On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:41, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:53, Alex Fern�ndez wrote:
> > > > It truly is a convenience. If a user is buying a PC with JRE
> > > > preinstalled, they will use it--or explore using programs that use
> > > > it. It opens up a lot of potential clients for our OSS projects.
> > > > Let's face it, we chose to build a lot of projects on a proprietary
> > > > "standard".
> > >
> > > That's right. And that's why we should be pushing to make Java a true
> > > standard. In fact, Sun should be pushing this way too, if they would
> > > just realize that only open standards have ever been successful against
> > > monopolistic practices.
> >
> > Sure they have - ever heard of a little OS called Windows .. apparently
> > it has a fair bit of marketshare.
>
> I am sorry. I consider Windows to be a total failure. Most people say
> they hate their computers but they really hate Windows. I don't have to
> explain the instability, security or other flaws which are present in
> Windows.
Latest windows is relatively stable out of the box with no tweaking. Windows
success is in making computers accessible to the average Joe. And what you
call "flaw" may be "feature" to another.
The other success windows has had is forcing hardware vendors to use
standards.
> Windows hasn't been successful. Microsoft's marketing and monopoly engine
> has been successful. They could have thrown *anything* down our throats :)
It is only been successful because they deliver what users want. I may never
use windows again and same with you but we are definetly a minority in what
we want out of a OS.
> > > and the FSF is developing a free JVM clone.
> >
> > Initially there was about 7 JVMs. Currently there is only 3 remaining
> > (kaffe, japhar and gcj). All of them are incompatible, more resource
> > intensive and slower than any vaguely modern JVM.
>
> Do you have evidence to back up your claim that GCJ is "more resource
> intensive". I am not challenging you but I just want to see more docs on
> GCJs performance.
Well I was actually kinda thinking about resource usage in respect to
kaffe/japhars memory usage. GCJ doesn't have this problem. GCJ still as of a
few months ago was still a LOT slower than IBMs jvm ... even when not using
ClassLoaders. I suspect it was because I was using a lot of small objects and
virtually no primitives. Not sure.
--
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
* "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, *
* and proving that there is no need to do so - almost *
* everyone gets busy on the proof." *
* - John Kenneth Galbraith *
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
