Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Jul 2005 21:21 UTC
Java IBM has begun participating in open-source Java project Harmony and intends to contribute code to the initiative, according to a Big Blue executive.
Order by: Score:
No surprise here
by orestes on Thu 21st Jul 2005 21:34 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

After all, IBM has never been very happy about Sun controlling Java.

Reply Score: 0

RE: No surprise here
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 21:53 UTC in reply to "No surprise here"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And... Sun will still contoll Java, which is just fine with me.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: No surprise here
by segedunum on Thu 21st Jul 2005 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE: No surprise here"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

And... Sun will still contoll Java, which is just fine with me.

Well they'll certainly control their version of Java, but Apache has such mindshare and infrastructure aound Java that if (and when) this J2SE implementation gets up and running it could well turn out to be the reference Java platform. That could certainly be the case if open source projects can use it and redistribute it in the same way that they can with Apache software today.

Sun would certainly have their fears allayed about an open source version of Java fragmenting things. There would be one reference implementation, and it would be Apache's simply because everyone would be using it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: No surprise here
by binarycrusader on Thu 21st Jul 2005 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No surprise here"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Well they'll certainly control their version of Java, but Apache has such mindshare and infrastructure aound Java that if (and when) this J2SE implementation gets up and running it could well turn out to be the reference Java platform.

It could *never* turn out to be "the" reference Java platform. Remember that SUN holds control over the Java trademarks and copyrights, and gets to control who can call what "Java". It might become a reference platform for software, but unless SUN approves it will never become a reference platform for Java itself. I for one am very glad this is so.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: No surprise here
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No surprise here"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It could *never* turn out to be "the" reference Java platform. Remember that SUN holds control over the Java trademarks and copyrights

So what? The trademarks and copyrights mean zilch. If enough people start using it then it simply *will* be the reference implementation of J***, whether Sun approves or ratifies it or not.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No surprise here
by nberardi on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 01:27 UTC in reply to "No surprise here"
nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

IBM has never been happy in the past 20 years, since they have failed to capture the market in anything they do. They practically invent the PC as we know it today, they had to sell that division off because Dell posed a huge threat even in the business sector. I can't remember the last time I saw O/S Warp running. But yet that didn't take off either, even though it was light years ahead of Windows 95 and 3.11 at the time.

IBM is a total failure. Their business practices are overweight and the only way they can get back into the market is take control of Open Source Projects and call them their own much like Apple has done.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: No surprise here
by rm6990 on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 06:32 UTC in reply to "RE: No surprise here"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

IBM has never been happy in the past 20 years, since they have failed to capture the market in anything they do. They practically invent the PC as we know it today, they had to sell that division off because Dell posed a huge threat even in the business sector. I can't remember the last time I saw O/S Warp running. But yet that didn't take off either, even though it was light years ahead of Windows 95 and 3.11 at the time.

IBM is a total failure. Their business practices are overweight and the only way they can get back into the market is take control of Open Source Projects and call them their own much like Apple has done.


Yeah, like they only have 90% market share in the mainframe market (which is going at a healthy rate nowadays). And they have made more of the top 500 supercomputers than any other company. But these supercomputers and mainframes are only multi-million dollar machines, not the $300 pieces of junk Dell makes, so obviously they are a complete failure.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: No surprise here
by nberardi on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 13:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No surprise here"
nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

800.00 for a desktop yeilds more money then a million dollars for a mainframe. Like I said the company hasn't been happy for the last 20 years. They have missed every boat in the last 20 years, and now they think they can catch up by re-creating a 10 year old technology. IBM is all but walking dead at this point.

Reply Score: 1

Not just IBM
by carbon-12 on Thu 21st Jul 2005 22:07 UTC
carbon-12
Member since:
2005-07-06

If you read the Harmony ML, theres people from Sybase, Computer Associates, Intel, Borland, and so on contributing in one way or the other. Either offering code or talking about the design of the VM. Even a couple of Sun engineers post there too.

Reply Score: 1

sun is mad
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 22:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

it could benefit from all these contribs but can't see the light.

Reply Score: 0

Suggested Reading About Harmony
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 22:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

For all the Harmony addics out there: http://www.jroller.com/page/fate?entry=harmony_update

Reply Score: 0

Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Hanni is hilarious and a must read for a laugh, but his goal is to make fun and not necessarily employ critical thinking.

Reply Score: 1

Open source java
by Lumbergh on Thu 21st Jul 2005 22:36 UTC
Lumbergh
Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm hardly an open source zealot, but Sun's argument against open sourceing that it will "fragment the standards" is pretty amusing. The conclusion I draw from this argument is that they fear open source putting out better implementations than they can and open source becoming the standard.

They've also thrown out another argument that "corporate interests" don't want it open sourced. Bah, that argument is weak. Sun seems to have a problem with choice.

And how much revenue does Sun make on Java and will they ever recoup the development costs they've put into it?

Also, I guess it must be in the license that IBM signed with Sun, but why can't IBM open source their java?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Open source java
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 03:03 UTC in reply to "Open source java"
Anonymous Member since:
---

They probably ported some (if not most) of code that was provided by Sun. I can't imagine that they implemented their entire JVM from scratch.

Reply Score: 0

Ok
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 22:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

But why haven’t they contributed to the Gnu Classpath effort or Kaffe in the last few years? I don’t get it, its not like harmony has any code or plan for the future yet and Gnu Classpath and Kaffe have.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Ok
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 23:14 UTC in reply to "Ok"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> But why haven’t they contributed to the Gnu Classpath
> effort or Kaffe in the last few years? I don’t get it,
> its not like harmony has any code or plan for the
> future yet and Gnu Classpath and Kaffe have.

Usual corporate hatred against the GPL.

They rather contribute to a non-GPL project that, so far, has _only_ a goal and a name, but _no_ code, than to a absolutely free, GPL-licenced, and speedily maturing library like Classpath, that is available and usable _right now_.

I'm curious to see if these two projects will progress, and especially hoow they will cooperate.

Both the GPL and the Apache licences, are after all very similar free software licences, even when they are not compatible. There is no reason for these two projects not to share as much code as possible and not to cooperate as much as possible.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Ok
by Lumbergh on Thu 21st Jul 2005 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Ok"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Both the GPL and the Apache licences, are after all very similar free software licences, even when they are not compatible. There is no reason for these two projects not to share as much code as possible and not to cooperate as much as possible.

