Yes, I'm aware of the fact that only a few pieces are being replaced -- but it is still a waste of time. I think it's more a case of a "it isn't open source, so it can't be any good" kind of mentality, instead of trying to fix an actual problem...
There isn't much news to this story -- and the submitter quoted close to half of the article in their summary...
This really isn't great news for the Blackberry, because RIM has already lost the original suit from NTP -- and as the article states, it could take *years* for the validity of the remaining 4 patents to be finalized... NTP could drag this process out in court for quite some time, all the while putting pressure on RIM or possibly finding a judge that will grant some type of injunction.
Sometimes it doesn't matter if you're right; it matters more if you're around for the long haul. After all, what's the use of being an excellent boxer if you can't last past 3 rounds?
"People started abusing the system, mailing developers, managers, and executives directly because their pet bug/feature/etc. was not getting the attention it so clearly deserved."
"Some things leaked out, which caused no end of fuss, and gradually projects were removed from the live cvs repository."
"For a while, the project floundered, trying to figure out how best to deal with the situation."
Whether or not the article is accurate is a different question...
It seems perfectly understandable to me... Apple slowly reduced access to outside developers (they didn't "kill off" their open source projects, as the main article trolled), because the process was being ABUSED by external, open source developers...
I think that in the end, Apple realized that the few contributions received from the OSS community were not enough to justify the abuses, leaks and other problems, so they took appropriate measures to protect their development environment...
There's a lot more collaboration between users of the same company than there is between a company and its customers. Interally, documents are sent around to be updated by multiple individuals (i.e. collaboration).
Documents sent out to external customers usually aren't for collaboration - they're for information distribution, and for various (legal, logistical, technical) reasons, it generally isn't in a company's best interests to have its customers modify documents that are sent out.
It seems the norm these days is to send out Word documents internally, and PDF externally...
So I really don't see how the multiple tiers will interfere with communications between a company and an external customer...
This article had nothing to do with how well (or poorly) open source will fare in the corporate world. It was sheer propaganda from SAP. It was essentially saying "buy our crap, because the other crap out there isn't as integrated as our crap is"
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm aware of the fact that only a few pieces are being replaced -- but it is still a waste of time. I think it's more a case of a "it isn't open source, so it can't be any good" kind of mentality, instead of trying to fix an actual problem...
Isn't the OpenJDK just a waste of time (or a reinvention of the wheel?). The Sun JDK is already open, with the source code available...
Sprint will let you do this on some (but not all) of their phones:
w _do_I_back_up_my_contacts?
http://support.sprint.com/doc/sp10490.xml?id16=ho
You have to subscribe to the service. It's currently $2 per month...
I guess going into math didn't help that much :) But hey, you're only off by a factor of 1,000...
Looks like a court will be considering an injunction tomorrow!
s p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1930775,00.a
There isn't much news to this story -- and the submitter quoted close to half of the article in their summary...
This really isn't great news for the Blackberry, because RIM has already lost the original suit from NTP -- and as the article states, it could take *years* for the validity of the remaining 4 patents to be finalized... NTP could drag this process out in court for quite some time, all the while putting pressure on RIM or possibly finding a judge that will grant some type of injunction.
Sometimes it doesn't matter if you're right; it matters more if you're around for the long haul. After all, what's the use of being an excellent boxer if you can't last past 3 rounds?
NTP has the edge here...
From the article:
"People started abusing the system, mailing developers, managers, and executives directly because their pet bug/feature/etc. was not getting the attention it so clearly deserved."
"Some things leaked out, which caused no end of fuss, and gradually projects were removed from the live cvs repository."
"For a while, the project floundered, trying to figure out how best to deal with the situation."
Whether or not the article is accurate is a different question...
It seems perfectly understandable to me... Apple slowly reduced access to outside developers (they didn't "kill off" their open source projects, as the main article trolled), because the process was being ABUSED by external, open source developers...
I think that in the end, Apple realized that the few contributions received from the OSS community were not enough to justify the abuses, leaks and other problems, so they took appropriate measures to protect their development environment...
There's a lot more collaboration between users of the same company than there is between a company and its customers. Interally, documents are sent around to be updated by multiple individuals (i.e. collaboration).
Documents sent out to external customers usually aren't for collaboration - they're for information distribution, and for various (legal, logistical, technical) reasons, it generally isn't in a company's best interests to have its customers modify documents that are sent out.
It seems the norm these days is to send out Word documents internally, and PDF externally...
So I really don't see how the multiple tiers will interfere with communications between a company and an external customer...
This article had nothing to do with how well (or poorly) open source will fare in the corporate world. It was sheer propaganda from SAP. It was essentially saying "buy our crap, because the other crap out there isn't as integrated as our crap is"
it's not like their app server doesn't have credible competition from the likes of IBM and Bea.
:)
Credible competition? Weblogic and Websphere are far superior products to JBoss -- and Weblogic is the best of the three.
JBoss isn't even competition, really, for Weblogic. It is primarily used by those who are too cheap to buy a license for Weblogic