Oliver Jones wrote:

Apps need more testing, more bug-reports from users, more use of bounds checkers and better development practices from the OSS/FS desktop app crowd. They should also stop using C & C++. Mono, Python, Java, Perl, and Ruby should be the order of the day.

I'm really undecided about which is the "best" language for open source graphical apps. C/C++ require lots of debugging and have too many subtle ways to introduce bugs, but interpreted languages just require too many resources. I thought apps in a language like python seemed like a good idea, but I'm not sure anymore. Gnome apps seem bloated enough as it is when written in C/C++, but something like gdesklets (lots of cool desktop applets) which is written in python uses almost a hundred megabytes of ram once started up, before any desklets are even loaded on your desktop! Some of that memory is shared, of course, but less than a third was shared when I had a play with gdesklets. However, interpreted languages make for quicker development, and much easier to tweak/patch/improve, so maybe the tradeoff is worth it, even if it does require faster gruntier computers to run a modern desktop. Java isn't free enough to be included by linux/bsd distributions, although hopefully some free Java Runtime Environments (ie not the ones from Sun or Blackdown) will get "good enough" in the near future. Even so, java doesn't seem very good for graphical apps, and the virtual machine needs too much memory/startup time, although runtime performance seems much better these days than it used to be. Mono as a language seems like an improvement on java, but the implementation is patent-encumbered and has a very unclear legal position. The c-sharp patent licensing doesn't automatically grant enough freedom for a GPL'd implementation, even if Novell claims it's ok. Anyway, I'll stop rambling, since I don't really have a point... but for Free Desktop applications, no language seems to have compelling features over the others that people agree on. Otherwise they'd all stop using the other languages and only use $THE_ONE_TRUE_LANGUAGE*. John * insert your favourite language here.

On Monday 28 June 2004 14:25, Oliver Jones wrote:

The language doesn't have to be interpreted. Java is a compiled language. It's just not compiled to the native machine code.

Most JVMs compile to native code, either JIT or ahead-of-time.

I have hope that Java will be Open Sourced in the not too distant future. Sun are edging towards accepting this idea. If they don't they will ultimately loose out to Mono (as long as Mono doesn't run into Patent issues).

Apart from some kind of mindshare thing, I don't get why "open sourced" Java is needed.

... Sid.

This means installing the sun jvm under Linux is a PIA. It's not intergrated with the package management, it's not automatically upgraded for me. Nor is it "integrated" with the OS. the number of hoops you have to jump through to get .class or .jar files to run the jvm when executed is astronomical.

You think that's bad, try installing it in freebsd..

Mostly because distros won't ship it because of it's license. Not even in the "non-free" sections. If java wants to increase it's market share it's going to have to become easier to distribute. At the moment I can't get deb's for java legitimately because their license won't allow redistribution:

This is a good reason for a more liberal license but, as you agree below, not sufficient for an "open source" one. Apart from Debian, which other popular distros have this issue? Why does Debian have this issue?

Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without license fees to reproduce and use internally Software complete and unmodified for the sole purpose of running Programs.

This means installing the sun jvm under Linux is a PIA. It's not intergrated with the package management, it's not automatically upgraded for me. Nor is it "integrated" with the OS. the number of hoops you have to jump through to get .class or .jar files to run the jvm when executed is astronomical.

My distribution (Slackware) comes with the latest version of Sun's Java SDK. If Sun comes out with another version in between updates, I download it (and the newer documentation -- approx 80MB) on my 33K modem -- seriously!. Although I'm by no means a power-user, installing the package from Sun is a piece of cake -- you don't even need to set any environment variables. (Of course other apps will need to know $CLASSPATH) Here is what I do (abbreviated from the Sun site) after renaming my old package directory: (I don't use the rpm package which is even simpler). --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Download 2. Make sure that execute permissions are set on the self-extracting binary. chmod +x j2sdk-1_4_2_<version>-linux-i586.bin 3. Change directory to the location where you would like the files to be installed. 4. Run the self-extracting binary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

If I use the Free JVM's I can "apt-get install" them, they set themselves up with binfmt_misc properly, and set up the classpath appropriately. When I do my updates, new versions are installed properly. Suddenly it's very very easy to use, except that they barely meet java 1.0.

So what you want is a license that allows you to use "apt-get" and I suppose on individual classes (not just the whole package).