Most likely Classpath will be dual-licensed in order for Harmony to use it. At least that's what I've heard from the discussion on the mailing list

Reply Score: 1

And I'll add
by Lumbergh on Thu 21st Jul 2005 22:46 UTC
Lumbergh
Member since:
2005-06-29

I think at the end of the day it comes down to Sun just not wanting to give up control. It's like a mother fretting over her kid going away to college. It's Sun's baby and they don't want to give it up. That's understandable, but in the long run I think it'll hurt Sun and Java. Java is already pretty much non-existant on the open source desktop, while Mono development in the Gnome space is growing bigger all the time. And you don't see Mono veering from the ecma specs. Even when MS doesn't seem to follow the specs I think Mono has made the decision to go along with MS to remain compatible.

Reply Score: 2

RE: And I'll add
by japail on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:12 UTC in reply to "And I'll add"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Azureus, Eclipse, jEdit, OpenOffice, Sancho, jGnash, RSSOwl, Columba, Freenet, and so forth. Neither Mono nor Java are especially meaningful on the "open source desktop," but the Java additions are almost certainly more popular.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: And I'll add - one more
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE: And I'll add"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ganttproject - A GPL project management program written in Java. Strangely enough this project has today posted a 2.0 Pre1 release (just downloaded it) with porting to the Eclipse platform and for the first time MS Project file compatability.

I have also just discovered that IBM now has included in its Workplace software a project management program running on the Eclipse RCP with MS Project file compatability (fitting in well with the OOo based IBM editors).

A coincidence or more?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: And I'll add
by Adam S on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 02:44 UTC in reply to "RE: And I'll add"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Actually, OpenOffice is NOT written in Java (it's C++, if I recall). But certain components use Java. Without java, the suite is perfectly usable, just missing a few features.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: And I'll add
by japail on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And I'll add"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

I didn't say that OpenOffice was entirely written in Java. OpenOffice does use Java; especially 2.0 which utilizes it quite a bit. I'm not entirely certain what your point is, since OpenOffice is "Java on the Open Source desktop."

Reply Score: 1

Why not Mono?
by miketech on Thu 21st Jul 2005 23:22 UTC
miketech
Member since:
2005-07-21

Hi,

well I am not a fan of mono, or a fan of java. So this isnīt flame *g* I just wanna know, why all these companies are interested in supporting java and to create an open java version.

"If you read the Harmony ML, theres people from Sybase, Computer Associates, Intel, Borland, and so on contributing in one way or the other. Either offering code or talking about the design of the VM. Even a couple of Sun engineers post there too."

Why arenīt these companies interested in Mono/.NET?


Well isnīt .NET a better idea? It is integrating not only one language. It supports a big number of languages. For java, I only know jython and... java ;)


The other point:

As already said: Mono becomes very interesting for the GNOME desktop, while java becomes more and more unimportant for the desktop. Do you think, that these companies wanna change this?

I heard, that the next version of java would provide a gtk based GUI system. Can you affirm this?


But nevertheless: Itīs a great news to hear IBM working on this project.

Greetings

Mike

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why not Mono?
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 23:28 UTC in reply to "Why not Mono?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> Well isnīt .NET a better idea?

Bevause its from Microsoft. And before you ask, it doesnt matter how good the idea is, if it comes from Microsoft. Helping .Net is helping Microsoft.

> Mono becomes very interesting for the GNOME desktop

No this will not be the case.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Why not Mono?
by Lumbergh on Thu 21st Jul 2005 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not Mono?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

> Mono becomes very interesting for the GNOME desktop

No this will not be the case.


Except Mono is already interesting for many Gnome developers no matter how much __YOU__ hate Microsoft. Your opinions are irrelevant on the matter.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Why not Mono?
by unoengborg on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not Mono?"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06


Except Mono is already interesting for many Gnome developers no matter how much __YOU__ hate Microsoft. Your opinions are irrelevant on the matter.


I guess that depend on how you define Gnome developer. If you mean people developing software for the Gnome platform that may be the case, but I doubt that we will see much mono based software in Gnome releases in the near future. Red Hat and Sun have too much influence on Gnome for this to happen.

And hating Microsoft doesn't enter into it. It is all about where the money is. The main competitor for free OSes like Linux is not Microsoft but other Unixes, most of them doesn't run .Net.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why not Mono?
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why not Mono?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I vote for not going the .Net/Mono way simple because if GNOME heavily leans on it, M$ can pull the plug by simply making .Net license more restrictive -- which they have already hinted at recently.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Why not Mono?
by orestes on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why not Mono?"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

There's no putting the genie back in the bottle. C# and the CLI are ISO/ECMA standards.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why not Mono?
by Budd on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 05:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not Mono?"
Budd Member since:
2005-07-08

Except Mono is already interesting for many Gnome developers no matter how much __YOU__ hate Microsoft. Your opinions are irrelevant on the matter.

How will Mono interesting for many Gnome developers? I have not installed mono on my machine , thus I miss some cute apps like Beagle , and to be honest I don't feel like I miss anything on my DLG desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:15 UTC in reply to "Why not Mono?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Well isnīt .NET a better idea?

No. There's already a huge amount of Java infrastructure around Apache itself, and in the Unix/Linux world all application servers used in corporate environments are Java based. That's where Red Hat wants to go also, simply because that's where the market and the money is. How many ASP.Net based application servers are you going to see running on Unix/Linux in corporate environments in the near future?

I think all the Gnome and Mono fanboys are missing the point here. ASP.Net and .Net on Unix/Linux are totally non-existant, no matter how many photo management applications are written with it ;-). The people at Novell haven't managed to grow Mono's usage significantly in that direction in several years, and they simply never will. Look at where the money and the market is for this sort of thing and you'll find that the number of Gnome developers using Mono doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Why not Mono?
by japail on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not Mono?"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Lumbergh is just a member of the Mono booster club. The vast majority of GNOME still has nothing to do with Mono.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Why not Mono?
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not Mono?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Your problem is that you're thinking in the server space where Java has been established for quite a while. But Java is basically non-existant on the any desktop - mostly because of Sun's mixed messages and efforts towards the desktop over the years.

