Sun admits: Java is crap

[Thomas G. Marshall]

JTK coughed up:

This is a red herring. Java was almost as fast as compiled C++ when
it was released. Then they improved the speed in the next release,
and it was even more almost as fast as complied C++. But Sun wasn't
finished yet: another release, and Java was so fast it was almost as
fast as compiled C++!

But that's ancient history. Today's modern Java has blown the
proverbial doors off. What with yer JVMs and JITs and JINIs and
whatnot, why, today's Java is almost as fast as complied C++.

All that said, I have to give Sun credit for realizing that there is
still room for improvement, and for working even at this late date
toward a bright new future where Java is even faster. Why, if we're
lucky, this new "multitasking" (whatever that is, sounds newfangled!)
will make Java so fast it will be almost as fast as compiled C++!!!

These are indeed heady days, fellow Javapologists!

LOL!

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

14 7/8" x 8 1/2" coughed up:

Mabye we didn't read the same thing.

What I see is the inability of java to run more than one instance on
the same machine without gathering memory errors and crashing. Obviously,
java didn't cross the border into the 21st century...

I don't see that exactly, nor did I read it into the article. Java's /new/
technology of sharing everything among apps might behave that way, but
certainly not the JVM-per-app-per-process thing of yore.

 

[Bill Tschumy]

Mabye we didn't read the same thing.

What I see is the inability of java to run more than one instance on the
same machine without gathering memory errors and crashing. Obviously,
java didn't cross the border into the 21st century...

Maybe they need to look at Java on Mac OS X. The Apple team has gone to
great efforts to reuse resources when multiple Java processes are running on
the same machine. Far better than the Windows runtime.

 

[Tom Shelton]

In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Olaf Baeyens
<[email protected]>
wrote


I think the previous poster was being slightly sarcastic, as the
speed of adoption of .NET has apparently been comparable to
that of a snail stuck in jelled treacle, or perhaps that of
a snail stuck in molasses during the month of January.

And of course, since .NET depends for a large amount of its
proprietary functionality on Windows, .NET inherits many of
the problems of Windows, which for the most part revolve
around various bits of malware infecting one's system.

Utter nonsense. .NET has as much (if not more) security built in as
Java does.

However, with Mono one might have a fighting chance to
work around some of these issues; the main problem with Mono
is that it faces, AFAICT, a rather uncertain future, mostly
because Microsoft might very well patent the interesting bits
and leave Mono with the unprofitable dregs.

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557
Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from Microsoft,
Intel and HP stating that they would offer *royalty-free* RAND licensing
to the ECMA-submitted components of .NET. [Aside: He said they were
kicking around catchy names like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the
free and non-free stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete in case
other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

 

[Tim Tyler]

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557
Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from
Microsoft, Intel and HP stating that they would offer
*royalty-free* RAND licensing to the ECMA-submitted components
of .NET. [Aside: He said they were kicking around catchy names
like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the free and non-free
stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete
in case other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

That's called marketing.

Not very competent marketing either - making it look as though the
viability of your product is dependent on an offer by email
from an individual claiming to represent some company, offering
promises of future goodwill - and then failing to disclose the
contents or even the author of message in question is really
pretty feeble PR material.

 

[Tim Tyler]

What I see is the inability of java to run more than one instance on the
same machine without gathering memory errors and crashing. Obviously,
java didn't cross the border into the 21st century...

Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about :-(

 

[Tom Shelton]

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557
Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from
Microsoft, Intel and HP stating that they would offer
*royalty-free* RAND licensing to the ECMA-submitted components
of .NET. [Aside: He said they were kicking around catchy names
like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the free and non-free
stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete
in case other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

That's called marketing.

Not very competent marketing either - making it look as though the
viability of your product is dependent on an offer by email
from an individual claiming to represent some company, offering
promises of future goodwill - and then failing to disclose the
contents or even the author of message in question is really
pretty feeble PR material.

I'm not sure what you mean? This isn't marketing. Novell/Ximian have
never made this public. I happend across this reference and thought it
was interesting. It sounds like they have an actual license. MS reps
have stated multilple times in the media that their patents related to
..NET were available on non-royalty standard RAND terms.

 

[Grizzlie]

I'm not sure what you mean? This isn't marketing. Novell/Ximian have
never made this public. I happend across this reference and thought it
was interesting. It sounds like they have an actual license. MS reps
have stated multilple times in the media that their patents related to
.NET were available on non-royalty standard RAND terms.

Exactly.

There is no implicit license necessary. Anyone can build the
equivalent of what mono is, and owe no royalties.

 

[Tim Tyler]

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557
Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from
Microsoft, Intel and HP stating that they would offer
*royalty-free* RAND licensing to the ECMA-submitted components
of .NET. [Aside: He said they were kicking around catchy names
like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the free and non-free
stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete
in case other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

That's called marketing.

