"Michael E. Moores" wrote:
>
> no it's all real.com; you are right. there are ALOT of people here
> and i don't keep track of all the internal organizations and technology,
> politics, etc.
> i am taking a sensible evaluation approach based on
> prototyping, load testing, support, extensibility, popularity,
> soft/hard parts cost. the last factor is probably the least
> important based on the total cost of development.
I think the question that's being asked (but not entirely understood) in
this exchange is: Why is a large, successful corporation trying to use
this no-charge software, which is being cranked out by an undermanned,
underfunded organization, without offering to help in some substantial
way - either with engineering or funding?
If you were to take up the challenge - find some sort of Real.com help
for the Blackdown project - it would probably turn out to be the most
expensive and difficult option. But it would alow you to answer the
question: when (and how) will Blackdown deliver the performance you
need? And we'd all end up with a better JDK.
The topic of relationships between corporations and volunteer
development organizations is a tricky one, and it's clear that neither
side entirely gets how the other side works. One thing to understand in
dealing with an organization like Blackdown is that it can't deliver to
your specs without your help: you'll get something out only if you put
something in.
Nathan
>
> i have to ask questions though; that is the support part,
> the part i like so much better over dealing with IBM, Oracle or m$oft.
> the web stuff has little to do with being free
> as long as there is a commitment
> to things like oracle/sun which drown the cost of something like jtower.
>
> my next task is to iron out linux glibc and thread issues cause
> the jvm hammers it more than anything else i have done.
> so i have several avenues/fallbacks. blackdown may do fine
> if i can understand the library/threading intricacies.
> i have to prove that i can simply do some file copies,
> environment changes, and know i have a box that is
> identical to the next. i also cannot depend on it being
> a certain linux dist. (certain glibc)
> so i have to make the glibc part of the install.
> this is what has been so vexing.
>
> At 01:25 AM 1/8/00 -0600, Chris Abbey wrote:
> >At 07:19 1/6/00 -0800, "Michael E. Moores" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>you are TOTALLY incorrect in your assumptions
> >>about where i am using roxen.
> >
> >then I whole heartedly appologize for my confusion.
> >
> >>i don't even have any idea what hell you are toaking about.
> >
> >ahem. your address is "moores at REAL DOT COM". your x-sender
> >field is "moores at prognet dot com" which is of course the
> >parent company of real.
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
