the graphic -- what if RNA and DNA originally assemble in the pre-planetary cloud and hang around, falling into condensing planets and so forth?
That's one hypothesis of how life may have started. Dust grains may have been involved, however.
Allchin stressed that Microsoft has broken new ground in Longhorn. For example, document icons are no longer a hint of the type of file, but rather a small picture of the file itself. The icon for a Word document, for example, is a tiny iteration of the first page of the file. Folders, too, show glimpses of what's inside. Such images can be rather small, but they offer a visual cue that aids in the searching process, Allchin said.
Kind of like Gnome has been doing for a few years now? How out of touch are these people???
To me that's more of a failure of the desktop environments; we're stuck with C/C++ based ones because of network effects not because of merit.
Taking into account network effects is an important component of language merit, and Java has failed to address this adequately. In contrast, languages like C# and Python integrate much better into the existing environments, which is why they have been much more successful on the desktop.
(Even if we just look at the language itself, and not network effects, Java doesn't rate too well: better languages than Java have been around since before Java was even conceived.)
I'd bet that there is nobody in the whole world who could program a ICCCM compliant window manager from scratch, from memory. So you would have to study some notoriously confusing spec to implement one in Java or port lots of low-level bit-flipping code from C. Or you could lift code from twm or other and start hacking on it, which is what people do.
So you are proposing to throw out the ICCCM altogether and replace it with a bunch of Java windows? That would break a lot of functionality and replace a documented (if complex) standard with a bunch of stuff that's defined implicitly in Java source code. How exactly is that progress?
ICCCM is complicated, but it's complicated because it describes complex interactions. One could only wish that Macintosh and Windows had standards comparable to the ICCCM.
If one of the major desktop environments were implemented in Java, it would represent a massive victory.
I think it would be a massive victory if a major desktop environment were implemented in a garbage collected, safe language, but Java is not the language--it lacks essential functionality for that purpose. Python or Mono are decent platforms to build desktop environments on, and, not surprisingly, more and more desktop components are being built in those languages.
If not, it's more likely than not just another sad but understandable failure of markets, like the dvorak keyboard for instance.
That's a good analogy because the superiority of Dvorak is as much of a myth as the superiority of Java. Both Dvorak and Java have gimmicks that make them sound appealing, but they fail to address the real problems in their domains, and that's why they are ultimately not going to take over the world. Java had the potential to grow into that role, but it is clear at this point that it's not going to happen anymore.
You're right that FOSS is orthogonal to capitalism, but that statement requires some qualification because many people will misinterpret that statement to mean taht FOSS is not trying to compete in the same way that commercial software is.
Many people use the term "capitalism" almost synonymously with "free market economy", but that's not correct. Capitalism is a mechanism for financing business ventures; free market economies are economies in which goods can be traded freely. Capitalism and free market economies are often associated, because they are synergistic, but they don't have to be. You can have capitalism without a functioning free market, and many of the big players in a capitalist economy are trying to interfere with the functioning of the free market because that is beneficial for their own business.
FOSS is not orthogonal to free market economies; in fact, FOSS is succeeding because it competes very well as a player in a free market economy and because there are economic incentives for creating it. In a centrally planned economy, you wouldn't get a vibrant FOSS culture because there are fewer incentives for creating FOSS.
But there are a lot of open-source JVM's being written.
A JVM is useless by itself for running Java software.
It is an open-standard. The reason why you don't see lots of compliant platforms is simply because there isn't much interest in developing a JVM and making a business out of it. Most companies are more interested in making money using Java, not developing it.
It makes no difference what the reasons are, a language that wants to replace C and C++ needs to have many independent implementations, just like C and C++ do.
Enterprise apps is a huge "segment". It's what most software business do today.
Yeah, but so what? All I was saying is that that's the segment in which Java has been most successful, but even in that segment, Java is not dominant.
The last release for that library was in 2002. And if you look around the web, you'll see that that pretty much sums up the situation with Java and numerics: starting around 1999, there was a lot of interest in fixing up Java for numerical work and a lot of those kinds of projects started. But Sun failed to do their part and people just gave up in frustration around 2002. Java is mostly dead for numerics.
Most people have gone back to C++, Fortran, or Matlab. C# has a chance of taking off for numerical work, however.
Gcj and classpath now have about 95% of the Java core implemented as totally free software.
gcj is not a Java implementation. And "the Java core" is not Java.
Java generics are not deeply flawed
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
The scientific community is still often using FORTRAN for heaven's sake.
The scientific community is using C and C++ extensively. Java would have been a great platform to move to if Sun hadn't screwed up so badly.
Check sourceforge... the majority of Java projects are not in the Web category of trove.
It doesn't matter what the projects are on Sourceforge, what matters is where Java actually gets used.
The real measure of Java's failure as an open, modern application programming platform is the fact that no desktop environment has adopted it: Windows, OS X, Gnome, and KDE are all still based on C/C++. Even Sun's own "Java" desktop is based on C/C++. After 10 years, Java ought to have swept that market.
Yeah, thats why I see tons of ghosting when I move windows around on my Ubuntu box yet my sister's Powerbook (which is far weaker) does not.