Not very competent marketing either - making it look as though the
viability of your product is dependent on an offer by email
from an individual claiming to represent some company, offering
promises of future goodwill - and then failing to disclose the
contents or even the author of message in question is really
pretty feeble PR material.

I'm not sure what you mean? This isn't marketing. Novell/Ximian have
never made this public. [...]

It seems to me as though a publicly accessible web page is pretty "public"?

It sounds like they have an actual license.

It doesn't sound remotely like that to me.

MS reps have stated multilple times in the media that their patents
related to .NET were available on non-royalty standard RAND terms.

Has anyone ever seen the terms and conditions in question?

What do they say?

 

[Arkady Duntov]

On Wednesday 30 March 2005 00:11, Tom Shelton
<[email protected]>

If the emphasis in the following quotation is changed, it means something
different.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557
Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from Microsoft,
Intel and HP stating that they would offer royalty-free RAND licensing
to the *ECMA-submitted components of .NET*

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

So, Microsoft embraces the "ECMA-submitted components of .NET" and extends
them with proprietary, unlicensable abandon? This is what's proved to be
their standard practice. Is this a lure to get others to spend their time
and energy implementing incompatible software? Microsoft already has some
"RAND licensing" which forbids the use of the license in Free software.

By itself, these statements by Microsoft (and perhaps Intel and HP) are
insufficient to allow characterization as "the go ahead".

 

[Pythogoras]

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557

Mar. 10, 2004 08:59 PM

Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from Microsoft,
Intel and HP stating that they would offer *royalty-free* RAND licensing
to the ECMA-submitted components of .NET. [Aside: He said they were
kicking around catchy names like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the
free and non-free stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete in case
other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

one year later ... no ECMA-licence is here.


But now something completely different:

Jason Matusow, Microsoft's director of the shared-source-department
has doubts about Mono's legal status:

http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/archive/2005/03/28/402992.aspx

It is important to note however that it doesn't grant any rights to the
underlying platform. I know, this leads to the question - is
Mono legally licensed? It is not our software, you are going to have
to ask Novell as they are the leaders of that project.

Sounds like "we Microsoft think that Mono has no legal licence".

Pythogoras

 

[Tom Shelton]

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557

Mar. 10, 2004 08:59 PM

Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from Microsoft,
Intel and HP stating that they would offer *royalty-free* RAND licensing
to the ECMA-submitted components of .NET. [Aside: He said they were
kicking around catchy names like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the
free and non-free stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete in case
other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

one year later ... no ECMA-licence is here.

I'm only quoting another source. A source that says that Novell/Ximian
have a letter granting rights on the ECMA components on royalty-free
RAND licensing. Is it true? I don't know. I just thought it was an
interesting quote.

But now something completely different:

Jason Matusow, Microsoft's director of the shared-source-department
has doubts about Mono's legal status:

http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/archive/2005/03/28/402992.aspx


Sounds like "we Microsoft think that Mono has no legal licence".

It sounds like - ask novell.

 

[Guest]

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557
Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from
Microsoft, Intel and HP stating that they would offer
*royalty-free* RAND licensing to the ECMA-submitted components
of .NET. [Aside: He said they were kicking around catchy names
like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the free and non-free
stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete
in case other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

That's called marketing.

Not very competent marketing either - making it look as though the
viability of your product is dependent on an offer by email
from an individual claiming to represent some company, offering
promises of future goodwill - and then failing to disclose the
contents or even the author of message in question is really
pretty feeble PR material.

I'm not sure what you mean? This isn't marketing. Novell/Ximian have
never made this public. I happend across this reference and thought it
was interesting. It sounds like they have an actual license. MS reps
have stated multilple times in the media that their patents related to
.NET were available on non-royalty standard RAND terms.

Where? All their .NET patents are available under non-royalty RAND
terms? I don't believe it.

 

[Tom Shelton]

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557
Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from
Microsoft, Intel and HP stating that they would offer
*royalty-free* RAND licensing to the ECMA-submitted components
of .NET. [Aside: He said they were kicking around catchy names
like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the free and non-free
stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete
in case other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

That's called marketing.

Not very competent marketing either - making it look as though the
viability of your product is dependent on an offer by email
from an individual claiming to represent some company, offering
promises of future goodwill - and then failing to disclose the
contents or even the author of message in question is really
pretty feeble PR material.

I'm not sure what you mean? This isn't marketing. Novell/Ximian have
never made this public. I happend across this reference and thought it
was interesting. It sounds like they have an actual license. MS reps
have stated multilple times in the media that their patents related to
.NET were available on non-royalty standard RAND terms.