Except I can't do this with Sun's VM.

Now this doesn't necessarily require it to be open sourced, but a more liberal license would (IMHO) greatly improve it's uptake in the community.

Sid.

On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 16:31, s swami wrote:

On Monday 28 June 2004 14:25, Oliver Jones wrote:

...

The language doesn't have to be interpreted. Java is a compiled language. It's just not compiled to the native machine code.

Most JVMs compile to native code, either JIT or ahead-of-time.

Yes I know that the JVM does a certain amount of byte code to native code translation. But this is implementation specific and not guaranteed. It's called a virtual machine for a reason.

Apart from some kind of mindshare thing, I don't get why "open sourced" Java is needed.

The main reason is so that Java's fortunes are not tied to Suns fortunes. Which frankly are looking a little bleak. Imagine what the Internet would be like now had Netscape not be open sourced. Yes I know Firefox and Mozilla aren't exactly loosening MS's vice like grip on most browser users just at the moment but they are keeping the web-standards flame alive. If Firefox didn't exist and wasn't such a great browser MS probably wouldn't be re-investing into IE quite to the degree they are at the moment. Given the amount of effort of expended in writing Java code recently I'd rather not have the language disappear from the face of the planet because the company that owns it goes under. I hope it never comes to that and I would expect IBM to buy Sun if it was going under. IBM has a lot more too loose if Java disappears than I do. All of this would be a moot point if Sun was to just Open Source it. This whole "were afraid it would fork" bullshit just doesn't wash with me. C & C++ are open standards, Perl is open source, Python is open source, Ruby is open source. None of these languages have forked. Sun is just afraid that if it gives up Java to the community its giving up the only thing that is keeping the company afloat. Fortunately I think Sun is slowly coming to the realisation internally that to open source Java isn't such a bad idea after all. IBM would do it in an instant and they have an excellent implementation to do it with. But I think they are constrained by contracts or other such things with Sun from doing so. Which reminds me. Java has already forked even without being open sourced. IBM's implementation vs Sun's. Which puts further weight behind my argument that their "forking" argument is bullshit. Regards -- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver.jones(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com

What is your point? Lots of languages use some form of VM nowadays, and JIT compilers are slowly sprouting all over the place.

My point was, as I cleanly stated in my reply was that _not all_ VM's have JIT or do any byte code to native instruction translation and that you can't take it for granted. Read before you reply.

I don't buy this. Netscape went under -- Navigator did not. I expect something similar to happen, should Sun sink.

As I said in my email. _Only_ because they open sourced it before they got eat by AOL and eventually dismembered. I don't want this to happen to Sun before Java is set free like Navigator was.

Well, you certainly have a point, but what does that have to do with anything?

I was trying to show an example. Put replace the Work Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox with Java and the word IE with .NET/C#.

So open that everyone and their dog has their own version.

However pretty much every compiler can compile ISO C++ or ANSI C. Or should to be worth using.

Yes, because anyone can get involved. Not everyone would be able to get involved with Sun's Officially Blessed Version Of Java.

No everyone can get involved in Python or Perl. There are a key set of developers clustered around those languages that do 90% of the work. Open Source projects are usually meritocracies. Do the work, submit the patch and as long as it is "good enough" to please the core team it might get included. The operative word is /might/. Just because a piece of software is open source doesn't actually mean you have any real control over its development as a user. You have the freedom to modify it to your desires but no own said anything about actually being able to effectively contribute to its development. Take MySQL for example. That has to be one of the more popular "open source" products that has near zero community inclusion in the development process. The whole "open source development methodology" is rather over blown if you ask me. The are many benefits to open source. Few of them center around the the development methodology IMO.

That's not a fork. That's a reimplementation of the VM etc, but it's not a fork of the language.

Well there are rarely forks of languages which was one of my points in the previous email. There are inconsistencies between the Sun and IBM JVMs though that can cause "issues". So I was just throwing it in for effect.

I'm not arguing with you because I particularly like Java -- I feel quite the opposite about it, actually --, but you're not making a very strong point.

Well as a developer of 10+ years experience and as someone who has been in developing in Java for the last 2.5 years I can say that Java is my preferred language at the moment. There are many things about it that aren't perfect but no language ever is. I also very experienced in a few other languages including Perl, C/C++, and PHP. Over the last 10+ years I've used many others as well. In preference I'd probably rank in preferred order the languages I use regularly as Java, Perl, PHP, C++.