Now we know that the vast majority of programming in windows will be done in .NET in the future and that opens up a huge number of components/libraries that will be instantly compatible with Mono. Mono is the bridge that windows developers are using to test the Unix waters.

And the fact remains that Java is just another one of numerous frameworks and languages for web applications. Ruby on Rails, Zope (Python), PHP that IBM is investing in, ASP.NET (Microsoft continues to gain in server space much to anger of anti-ms zealots) Not to mention that all is not a happy utopia in java server framework land. Go over to javalobby.com and read today's article about the web application frameworks. More and more java people are amazed by the simplicity of Rails development.

So you can pooh-pooh Mono all you want, but just the mere fact that windows is going almost all .NET for future programming means that Mono will be a player, one way or another.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why not Mono?
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not Mono?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Java is basically non-existant on the any desktop

It is on mine, I use:

Ganttproject, FreeMind, Jchempaint, Jmol, RRSOwl, Jedit, DrawSWF, Jago, Jajuk, Limewire, Batik and Jedit.

I find them very useful as cross platform tools I can use that are the same at home on Linux as they are on XP at work.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Why not Mono?
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 03:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not Mono?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

More and more java people are amazed by the simplicity of Rails development.

I see the exact opposite. Especially among people developing large-scale J2EE apps with web interfaces. http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=35202

Even at the low end, I assert that dragging and dropping view components and wiring them up to data sources with a few clicks is a lot easier than Rails. That's exactly what JDeveloper with ADF gets you. If you're looking for free, you can use a whole bunch of other IDEs with JSF and still beat out Rails in simplicity.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not Mono?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Your problem is that you're thinking in the server space where Java has been established for quite a while. But Java is basically non-existant on the any desktop - mostly because of Sun's mixed messages and efforts towards the desktop over the years.

In the Linux/Unix arena the desktop is irrelevant. The money is in Java application servers. You've been swallowing too much of this desktop crap from the money people.

Look at where the market actually is.

Now we know that the vast majority of programming in windows will be done in .NET in the future

Not on Unix/Linux they won't. This isn't about Windows.

And the fact remains that Java is just another one of numerous frameworks and languages for web applications. Ruby on Rails, Zope (Python), PHP that IBM is investing in

Java is not just another framework. It is the technology used for application servers in companies. Ruby and PHP simply are not used for it, although there is a large amount of infrastructure on the web around it.

How many sites do you see running ASP.Net on Unix/Linux compared to PHP, Java and all the momentum now behind Ruby? None, that's how many. Does ASP.Net and Mono have the momentum and interest Ruby has? No.

Again, in terms of IBM, BEA and other companies looking to get involbed in this, look at where the market and the money is. They're either Java companies, or they are companies looking to get into the Java world e.g. Red Hat.

So you can pooh-pooh Mono all you want, but just the mere fact that windows is going almost all .NET for future programming means that Mono will be a player, one way or another.

This isn't about Windows, and quite frankly, in the Unix/Linux world no one gives a toss what programming technology Microsoft now uses for it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why not Mono?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

...too much of this desktop crap from the money people.

That should read from the Mono people (slow day today). Same difference though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not Mono?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

mere fact that windows is going almost all .NET for future programming means that Mono will be a player, one way or another.

I also love how people make this giant magical leap from Microsoft's .Net usage translating into the usage of Mono on other platforms.

With what's happening around Eclipse now you can say that Java is definitely making a comeback on the desktop. And, because here's the distinction, there is more meaningful real-world development going on with Eclipse and Java than there is with Mono. Notice I didn't say .Net, I said Mono, because they're two different things. If people are developing for .Net they are using Microsoft's technology, not Mono's, and I think that's the crucial difference many people just cannot get their heads around. Microsoft .Net usage simply does not translate into people using Mono, that much has become very clear.

Look, it isn't happening and I've already pointed out that the companies with the money aren't going anywhere near it (this article is about IBM's involvement). There is simply no market for Mono in the real world that matters, and after several years of viewing the market, viewing the people who are involved and viewing Novell's actual usage of it in their products and organisation, from a business perspective you've got to say that it simply isn't viable.

Saying that Mono will be a player one way or another doesn't make a blind bit of difference. How is it going to happen, and why?

More and more java people are amazed by the simplicity of Rails development.

Yer, and? Is Ruby a .Net or Mono technology? Ruby is more of a player in the application server space now than ASP.Net on Mono ever will be, and relatively speaking, it's been around for a much, much shorter time period. But, Java is still where the lion's share of the market is. That's the be-all and end-all here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why not Mono?
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 05:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not Mono?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

think all the Gnome and Mono fanboys are missing the point here. ASP.Net and .Net on Unix/Linux are totally non-existant, no matter how many photo management applications are written with it ;-)

Yeah, I notice how you're especially bitter from the desktop developers conference. Poor KDE don't get no respect. Haha.

http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1256#comment

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not Mono?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, I notice how you're especially bitter from the desktop developers conference. Poor KDE don't get no respect. Haha.

Yes, I found that extremely hilarious simply because there is a massive gulf (as per usual) between what developers are doing, and think that they're doing, and what real-world users are actually doing and using. Strike one to Eugenia ;-).

http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT2127420238.html
http://www.desktoplinux.com/cgi-bin/survey/survey.cgi?view=archive&...

And that's from the people who even know what desktop environment they are using and actually know that there was any kind of survey on!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why not Mono?
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why not Mono?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

We all know what the real problem is. And no matter how much kde developers/fanboys put their fingers in their ears, yell "lalalalaa...I can't hear you", and generally throw a tantrum if someone brings up the topic, the problem will always be the Qt license.

And that's why Eclipse (which I noticed you're interested in), and the new Swing in Mustang, and Classpath, and Novell, and RedHat, and Sun all chose gtk+.