Where? All their .NET patents are available under non-royalty RAND
terms? I don't believe it.

Not all their .NET patents - all their ECMA/ISO component related
patents.

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2887217,00.html

According to Herman, third parties will have to enter into a
reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) license agreement with
Microsoft. "But," says Herman, "while RAND sometimes means there could
be a financial obligation, [Microsoft] àwill be offering a conventional
non-royalty non-fee RAND license. We've always made that clear to anyone
who has asked." In other words, there will be no financial obligation.

That was from Michele Herman - MS's Director of Intellectual Property.
The article still calls into question Mono. But, Herman does say
royalty free standard RAND.

http://www.msversus.org/node/225
But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went
further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C#
and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis
for this purpose.

This is from the dotgnu wiki (the other open source .NET implementation
by the GNU guys)...

http://wiki2.dotgnu.info/PatentFUD
In response to an inquiry from the DotGNU project, the
secretary-general of ECMA has confirmed that Microsoft has
promised "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" licensing for any
patents that they might get on ideas that are necessary for
implementing the ECMA-334 and ECMA-335 standards.

Some of these clearly state they aren't sure about Mono. But, they do
indicate the MS is promising royalty free rand terms for the ECMA/ISO
components.

 

[Tim Tyler]

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557

Mar. 10, 2004 08:59 PM

Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from Microsoft,
Intel and HP stating that they would offer *royalty-free* RAND licensing
to the ECMA-submitted components of .NET. [Aside: He said they were
kicking around catchy names like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the
free and non-free stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete in case
other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

one year later ... no ECMA-licence is here.

I'm only quoting another source. A source that says that Novell/Ximian
have a letter granting rights on the ECMA components on royalty-free
RAND licensing. Is it true? [...]

That's not what it says. It says Miguel had a letter from someone saying
these would be offered - not that the offer had already been made.

I.e. it's a claim by Miguel reported by a third party - not some sort of
license agreement.

Has anyone so far successfully licensed any of the ECMA components of
..NET? You would think Novell would be head of the queue in this
department - but it appears that not even they have a license.

 

[Tom Shelton]

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557

Mar. 10, 2004 08:59 PM

Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from Microsoft,
Intel and HP stating that they would offer *royalty-free* RAND licensing
to the ECMA-submitted components of .NET. [Aside: He said they were
kicking around catchy names like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the
free and non-free stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete in case
other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

one year later ... no ECMA-licence is here.

I'm only quoting another source. A source that says that Novell/Ximian
have a letter granting rights on the ECMA components on royalty-free
RAND licensing. Is it true? [...]

That's not what it says. It says Miguel had a letter from someone saying
these would be offered - not that the offer had already been made.

I.e. it's a claim by Miguel reported by a third party - not some sort of
license agreement.

Ok... I see what you mean. I misinterpreted that. Sorry.

Has anyone so far successfully licensed any of the ECMA components of
.NET? You would think Novell would be head of the queue in this
department - but it appears that not even they have a license.

I don't know. Has Novell even tried?

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lin=F8nut?=]

Tom Shelton poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

http://wiki2.dotgnu.info/PatentFUD
In response to an inquiry from the DotGNU project, the
secretary-general of ECMA has confirmed that Microsoft has
promised "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" licensing for any
patents that they might get on ideas that are necessary for
implementing the ECMA-334 and ECMA-335 standards.

Some of these clearly state they aren't sure about Mono. But, they do
indicate the MS is promising royalty free rand terms for the ECMA/ISO
components.

If it is not in the license yet, it is still only a promise.

And we well know how much to trust promises from a company that thieves
ideas from its partners.

 

[Guest]

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557
Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from
Microsoft, Intel and HP stating that they would offer
*royalty-free* RAND licensing to the ECMA-submitted components
of .NET. [Aside: He said they were kicking around catchy names
like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the free and non-free
stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete
in case other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

That's called marketing.

Not very competent marketing either - making it look as though the
viability of your product is dependent on an offer by email
from an individual claiming to represent some company, offering
promises of future goodwill - and then failing to disclose the
contents or even the author of message in question is really
pretty feeble PR material.

I'm not sure what you mean? This isn't marketing. Novell/Ximian have
never made this public. I happend across this reference and thought it
was interesting. It sounds like they have an actual license. MS reps
have stated multilple times in the media that their patents related to
.NET were available on non-royalty standard RAND terms.

Where? All their .NET patents are available under non-royalty RAND
terms? I don't believe it.

Not all their .NET patents - all their ECMA/ISO component related
patents.

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2887217,00.html

According to Herman, third parties will have to enter into a
reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) license agreement with
Microsoft. "But," says Herman, "while RAND sometimes means there could
be a financial obligation, [Microsoft] àwill be offering a conventional
non-royalty non-fee RAND license. We've always made that clear to anyone
who has asked." In other words, there will be no financial obligation.