My own opinion is that Java should be free ( != open source ) because that would be good for the language. There are many companies with vast investments in the technology, so there are clearly forces with a interest in the language's progress.

Sun needs to let Java go because if it doesn't Java will die with Sun. Sun is a dead company. IMO unless it can re-invent itself as a services company it will be gone in less than 5 years. Their Unix server business will be eaten by Dell and HP selling Linux powered machines. .NET will come and byte its arse in the web services area. There is very little that makes that company interesting except Java. My only hope is that if Sun doesn't see the light when the do finally go down the tubes (they are already loosing money faster than they can make it) that IBM will buy them and open source Java for us.

However, that also means Sun would likely quickly find themselves on the sidelines, and they're not known as a company that can let go. They have a history of keeping a pretty tight grip on their brainchildren, occasionally to the point of suffocation.

They are doomed to be sidelined anyway. It would be nice if they could at least see that. Regards -- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com

That's what irks me about your attempt at arguing.. you're making contradicting points and unrelated points.

See, around these parts, we don't really argue, per se; we say everything we feel, which in some cases, is completely and utterly wrong or contradictory. Then, people who know more than us point out what they know (expecting some of that to be wrong or contradictory) and hopefully everyone becomes more enlightened in the end. ;) Craig

I know, I am alone in the desktop thinking, but its the desktop I use other than on my laptops as I need win and mac on them for work reasons with specialist software. Linux is a great desktop for the right place, mastertrade ran it for 18 months until they were brought out, and needed to replace their pos stuff.

...

* What Linux currently CAN'T do

Work as an average Joe's desktop or gaming machine. Yes I know I'm generalising here. And yes I'm aware of WineX, CrossOver, KDE 3.x, Gnome 2.x, LGP, OpenOffice and all the other neat Desktop stuff that you can get for Linux. I use a lot of them myself. However I also know of some of the frustrations of getting average Joes to use Linux on the desktop in business locations.

If average user means games, then yes. but if average user means e-mail, web browsing , IRC, open office and multimedia , Movies, and MP3's then its Great, just get the right distro. Fedora Sux as a desktop, mandrake works, but is bloat ware Mepis Rocks, but I use CollegeLinux, but it needs some work, 2.6 will be a better release( I am on a preview now) but I admit, i dont use a lot of usb, just a pendrive and a camera, both work great. but we use macs for multimedia creation. so I dont use it that much. My favourite desktop is featherlinux, light fast and does all i need..... I have locked the desktop once (once since install that is) CTRL-ALT-Backspace to the rescue, I crashed his winXP laptop twice already today, Hold power button for 4 seconds to reset. It took us time to migrate our machines, but the move was worth it. we get most of our work done in Linux, we do circuits and Microcontroller programming in windows ( need the tools) make the manuals, and multimedia howtos on the Mac, and play games ... on the MAC .... Linux is use to get the bulk of daily work done. printing labels, dispatch records - most e-mail and the like. Linux is a good productivity desktop ... if its one you set up, and leave alone.

The main problems I see are in these areas:

1) Stability. Not stability of the OS. That's pretty rock solid. But stability of the apps. Linux X apps just crash too damn much. Particularly:

Mozilla/Firefox - mainly the Flash or Java plugin's fault, but plugins shouldn't crash the browser.

Hmmm ... Never had this happen.

Evolution 1.4 - damn LDAP backend is unstable as all hell. And there are a variety of other annoying bugs such as the NZDT time problem.

Still on 1.4 But thunderbird is my preferred mailer now anyway

GNOME - the panel, Nautilus, pretty much all of it crashes now and again.Rhythm box, xine, Totem, lots of others....

I don't use KDE but it probably suffers form similar issues.

Kde 3.2 is a pleasent surprise, its come a long way ... Sounds like you should try Sun's JDS 2. I think you might like it.

2) USB support. I've had soooo many issues getting USB devices to work reliably under Linux its not funny. For example:

MS Wireless Keyboard/Mice seem to get disconnected when X starts up. You have to unplug and plug them back in a few times to get them reinitialised.

HP OfficeJet Multi-function printers just "disappear" from CUPS and you have to shake a dead chicken over the Printer Config applet to get them to work again.