So yeah, its no surprise that freedesktop.org is gtk+ oriented because they're used to liberal licenses and also because they are C hackers. And some of those people over at kdedevelopers.org actually have a legitimate point when they are whining about freedesktop.org

Surveys are completely meaningless and you know it. It's like the braindeads in the media doing a poll which nobody buys.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why not Mono?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

We all know what the real problem is. And no matter how much kde developers/fanboys put their fingers in their ears, yell "lalalalaa...I can't hear you"

You're going somewhat off-topic now, but when you start talking about KDE everyone knows that you know that you've lost ;-).

And that's why Eclipse (which I noticed you're interested in), and the new Swing in Mustang, and Classpath, and Novell, and RedHat, and Sun all chose gtk+.

Well they use GTK primarily, and quite frankly, so what? IBM actually have an expensive agreement with Trolltech to use Qt for Websphere, but that's by the by.

There is actually no reason why you can't write a KDE application using GTK and integrating with KDE infrastructure, and that's what stuff like QtGTK was, and is, about. The GTK and Qt licenses used are totally compatible. The last I looked GTK, and other tookits, ran fine when running under KDE and Windows and integrated pretty well. That's a pretty good example of how silly these toolkit arguments have got. How many tookits do you see running under Windows? A lot - including GTK and Qt. Do you hear all of this stuff about toolkit X and Y on Windows? No.

However, having good enough programming tools to build a desktop environment and the huge amount of infrastructure needed with is an entirely different matter, and Qt is simply the best option available today for that. The architecture of KDE, the integration, its applications and its quality has proved that.

We're not going to get one toolkit for everything I'm afraid (shock - neither Qt nor GTK will die!), but you simply have to apply the old cliche of what works best for what job. No matter how liberal, or not, the license is there is always a trade-off.

Surveys are completely meaningless and you know it. It's like the braindeads in the media doing a poll which nobody buys.

Yawn. When you've got thousands of people filling in the survey for two years running, and most consistently say they're using KDE, that's fairly conclusive. I'd love to hear about the malicious KDE users who've managed to vote ten times each :-). You can't just ignore surveys you don't like, and I'm sure if the roles were reversed we'd never hear the last of it.

If you have a survey somewhere, or at least some fairly solid evidence, that there are *quote* millions *unquote* of Gnome users, then give us all a call.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Why not Mono?
by g2devi on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why not Mono?"
g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

Well they use GTK primarily, and quite frankly, so what? IBM actually have an expensive agreement with Trolltech to use Qt for Websphere, but that's by the by.

That's strange. AFAIK, Websphere is based off Eclipse, and Eclipse is based off of Win32 on Windows and Gtk+ on Linux (and Motif on Solaris).

Otherwise, the issue is moot. Qt is still popular because it has value, and so is Gtk+.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Why not Mono?
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why not Mono?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

You were the one screaming about Mono and Gnome fanboys in previous posts. You and the other KDE developers over at www.kdedeveloper.org are constantly wringing your hands over Gnome. It's hilarious. You guys must be worried about something.

And obviously the Qt license as well as it being controlled by Trolltech is a huge reason why Novell, and Redhat, and Sun focus on Gnome.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why not Mono?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You were the one screaming about Mono and Gnome fanboys in previous posts.

Where? All I did was point out that Mono was simply not an option in the Unix/Linux space simply because the vast majority of applications servers, where all the money is, are Java. That's where the market is, and that's why IBM wants to get involved in this project. Then all hell broke loose.

Java. That seemed to be the subject of this article.

You and the other KDE developers over at www.kdedeveloper.org are constantly wringing your hands over Gnome.

Well, I'm not a KDE developer - not yet anyway.

Just sick of the bullshit quite frankly, because it only hurts desktop Linux and its image when people promise X, Y and Z, and have been doing so and coming up short for years.

You guys must be worried about something.

I'm not afraid of a desktop that isn't up to the job, or maybe I am, which is why I don't think Gnome is up to the job for reasons I have stated.

And obviously the Qt license as well as it being controlled by Trolltech is a huge reason why Novell, and Redhat, and Sun focus on Gnome.

Trolltech does not control the GPL the last I looked, nor does it control what people do with Qt or what they link against - as long as it's GPL compatible. If you want to write applications with GTK or some other software and use Qt and KDE infrastructure without paying for any licenses, that's absolutely fine. It can be done, which blows the license theory for using Gnome completely out of the water.

You can also cross Novell off your list, but I suppose we'll never see the last of it. All of the graphical front-ends for OES in YaST have been written with Qt, and software that actually makes money continues to be written with it.

The license, as you and others so nicely put it, may or may not have been a factor, but quite frankly, neither Red Hat's or Sun's desktops are of a good enough standard and a lot of that is down to the tools and software used. Many of Sun's engineers even grumbled under their breath that they'd made the wrong desktop choice, but that's their funeral. When your software isn't up to snuff, it's never going to be good enough no matter how wonderful many fanboys consider the license to be. Qt does not exist for fanboys to develop their crappy shareware for nothing, but that doesn't mean you can't use something else quite adequately.

Businesses and users simply do not give a toss how favourable fanboys think the license is, or isn't, and the license of Qt doesn't even matter as I've pointed out.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Why not Mono?
by Lumbergh on Thu 21st Jul 2005 23:33 UTC
Lumbergh
Member since:
2005-06-29

I heard, that the next version of java would provide a gtk based GUI system. Can you affirm this?

Mustang (Java6) uses some components of gtk+ to do some drawing, but unfortunately even with the work they've done with subpixel rendering for fonts, the results are subpar when compared to Cleartype or even Freetype.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why not Mono?
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 06:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not Mono?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Would you mind explaining what is subpar about Java2D's subpixel antialiasing? May be posting some screenshots?

FYI, Java2D's subpixel rendering is much closer to ClearType than freetype because of the way the energy is spread across pixels.

There are still issues with the quality of font rasterization itself. But our subpixel AA technology is very close and in some cases better to ClearType and freetype. And it will be available on all windows platforms where even ClearType is not supported, like win9x or win2k.

Thanks,
Dmitri
Java2D Team

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Why not Mono?
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why not Mono?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

eclipse - tahoma11
http://img351.imageshack.us/my.php?image=eclipse7zt.jpg

jedit - tahoma11 Mustang B39

http://img320.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jedit4op.jpg

Now, the subpixel rendering in B39+ does make a nice improvement, but I hope you guys keep on working on it.
Notice the nice sharp, dark contrast with the eclipse screenshot.