That has nothing to do with the X Window System, it has to do with two things: the quality of your X11 implementation (including drivers) and the window redraw strategy your applications choose.
(Quartz isn't actually all that efficient or well implemented even compared to X.org; most of the slickness of OS X seems to be the result of some simple buffering hacks.)
Damage on Xorg is only tolerable for me with xcompmgr running- saying its ahead of either OSX or Windows makes me laugh!
Again, you're confusing an implementation (X.org) with the X Window System. The design of the X window system is far ahead of both OS X and Windows. In terms of code quality, I don't know how they compare (Quartz and Windows being closed source). In terms of drivers, X.org, of course, has to struggle, but they are doing a pretty good job under the circumstances.
I used to be quite enthusiastic about Java--it had a lot of promise when it came out. But I think Java has stagnated and it's time to move on.
What are the problems?
First, Java never turned into an open standard like C or C++. Initially, it looked like there were going to be dozens of independent implementations besides Sun's and Microsoft's, but they have all disappeared. The only way to run a compliant Java platform these days is with Sun's implementation or one of its derivatives (IBM, Oracle, Apple).
Second, Java is focused on niche markets; most of Java's real-world use seems to be in enterprise apps, a market segment that by itself is not enough to sustain a general purpose programming language (Java may well be the new Cobol).
Third, related to the above points, Java has failed to evolve sufficiently. Sun has failed to address concerns and needs of the scientific and numerical communities. And many of Sun's changes have been hampered by backwards compatibility with the JVM (e.g., genericity in Java 1.5 is deeply flawed). And Java never acquired a reasonable native code interface, keeping it out of many applications.
Java has made a valuable contribution by demonstrating to many working programmers that features like garbage collection, reflection, and runtime safety are useful, but those features are essentially 1970's technology. Sun has failed to evolve Java beyond that, and that's why it's time for other languages and other stewards to take over. Fortunately, there are many other excellent languages being created. The Java language itself (but not the platform) will probably be with us for a long time, although probably running in many environments other than the JVM.
Java had the potential to be a lot more than just a transitional language from C/C++ to modern, safe, reflective languages, but Sun unfortunately has failed to realize that potential fully.
Given that the UK government needs to take all these extraordinary measures against terrorism and crime, it is evident that terrorism, violent crime, and property crime must be rampant in Britain; a nation that was actually reasonably safe and prosperous wouldn't need any of these steps.
So, the message to both tourists and investors is: if you value your life and property, stay out of Britain.
I think it's inevitable that this sort of video will be captured, stored, and used--prices for the equipment are getting cheaper and cheaper. In another few years, you'll get solar cell operated cameras the size of a matchbox that transmit their information wirelessly and that you can stick anywhere you like.
The problem is that the police have special access to this sort of information. That way, when you are accused of something, you can't even construct a defense--the government can select specific information to pressure you or blackmail you.
Rather than trying to fight these developments, maybe we should fight for making all the information public: the president's trip to his mistress or bar should be as much public knowledge as your own trip to the mall.
It's only fair. After all, Windows has been running as an X11 screensaver for years (just invoke the BSOD module of xscreensaver).
Your problem is with XFree86 and/or X.org, not with "the X Window System".
The X Window System is and remains platform independent, with interoperable, multiple client and server implementations for many different platforms.
Because you wrote "Somehow I question the claim that the X Window System is still platform-independent". "The X Window System" is not a piece of software.
If you meant something different, you have to express yourself more clearly if you want people to understand you.
How your desktop exposes screen rotation depends on your desktop, not X11. I have used X11 desktops that provided a gesture, a button, or a gravity sensor for rotation.
Of course, the "xrandr" command works pretty much with every server/driver combo that supports rotation.
I mean, in terms of being able to remote-log-on to a computer and get the GUI? Windows Remote Desktop runs quite well.
X11's network transparency is a lot more than just remote desktop display; neither Windows nor OS X have anything like it.
But that's only a small part of it. Window management, damage, rendering, automation, and a lot of other facilities are far better designed and more powerful in X11 than on other platforms.
X11 clients and servers run on Linux, UNIX, Windows, OS X, and dozens of other operating systems.
but I like to suggest that either the people who are developing the X Window System work on this part of their software or drop the claim that they produce platform-independent software.
You don't understand. X11 is a protocol; there are dozens of different client implementations and dozens of different server implementations. X.org and XFree86 happen to be UNIX-centric, but other implementations are not.
But I sure would like to know when X will support today's new technologies and trends. rotating your screen is very difficult. and you can't have accelleration when you do. even resolution changes are difficult (xrandr helps, but you still can only move between the resolutions provided at the X server start, which doesn't help if you've plugged in a different monitor.) Switching between dual displays is hard.
X11 has support for all of those, plus more. It's up to driver writers and server implementors to support those features properly.
The real question is when Windows and Macintosh will catch up to X11, because they are far behind.
Your analysis is quite right: you will not be able to create open content without paying for patent licenses and keys (directly or indirectly).
Additionally, however, one should be aware that this is likely no accident: the RIAA and MPAA members are probably more concerned about new competitors entering the market and the distribution of open content than about piracy. So, while the ostensible goal of DRM is to curb privacy, it is ultimately more about creating barriers to entry.