Solid state media reads just "lock up" after you've read the first couple of meg off the card.

Use these all the time, never had this issue

USB Cameras & scanners doing similar things.

As above, slackware seems to handle them fine

All in all I wouldn't trust Linux's USB sub-system as far as I could throw it.

3D graphics support is still very lacking and not overly stable. I've seen simple OpenGL screen savers lockup i810/i815 motherboards on a regular basis. The state of affairs is significantly better than it used to be. DRI did a lot to solve that. But nVidia is the only proprietary vendor that supports Linux to a significant degree and even their drives whilst pretty good still suffer from stability issues.

Real desktops don't need acceleration, .... OK I give you this one, its why I still use Xvesa as my normal choice for desktops.

One caveat is that this is all with 2.4 kernels. I've not used 2.6 much yet.

2.6 is a big improvement. In all the issue is is Linux the right desktop for your use. It can be. but its not always. I have Linux boxes that have not been touched for years. They do a simple job, are well hidden from the real world nastys and are left to do it and they do it well. Like all work issues. You need the right tools for the right job. If you do it right, and have the patience to work out how to get the best mileage, you can have a very pleasant Linux desktop experience. In fact as I typed this I opened cygwin, ran up a Linux window, and dealt with a dispatch issue, sorted out an error in an order form, and updated a product code. I do Linux on the desktop, and totally believe it has a place in my business. .. And its a much bigger place than windows has, but this is what works for me in a business, every business will get different mileage. but Linux IMHO can be a great desktop. The question is will it do all YOU need it to be in its current form. Thats much harder to answer.

Fair point, its my personal call, I should be asked to quantify. I personally have not had a good run with Fedora, and have found better smaller and faster desktops more useful for what we do here. SUX was a really bad choice of words. I apologize. Fedora still seems focused on the server in my experience, and better desktop versions of Linux exist. Mepis is a good example of a debian based desktop distro, and PClinux OS is a cut down, desktop focused version of mandrake which are a couple of good examples of taking a full distro, and focusing it on the desktop. I found fedora to be much slower, and the desktop to not work as well, or to be as well laid out from a user point of view. It also seemed to chew up resources more than other distros I have tried. Redhats CEO's comments that Linux as not suitable for the desktop probably showed why their had been less attention to the desktop by Redhat in the past, and there still seems to be the same lack of attention to detail. There is no big issue, but IMHO, lots of little issues that make it less than it could be. And yes I thought JDS2 was a version that fedora could learn from, and Oliver seemed to like Gnome, so I suggested it. JDS 1 didn't impress me much, but JDS2 is looking a lot better. and it seems to be the only desktop linux based on fedora that I have seen so far in my travels. I appreciate being pulled up for such a stupid thoughtless comment, I should have paid more attention to what was a silly glib remark. What I meant to say was that for a desktop only install, better versions than fedora exist for out of the box desktops. Ironically we had a similar discussion about Lindows with another group last week, and noted that they wanted to be compared with fedora and mandrake, but not the specialist Linux Desktop Distros out there. Lets face it, Windows both server and desktop versions, as does MAC OS X, So why are linux distros not willing to be server of desktop focused..... or even have 2 versions. ( and for my money, the ones in the best position is Novell with SUSE, Ximian and their own networking history... They could really make some cool linux distros.) Craig Box wrote:

...

If average user means games, then yes. but if average user means e-mail, web browsing , IRC, open office and multimedia , Movies, and MP3's then its Great, just get the right distro. Fedora Sux as a desktop, mandrake works, but is bloat ware

Can you quantify those statements, please? Exactly how much, and why, does Fedora suck as a desktop?

...

Kde 3.2 is a pleasent surprise, its come a long way ... Sounds like you should try Sun's JDS 2. I think you might like it.

Sun's JDS is built on GNOME. (As is Fedora.)

Craig

_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug

Gavin Denby wrote:

Lets face it, Windows both server and desktop versions, as does MAC OS X, So why are linux distros not willing to be server of desktop focused..... or even have 2 versions. ( and for my money, the ones in the best position is Novell with SUSE, Ximian and their own networking history... They could really make some cool linux distros.)