I think if you guys can just maybe tweak the font rasterization or whatever just a bit more it'll look real good.
For whatever bizarre reason it seems to look a lot better with Tahoma than the fonts I had jedit on previously. The bigger the fonts, the more flaws seem to be exposed.

P.S. You might have to click the pictures to zoom in and get how it really looks....at least I did on Firefox

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Why not Mono?
by Budd on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 08:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why not Mono?"
Budd Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't get it why so big fuss about how fonts look.To me,if I can read them without effort is perfectly OK.
And I don't use in Win AA fonts,I stay with defaults.Works the best on my (LCD) screen. But to each its own.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Why not Mono?
by andrewg on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why not Mono?"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Are you sure you don't use AA fonts. The default or 'standard' is AA and they look absolutely terrible with no AA on an LCD. Cleartype is a an AA option in Windows but is not the default or standard AA.

Most people I have shown cleartype to on Windows don't like it. They stick with standard LCD or not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Why not Mono?
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why not Mono?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

You have to click on the pictures to get the full version as I mentioned.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Why not Mono?
by andrewg on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Why not Mono?"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Please actually look at the pictures you posted. They are jpegs set to a '90' quality. That means you posted lossy jpegs. Please don't tell me to expand the image I have and opened it up in fireworks which tells you the jpeg settings.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Why not Mono?
by andrewg on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why not Mono?"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

I cannot believe you posted compressed lossy(90) jpegs.

Even with that jedit looks better.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Why not Mono?
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why not Mono?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Sorry, it's hard to tell anything by looking at these lossy jpegs - jpeg compression added a bunch of fringes to the characters.

Could you repost the screenshots in lossless png format?

Also, there's a difference between java's "point sizes" and Window's (because java's using 72 dpi). So if you want to compare the same font of the same size, you'll need to chose the right font size in java.
For example,
windows 11pt at 92dpi == 11 * 96/72 == 14pt in Java

Thanks,
Dmitri
Java2D Team

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Why not Mono?
by andrewg on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why not Mono?"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

I always wondered why the font sizes varied when you actually looked at them. Now I know why.

Maybe Java should move to something a lottle higher res. Isn't 72dpi really for screens at about 800x600?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ok
by dekernel on Thu 21st Jul 2005 23:43 UTC
dekernel
Member since:
2005-07-07

Usual corporate hatred against the GPL.

Man, I just love when people who are completely blinded by ideology that they can't see the tree in the forest. Of course companies prefer the Apache/BSD type licenses. They are viral-free.

Both the GPL and the Apache licences, are after all very similar free software licences, even when they are not compatible.

Huh? GPL and Apache are similiar? Dude, you really need to reread the licenses. Just a suggestion.

Reply Score: 2

Lack of GUI tools
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>ASP.Net and .Net on Unix/Linux are totally non-existant, >no matter how many photo management applications are >written with it ;-).

I think one of the main reasons why Mono is still not very visible on the desktop is the lack of good GUI building tools, it certainly stops me. It is still a tedious task to buld GUI apps using mono at the moment (I've tried). It has to be WinForms because it's so easy to use, however winforms for mono is not yet ready, maybe in another 6 months. Once this is ready one can design software on VS.NET (for productivty reasons) and deploy on Linux, Mac or Windows.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Why not Mono?
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Lumbergh, I'm sorry if the question is answered elsewhere, but is there already a release date/month/something for Mustang?

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Why not Mono?
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 01:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why not Mono?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Lumbergh, I'm sorry if the question is answered elsewhere, but is there already a release date/month/something for Mustang?

Next year sometime...not sure when

Reply Score: 1

GCJ
by JohnMG on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:58 UTC
JohnMG
Member since:
2005-07-06

Man, I just love when people who are completely blinded by ideology that they can't see the tree in the forest. Of course companies prefer the Apache/BSD type licenses.

Yup. It's always preferable to them to have a group of nice folks working for free so the corp can close up the source at any time, adding their own special sauce (including "patented algo's"). Big corps have a word for folks working hard on good BSD-licensed software... suckers. Well, I don't mean to be harsh -- maybe just employees that they don't have to pay for. Of *course* big corps prefer it to the GPL. ;) Big corps *love* open-source folks BSD-licensing their good stuff.

The nice part about this Harmony project is that any code that gets written for it, if said code is useful to GCJ or Classpath, can be immediately put into our projects (the free software community's projects) and GPL'd.

What's funny is how the recent string of Harmony articles have just disregarded GCJ & Classpath, as if the authors don't realize that we already *have* a free Java implementation. Heh.

As far as Classpath being dual-licensed (one of those licenses being a BSD-style license), I'd be amazed if that happened. RMS simply doesn't bend his principles because it'd be convenient.

Reply Score: 1

RE: GCJ
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 01:11 UTC in reply to "GCJ"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

As far as Classpath being dual-licensed (one of those licenses being a BSD-style license), I'd be amazed if that happened. RMS simply doesn't bend his principles because it'd be convenient.

Then you haven't been following Classpath/Harmony all that much then. The Classpath developers have been very open to dual-licensing...no matter what RMS thinks (he doesn't work on it anyway). I'm pretty sure that the Harmony guys have already stated that GPL is out of the question...for reasons I'm not sure of because Classpath is GPL+exceptions which is actually better than LGPL.

Reply Score: 1

GNU Classpath License
by QuantumG on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 01:06 UTC
QuantumG
Member since:
2005-07-06

If you go and read the GNU Classpath License, you'll see that it is effectively the GPL without teeth. http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html That exception almost completely makes it the same as the 2 clause BSD license.

Reply Score: 1

check the presentations.
by ahmetaa on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 01:20 UTC
ahmetaa
Member since:
2005-07-06

Today i checked the presentations made in Java One 2005. There you will see intresting things about Java, Java in desktop, Performance, Jini, Jxta, Mustang, Dolphin , Harmony and everything related with java. there are nearly 100 presentations, some are very informative. You might find out why Java really matters.

http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf/sessions/

Reply Score: 1

The apple license
by joelito_pr on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 01:56 UTC
joelito_pr
Member since:
2005-07-07

I took some time to read Apple's license for Darwin/OpenDarwin, and I must say that I kind of liked it. The reason, derived works from a project with a license like that are not required to be copyleft (In the GPL kind of way) but the code for this derivative work must be submitted back to the original author anyway. So If I build an app from code developed on this license I could either, make the source code public or submit code to the creator.