That was from Michele Herman - MS's Director of Intellectual Property.
The article still calls into question Mono. But, Herman does say
royalty free standard RAND.

http://www.msversus.org/node/225
But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went
further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C#
and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis
for this purpose.

This is from the dotgnu wiki (the other open source .NET implementation
by the GNU guys)...

http://wiki2.dotgnu.info/PatentFUD
In response to an inquiry from the DotGNU project, the
secretary-general of ECMA has confirmed that Microsoft has
promised "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" licensing for any
patents that they might get on ideas that are necessary for
implementing the ECMA-334 and ECMA-335 standards.

Some of these clearly state they aren't sure about Mono. But, they do
indicate the MS is promising royalty free rand terms for the ECMA/ISO
components.

This "license" is taking longer to put together than MS's development
of longhorn - why? What's today, year two, three, or four of the
coming licence?

 

[Tom Shelton]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:14:06 GMT, Tom Shelton


Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557
Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from
Microsoft, Intel and HP stating that they would offer
*royalty-free* RAND licensing to the ECMA-submitted components
of .NET. [Aside: He said they were kicking around catchy names
like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the free and non-free
stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete
in case other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

That's called marketing.

Not very competent marketing either - making it look as though the
viability of your product is dependent on an offer by email
from an individual claiming to represent some company, offering
promises of future goodwill - and then failing to disclose the
contents or even the author of message in question is really
pretty feeble PR material.

I'm not sure what you mean? This isn't marketing. Novell/Ximian have
never made this public. I happend across this reference and thought it
was interesting. It sounds like they have an actual license. MS reps
have stated multilple times in the media that their patents related to
.NET were available on non-royalty standard RAND terms.

Where? All their .NET patents are available under non-royalty RAND
terms? I don't believe it.

Not all their .NET patents - all their ECMA/ISO component related
patents.

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2887217,00.html

According to Herman, third parties will have to enter into a
reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) license agreement with
Microsoft. "But," says Herman, "while RAND sometimes means there could
be a financial obligation, [Microsoft] àwill be offering a conventional
non-royalty non-fee RAND license. We've always made that clear to anyone
who has asked." In other words, there will be no financial obligation.

That was from Michele Herman - MS's Director of Intellectual Property.
The article still calls into question Mono. But, Herman does say
royalty free standard RAND.

http://www.msversus.org/node/225
But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went
further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C#
and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis
for this purpose.

This is from the dotgnu wiki (the other open source .NET implementation
by the GNU guys)...

http://wiki2.dotgnu.info/PatentFUD
In response to an inquiry from the DotGNU project, the
secretary-general of ECMA has confirmed that Microsoft has
promised "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" licensing for any
patents that they might get on ideas that are necessary for
implementing the ECMA-334 and ECMA-335 standards.

Some of these clearly state they aren't sure about Mono. But, they do
indicate the MS is promising royalty free rand terms for the ECMA/ISO
components.

This "license" is taking longer to put together than MS's development
of longhorn - why? What's today, year two, three, or four of the
coming licence?

Why do you think they don't have one? I kind of doubt they would just
post it publicly.

 

[Michael N. Christoff]

In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Olaf Baeyens
<[email protected]>
wrote


I think the previous poster was being slightly sarcastic, as the
speed of adoption of .NET has apparently been comparable to
that of a snail stuck in jelled treacle, or perhaps that of
a snail stuck in molasses during the month of January.

And of course, since .NET depends for a large amount of its
proprietary functionality on Windows, .NET inherits many of
the problems of Windows, which for the most part revolve
around various bits of malware infecting one's system.

Utter nonsense. .NET has as much (if not more) security built in as
Java does.

However, with Mono one might have a fighting chance to
work around some of these issues; the main problem with Mono
is that it faces, AFAICT, a rather uncertain future, mostly
because Microsoft might very well patent the interesting bits
and leave Mono with the unprofitable dregs.

Actually, I just came across this today:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557
Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from Microsoft,
Intel and HP stating that they would offer *royalty-free* RAND licensing
to the ECMA-submitted components of .NET. [Aside: He said they were
kicking around catchy names like 'polio' or 'cholera' to distinguish the
free and non-free stacks] I told Miguel he should publicize the letter
more because it was such a relief to me, but he said it would be
premature to promote this before the patent review was complete in case
other infringement was uncovered.

So, it looks like MS, Intel, and HP have already given the Mono team the
go ahead and a license.

But the *ECMA-submitted* components are a pretty small part of .NET. That's
like getting a license for Java the language, the java.lang library but not
JDBC, Servlets, JSP, etc.... Can they get royalty free RAND licensing for
ADO.NET for example?

-mike