Well, usually a desktop version or "home edition" of any operating system is really just the same thing sold at a significantly lower price and with some of the more "professional" features removed. In the world of Linux and the GPL, you are not paying for the software, but the support. If Red Hat are not interested in supporting home users anyway, there is very little point in them maintaining a "lite" version of their distribution. That does not mean that you cannot simply unselect all the stuff you do not need on your desktop machine during the installation. -- Matthias

On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 14:39, Gavin Denby wrote:

Fair point, its my personal call, I should be asked to quantify. I personally have not had a good run with Fedora, and have found better smaller and faster desktops more useful for what we do here.

[snip] I have no real intention of checking out other distros. Mainly because I'm happy enough with Fedora. Fedora's very common and hence has lots of packages available and lots of documentation is about RedHat/Fedora. I don't actually use the "desktop" of any Linux distro so I'm unlikely to prefer one that has better "desktop" features. I also don't like KDE and a lot of the Desktop distros use KDE. I've never been able to pin point what exactly I don't like about KDE. But ever since 1.0 I've never liked it. I also tend to be far more productive at the command line than in a GUI. My standard way of launching most apps is click on the new terminal icon or open a new tab in an existing term, type the command followed by a &. Only the absolutely most common apps I use are on the panel. I rarely venture into the "Gnome" menu. And I rarely use the file manager.

Lets face it, Windows both server and desktop versions, as does MAC OS X, So why are linux distros not willing to be server of desktop focused..... or even have 2 versions. ( and for my money, the ones in the best position is Novell with SUSE, Ximian and their own networking history... They could really make some cool linux distros.)

-- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver.jones(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com

On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 14:12, Greig McGill wrote:

Oliver Jones said:

...

Since I can't be at the meeting tonight being in another town 2 hours away and all I figured I'd contribute some thoughts:

Gee, thanks Olly, I'll just not bother now. :-/

Sorry if I spoiled your little talk. You should still do it though. You might have other points anecdotes to share. :) Regards -- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver.jones(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com

* Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeper.co.nz> [2004-06-28 02:36]:

Personally I can't think of a good reason to run any other OS than Linux on a server.

Is *BSD reason enough? ;-) Of course, that's probably not what you were thinking about.. they get dropped into the shadow of Linux too often though.

Apps need more testing, more bug-reports from users, more use of bounds checkers and better development practices from the OSS/FS desktop app crowd.

Unfortunately, that alone won't help. http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html We need more developers with a clue or two, as well.

This is going to become much more important in the coming years. Because after Longhorn comes out a lot of video card makers are going to completely drop the VGA/Textmode & 2D cores of their graphics chips.

You will find that the team around Cairo is already working on addressing that. If Keith has his way, vendors will eventually only have to write an OpenGL driver for their chips and everything else will work automatically. Better yet, Cairo might even get ready for prime time long before Longhorn hits the shelves. Maybe we can still their thunder this time.. Regards, -- Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."

* Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeper.co.nz> [2004-06-29 02:21]:

...

...

Personally I can't think of a good reason to run any other OS than Linux on a server.

Is *BSD reason enough? ;-) Of course, that's probably not what you were thinking about.. they get dropped into the shadow of Linux too often though.

I've never used BSD so I don't know what benefit there would be. All I can see from *BSD is more work, more difficulty to install, less hardware support, etc etc.

Sorry, are we talking about the desktop here, or servers? That's what they still say about Linux, btw.

*BSD looks from an outside viewer to be like Linux was 4 years ago.

Yes, it doesn't have a graphical point and click installer. So? A menu based curses GUI is no harder.

While it is commendable that there are other "free" Unix alternatives to Linux I really think it is little more than a sideline curiosity.

That's a really ignorant point of view.

Certainly Sony found NetBSD useful when creating it's Network Game SDK. They just ripped the TCP/IP stack right out, ported it to the PS2 and gave it to developers.

Yes, and Microsoft ripped the TCP/IP stack out of FreeBSD. Regards, -- Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."

Oliver wrote:

I wasn't referring to it's UI. I phrased that slightly incorrectly. I should have said "*BSD looks to an outside observer to be like Linux was 4 years ago." As in it appears to be less refined, harder to use and generally harder to get running and use. Maybe I'm worng.

Seeing as you've never actually used any BSD, what gives/gave you the impression that it's less refined, harder to use and generally hard to get running? Phil Murray me(a)philth.net.nz