Reply Score: 1

re. GNU Classpath License
by JohnMG on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 02:04 UTC
JohnMG
Member since:
2005-07-06

If you go and read the GNU Classpath License, you'll see that it is effectively the GPL without teeth.

I'm think you're mistaken.

http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html That exception almost completely makes it the same as the 2 clause BSD license.

Heh. No way. BSD means you can take the code, add your special changes to it, then redistribute it without having to distribute your changes (or any of the source for that matter).

The GNU Classpath license is pretty much like the LGPL though, which is fine with me -- it's still copylefted. That is, as long as folks are encouraged to work on it because they know that their code will always be free.

Lumbergh wrote:

| [snip]I'd be amazed if that happened. RMS simply
| doesn't bend his principles because it'd be
| convenient.

Then you haven't been following Classpath/Harmony all that much then.


Didn't know I needed to. Last I heard, all official GNU projects are copyright FSF. It's a condition of working on an official GNU project -- you agree to assign copyright to the FSF so, among other reasons, they can go to court over it if they have to to defend the licensing terms.

The Classpath developers have been very open to dual-licensing...no matter what RMS thinks (he doesn't work on it anyway).

RMS is basically "Mr. FSF". GNU is *his* project -- he started it -- we're all just going along for the ride. If he wants a piece of his project to be licensed a certain way, it's really none of anyone else's business to tell him otherwise. Would *you* want someone telling you how to license your project?

From what I understand, when you agree to work on an official GNU project, you're agreeing to assign copyright on any of your work on it to the FSF -- effectively saying, "this belongs to the FSF". People do this for one, to work on cool GNU projects, and two, because they know RMS and the FSF won't give in to pressures to change the licensing terms, no matter how sweet the deal seems. RMS hasn't compromised his principles on this for as long as there's been GPL'd software, and I don't see him doing it now. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Cluestick
by orestes on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 02:12 UTC in reply to "re. GNU Classpath License"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

FSF != RMS. The FSF is governed by a board of directors who are elected by it's members. It's been that way for a long time.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cluestick
by QuantumG on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 02:21 UTC in reply to "Cluestick"
QuantumG Member since:
2005-07-06

How about we just agree to disagree and wait and see.

Reply Score: 1

RE: re. GNU Classpath License
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 02:49 UTC in reply to "re. GNU Classpath License"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Didn't know I needed to. Last I heard, all official GNU projects are copyright FSF. It's a condition of working on an official GNU project -- you agree to assign copyright to the FSF so, among other reasons, they can go to court over it if they have to to defend the licensing terms.

I doubt you give up your rights up completely. I've read that your rights are granted back to you. You would have to be braindead to give up your copyright completely when you're not getting paid for this stuff - in which case each developer could just relicense his contributions.

RMS is basically "Mr. FSF". GNU is *his* project -- he started it -- we're all just going along for the ride. If he wants a piece of his project to be licensed a certain way, it's really none of anyone else's business to tell him otherwise.

Who's we? Certainly not me. In any case, maybe Stallman is demigod to you, but I'm sure the ACTUAL DEVELOPERS have a say on whats going on.

Would *you* want someone telling you how to license your project?

But you're telling me that Stallman who doesn't work on the project gets to call all the shots no matter what the developers think? Hilarious

From what I understand, when you agree to work on an official GNU project, you're agreeing to assign copyright on any of your work on it to the FSF -- effectively saying, "this belongs to the FSF".

As I mentioned before, I've heard rights are granted back.

People do this for one, to work on cool GNU projects, and two, because they know RMS and the FSF won't give in to pressures to change the licensing terms, no matter how sweet the deal seems

You never know. Apache has a lot of pull. The Classpath developers seem eager to work with them. The GPL and Apache licenses are incompatible at the moment

RMS hasn't compromised his principles on this for as long as there's been GPL'd software, and I don't see him doing it now. ;)

And once again, he doesn't work on the project at all, but he gets to call the shots? Hilarious. You would have to be insane to give up all your rights to the FSF....but hey there are a lot of insane people

In any case, your post is amusing. I'm not sure if you were fawning over comrade Stallman like a school girl over a poster of a teen heartthrob in TeenBeat or you were making fun of Stallman. I hope it was the latter for your sake.

Here's the mailing list for your persusal. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/2005... The bottom line is that the GPL is incompatible with the Apache license - as always seems to be the case with the GPL and other freer open source licenses.

Reply Score: 1

RE: re. GNU Classpath License
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 03:05 UTC in reply to "re. GNU Classpath License"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

And besides the licensing issues, it looks like either GNU would have to ammend their policy regarding copyright assignment or Harmony would have to fork classpath because I doubt you're going to have the Apache people giving copyright to the FSF.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: re. GNU Classpath License
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 05:10 UTC in reply to "RE: re. GNU Classpath License"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Hi Lumberg,
How can Classpath be forked into a lesser license if it is covered by the LGPL? I mean, if it was covered by a BSD license then they could, but with LGPL you can't do it the other way.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: re. GNU Classpath License
by carbon-12 on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re. GNU Classpath License"
carbon-12 Member since:
2005-07-06

Classpath isn't LGPL, its GPL + Exception. The FSF holds copyright over the Classpath code and therefore can change the license.

http://gnu.mirrors.atn.ro/software/classpath/docs/hacking.html

"Classpath is GNU software and this project is being officially sponsored by the Free Software Foundation. Because of this, the FSF will hold copyright to all code developed as part of Classpath.

[...]

Everyone contributing code to Classpath will need to sign a copyright assignment statement"

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: re. GNU Classpath License
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 05:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: re. GNU Classpath License"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

As usual, the FSF would like you to believe that you give up all copyright when you sign the agreement. They should also put in the hacking docs that you still retain copyright too. As stated in a previous post, in many countries you can't just give away your copyright when you're not in a employeer/employee relationship.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: re. GNU Classpath License
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 05:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re. GNU Classpath License"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Classpath can't be forked into a more liberal license. But they could just fork it and go on their own merry way as Classpath does their thing. At least they wouldn't be giving the FSF copyright grants.

Reply Score: 1

RE: re. GNU Classpath License
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 03:16 UTC in reply to "re. GNU Classpath License"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

And just to make things clearer, unless the FSF is discriminating based on country on who can contribute to their project, the FSF can't have exclusive copyright on individual contributions. In some countries, Germany for one, you can't legally give up your copyright for works done in your spare time. So unless the FSF is directly employing these developers they don't have exclusive copyright....no matter what the FSF claims.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: GCJ
by Matzon on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 06:05 UTC
Matzon
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Yup. It's always preferable to them to have a group of nice folks working for free so the corp can close up the source at any time, adding their own special sauce (including "patented algo's"). Big corps have a word for folks working hard on good BSD-licensed software... suckers."

Funny, I've been working on several BSD licensed project, and I enjoy whenever someone releases a product based on the work I have done. Closed source or not, I don't care.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: GCJ
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 06:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GCJ"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Funny, I've been working on several BSD licensed project, and I enjoy whenever someone releases a product based on the work I have done. Closed source or not, I don't care.

Because in their demented ideology, You as a developer, made the wrong choice for Your software.

They don't understand that you made the decision that it's a gift and you're not going to discriminate with your act of altruism.

And of course don't forget that the indoctrinated kiddies think that all corps are "evil"

Reply Score: 1

Wondering..
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 06:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

From what I've read in those replies... I still wonder if there's some people really working in a enterprise level? Every damn IBM product have the Java Compatible logo on it, even their 3270 terminal (I still wonder why).

That said, why are we talking about Mono here? Or even .NET? Sure, they have their reason to live, and I applaud everone who works on .Mono to bring .NET over Linux (no, I won't add Unix here). But does it really catch up? I don't **think** so (didn't check the latest offering concercing .Mono applications).

I really don't understand why IBM embrace Java so much in the past that now, they want their pieces of the cake. I think Sun did I great job with it, and let Sun continue to do a better job with it.

At least, Sun open Solaris, OpenOffice. I know, IBM gaves some right to there patents but still, we'll we ever see AIX open source? Tivoli? MqSeries? Websphere (their best selling software I **guess**). Never, well, I don't think so.

So IBM have build a business over Java, a wealthy one. And now, they want to have control over it? I'm sorry, but I don't buy this idea, simply not. Maybe they should put more time in Mono than destroying Java, the thing they embrace for quite a while.

Just my damn .02$ CAN.

Reply Score: 0

I find it hard to believe
by QuantumG on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 06:48 UTC
QuantumG
Member since:
2005-07-06

that in Germany programmers can't assign their copyright as they see fit. I mean, if you work for years on something and keep it a secret and then one day decide to sell it all to Microsoft, can you do that in Germany? Or does the government get in the way and say you weren't working for Microsoft therefore you can't sell your copyright to them? Is the issue "giving away?" In which case wouldn't the FSF just give you $2 for it? BTW, as far as I'm aware the FSF doesn't require "exclusive" copyright assignment.

Reply Score: 1

Java
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 06:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Guess who is the biggest Java developer on the market...and no it doesn't start with the letter 's'.

Sun so far holds the cards to the Java specification, and they are milking it for all it's worth, but guess what, they'll only be able to do it for so long.
In the long run, once Java becomes too big for Sun, or Sun themselves act more arrogant than they are now, it's gonna blow up in their face.

Let's see the whole industry go against them and come out with an industry independent language similar in every way to Java but without the trademark that belong s to Sun.

In my opinion, Java has a better infrastructure compared to .Net. In fact, try to scale .Net and see if it compares to Java, and you'll notice which one is better.

AIX has code in it that is trademarked and protected with IP. One of the reasons why it is impossible to open source it.

<Quote> At least, Sun open Solaris, OpenOffice. I know, IBM gaves some right to there patents but still, we'll we ever see AIX open source? Tivoli? MqSeries? Websphere (their best selling software I **guess**). Never, well, I don't think so. </Quote>

Let me see here... you mean to say that AIX is actually a better OS compared to Solaris so that's why you are bitching about them not releasing it out.
Also, another point.... IBM has all the following : AIX, Tivoli, MQSeries, Websphere, Rational, DB2 etc.etc.etc. What does Sun have ? Oh yeah, Solaris and StarOffice.

<Quote> So IBM have build a business over Java, a wealthy one. And now, they want to have control over it? I'm sorry, but I don't buy this idea, simply not. Maybe they should put more time in Mono than destroying Java, the thing they embrace for quite a while.
</Quote>

How does putting control of the evolution of a computer language in to a standards committee considered taking over ? We are not talking about Microsoft here. Putting control of the language in to a standards body will ensure that the language evolve for the better of the industry and not for Sun's benefit only.
Furthermore, .Net is dead. Even Microsoft does not use it as much as they preach about it.

Regards.

Reply Score: 0

AA
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 06:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I use windows and linux on notebook. For me is:
windows - standart AA - ugly - unusable
windows - clear type - blury - unusable
linux - freetype - usable

Then I use AA only under linux, under windows is turned off.

Reply Score: 0

RE: AA
by ahmetaa on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 13:29 UTC in reply to "AA"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

"I use windows and linux on notebook. For me is:
windows - standart AA - ugly - unusable
windows - clear type - blury - unusable
linux - freetype - usable "

Please.

Linux - freetype : blurry, unusable.
Linux - no AA : unusable for some fonts
Windows - standart AA, cleartype : usable . can be better.
i cannot believe people gives credit to Linux's blury fonts.

Reply Score: 1

OK What is this all about ?
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 12:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

There appears to be two central components to IBM' overall strategy - Java and Linux. IBM is now through Apache, where it has considerable influence (how many Apache developers are employed by IBM ?) to push towards an open source JVM. Why ? - in my view it is wants a closer integration of Java with Linux and a wider use of Java by FLOSS developers.

On the one hand it wishes to insure against possible future problems with Sun. On the other it wishes to leverage as much as possible FLOSS development in its "great game" against Microsoft

Reply Score: 0

Another stag at Sun
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 13:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

First SWT and "eclipse" and now Harmony. They are all stabs at Sun.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Why not Mono?
by ahmetaa on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 13:32 UTC
ahmetaa
Member since:
2005-07-06

What happened Lumb.. you were once a .Net advocate. ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Why not Mono?
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why not Mono?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

I guess you didn't read the posts in the thread.

Reply Score: 1

@ Matzon
by JohnMG on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 13:53 UTC
JohnMG
Member since:
2005-07-06

Funny, I've been working on several BSD licensed project, and I enjoy whenever someone releases a product based on the work I have done. Closed source or not, I don't care.

I didn't say the developers of BSD-licensed software don't enjoy what they do. I said that big corporations which use you as free labor regard you (IMO, rightly so) as "suckers". I'm guessing you're a very talented developer, so please don't take that as an insult from me.

What if someone released a product based on your software, but modified it in incompatible ways from your own, and then refused to give you the changes? Wait, that might not be so bad, but then further suppose this software was of interest to the masses of computer users out there. Maybe it would become very popular, and your "original" software would be regarded as "incompatible". Heck, if you then tried to make your version like the commercial one, you might even get sued for implementing patented software algorithms.

BSD licences work great, as long as the users are knowledgable about the importance of the software remaining open-source. The GPL and LGPL don't rely on that, but instead simply enforce the condition that the software remain open-source if you want to distribute it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: @ Matzon
by Matzon on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 14:26 UTC in reply to "@ Matzon"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

"What if someone released a product based on your software, but modified it in incompatible ways from your own, and then refused to give you the changes?"
Then *my* software would still happily chug along...

"but then further suppose this software was of interest to the masses of computer users out there."
Well, if that product is better than mine, then so be it - who am I to hinder development. If that person decides it should be closed, then I am sure that the users of said software will act accordingly.

"Heck, if you then tried to make your version like the commercial one, you might even get sued for implementing patented software algorithms."
Well, if the other person did add new algorithms that is patentable, then ofcourse I shouldn't be allowed to copy it. Thats logical.

That said, I am against patents (or at least those that are given without any thoughts whatsoever).

But at the end of the day, thats a terrible amounts of if's - and I have yet to ever see that issue, despite several projects with several years in life-span.

Who knows, in the future I might change my mind, but as it stands right now, I, and many of the users of said projects are thrilled that its BSD since it allows them to more easily in commercial projects.
(yes, I know GPL can be used commercially too - which is why I said: more easily).

Reply Score: 2

RE: @ Matzon
by JohnMG on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 15:27 UTC
JohnMG
Member since:
2005-07-06

> If that person decides it should be closed, then I am sure that the users
> of said software will act accordingly.

Ah. This is where the ideologies split: you want to give people (geeks and also regular users) the choice, hoping they'll do what's best for society (at least I hope that's what you hope), whereas I would rather not trust the masses and simply say, "do what's best for society with the software, or don't distribute it at all".

Perhaps BSD licensors are optimists (or idealists), and GPL licensors are pessimists (or realists).

I like to think folks will do the right thing, but you have to nudge them a little. ;)

> But at the end of the day, thats a terrible amounts of if's -

Well, a few nested ones anyway. ;)

> and I have
> yet to ever see that issue, despite several projects with several years in
> life-span.

And I hope we don't. Though, I'm expecting to see it if (oh no, another 'if') Haiku ever hits 1.0.

Reply Score: 1

Children & Trolls
by cr8dle2grave on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 17:55 UTC
cr8dle2grave
Member since:
2005-07-11

This board currently overrun with folks who either have no knowledge of the technology industry beyond their home desktops, or shit talkers who enjoy stirring up trouble.

@nberardi: IBM is all but walking dead at this point.

Congratulations! This is easily the most ignorant comment of the bunch, which is quite a feat here. IBM is one of the largest companies in the world, and the largest IT company by a significant margin. They represent by themselves over 10% of the total IT market in the US, and are larger than Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and SUN combined.

Re: Mono & . NET

The taint of MS, actual or merely perceived, can causemany otherwise intelligent people to descend deep into the pits of incoherent nonsense, and nowhere is this more true than with respect to Mono and its relation to .NET. Mono and Portable.NET are important because they they significantly lower the barriers, to both developers and users, which currently keep MS entrenched on the corporate desktop.

As is often recounted, usually in a context which argues the favorable conditions for the spread of FOSS, the vast majority of programmers do not work on the development of shrink-wrap, off-the-shelf software. Many of them develop software in-house for non-software companies, which will never see the light of day outside of the company firewall. The rest are part of the extremely diverse ecosystem of ISVs, VARs and consultancies which develop, market, and customize vertical solutions tailored to the needs of specific market segments.

Home computers and the public facing internet is what most people relate to as the center of computer industry, but in actuality those markets are absolutely dwarfed by the custom and semi-custom software used by businesses across the world. Go wander into a light-industrial park someday and marvel and the wide variety of companies doing business beneath the radar of popular perception. All of those industries have software markets which cater specifically to them in the form of vertical applications, which are often tied into networks supply and distribution networks, and professional services like accounting.

.NET is very well positioned to become the development and distibution platform of choice for verticals, and Mono and portable.NET will allow both Linux vendors and Apple as well to get their foot in the door here. That said, neither .NET nor Mono has any chance of usurping the centrality of Java in the large enterprise datacenter. Java has become central to enterprise infrastructure, and where the desktop market changes relatively rapidly, datacenter infrastructure in large enterprises represents a committment which is measured in decades. Both Java and C#, and their respective "virtual platforms", are here to stay for the foreseeable future and any computing platform which wants a seat at the table will have to cater to both.

And finally, Lumbergh... You neither a troll nor a child, you're just plain wrong in your criticisms of QT , Trolltech, and KDE. I've asked before, prior to the existence of new username certified indentities, and I'll ask again: how exactly, in terms of precise, concrete examples, is KDE disadvantaged by its use of QT?

Reply Score: 1

Yes
by japail on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 20:00 UTC
japail
Member since:
2005-06-30

An article about Harmony has become just another argument over Mono and now Qt. All of this is quite topical.

Reply Score: 1