Re: another possibility wrt the press-release.
Mike Ajemian wrote: > My opinions are based on years of working in the industry and being > involved in discussions involving brand representation and issues of > brand dilution. To me, Inprise had no incentive to involve blackdown > in their release, so they didn't involve blackdown. If my opinions > are wrong, I'm more than happy to admit it and learn from my > mistake(s). Well, there doesn't seem to be any dispute that Inprise contacted Blackdown repeatedly and was ignored. And, last I checked, Java is not an Inprise brand. Why would Inprise even care? When you've got a truly unique contribution, like TowerJ's Java execution environment, branding matters. But, calling on your years of branding experience, please tell me why the hell anyone (especially a company that doesn't sell hardware, for which it might actually matter) would want to brand a JDK port. I'm sorry you object to the term "conspiracy theory", but one of my criteria for using the term is when I see motives being assigned that make absolutely no sense. What's the sense of branding a JDK port? If Inprise wants to offer real support to its customers, it can do so just as well with code written by "hobbyists" - companies like Red Hat and LinuxCare have built thriving businesses on that model. Let me suggest a motive that makes sense. Inprise makes IDEs. IDEs include debuggers. The Inprise debugger, like most JDK1.2 debuggers, requires the Java Platform Debugging Architecture (JPDA). Blackdown has never delivered JPDA... even the pending Blackdown JDK1.2.2 doesn't have it. Connect the dots. Nathan > > Don't believe I mentioned the word conspiracy or even tried to > represent any argument as such. Amazed at how the responses have > represented the "crackpot" perspective so quickly. I don't believe > Sun and Inprise conspired to block blackdown out. I think Inprise > wants it's own presence for its own jdk. Period. They made a > business decision to "roll their own" rather than pursue a > collaborative relationship with the individuals who had written the > code that Inprise was basing their jdk upon. Not Inprise-blackdown, > but Inprise. Simply that Inprise doesn't want to dilute their brand, > especially with the market, which might view an association with > blackdown as a liability (being composed of, as you stated in an > earlier posting, "volunteers".) > > To strengthen this argument, look at the perception of the public to a > little company named RedHat. They went from giving away software, to > charging for free software. The public went from skeptical when the > software was free, to supportive/enthusiastic/euphoric when the > software cost money and they offered a plan to support the software. > Blackdown gives away software and is viewed as a collective of > hobbyists. That's bad from the financial and business perspective > where the question invariably is raised as to "who will support the > software when we need a fix and the person that wrote the code is one > of the hobbyists". I don't think Inprise wanted to ever have to field > that question. I could be wrong, but if I am, I'd like to know why. > > My opinions are based on years of working in the industry and being > involved in discussions involving brand representation and issues of > brand dilution. To me, Inprise had no incentive to involve blackdown > in their release, so they didn't involve blackdown. If my opinions > are wrong, I'm more than happy to admit it and learn from my > mistake(s). Just somebody point out the facts so I can understand. > But calling my arguments or the arguments of others "conspiracy > theory" does nothing to further discussion on the matters at hand. > > > The thing that is funny for me is that you, and other people on this > > list, refer to who works in Inprise or other companies like we are not > > part of the Linux community. > > Never said you weren't part of the linux community. My raising issue > with you means that you're a peer in this community. If I felt > otherwise I would let you know directly. > > Would appreciate it if you would consider addressing my main point, > which is that fracturing the development efforts is divisive and in > the long run potentially more harmful to the future of java on Linux. > You have an opinion on that, I'd like to hear it. To me, the prospect > of collaboration was worth more than a couple of phone calls. > > cheers, > Mike > > -- > 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]
Help Required!!
Dear Sir, I have a problem and would be grateful if you could help me. My java applet application is working perfectly fine with MSIE4.0 and with Netscape on Linux6.0.But while executing it with Netscape 4.5 on windows, it gives all sorts of errors.i.e. it does not follow top down procedure. eg if the word "hello" has to be read from the datainputstream of the socket ,it will read in the order "hello" or "elhlo" or "lleho" and so on (all the combinations possible).This is happening with only the first word on the inputstream. I have the feeling that the thread does not get terminated properly.So when i create a new thread with the same name.As a result both the threads execute simultaneously and results in a mess. Can this be the problem??If so..whats the solution. Thanks, Manish [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there parallel port support from java for linux??
Parallel port support builds in rxtx but I have had minimal feedback. Simple read/write should work with little or no midifications to the driver. Let me know how it goes. Trent Jarvi rxtx maintainer http://www.frii.com/~jarvi/rxtx/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: another possibility wrt the press-release.
> Well, there doesn't seem to be any dispute that Inprise contacted > Blackdown repeatedly and was ignored. Really? I thought this was in dispute. > I'm sorry you object to the term "conspiracy theory", but one of my > criteria for using the term is when I see motives being assigned that > make absolutely no sense. Hmmm. Usually, when I see things that somebody has written that make no sense to me, I ask for clarification. I guess I could call people crackpots in my own way, but that probably wouldn't make people keen on corresponding with me more than a couple of times. It's not unusual for people to write something that doesn't get their message across the first or second time around. Calling people names is a sure-fire way to piss them off, since the attempt to impune their credibility is real. > Let me suggest a motive that makes sense. Inprise makes IDEs. IDEs > include debuggers...Connect the dots. This was the point, Einstein. Inprise relies on its brand. I didn't think I had to spell this out to the nth degree (I mean, who in this discussion doesn't know about ownership of Java and the JDK?). Do yourself a favor and ask a few questions of somebody *before* you flame them or start calling them names. cheers, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: another possibility wrt the press-release.
Very True. - Original Message - From: "Nathan Meyers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mike Ajemian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 11:48 PM Subject: Re: another possibility wrt the press-release. > Mike Ajemian wrote: > > My opinions are based on years of working in the industry and being > > involved in discussions involving brand representation and issues of > > brand dilution. To me, Inprise had no incentive to involve blackdown > > in their release, so they didn't involve blackdown. If my opinions > > are wrong, I'm more than happy to admit it and learn from my > > mistake(s). > > Well, there doesn't seem to be any dispute that Inprise contacted > Blackdown repeatedly and was ignored. And, last I checked, Java is not > an Inprise brand. Why would Inprise even care? When you've got a truly > unique contribution, like TowerJ's Java execution environment, branding > matters. But, calling on your years of branding experience, please tell > me why the hell anyone (especially a company that doesn't sell hardware, > for which it might actually matter) would want to brand a JDK port. > > I'm sorry you object to the term "conspiracy theory", but one of my > criteria for using the term is when I see motives being assigned that > make absolutely no sense. What's the sense of branding a JDK port? If > Inprise wants to offer real support to its customers, it can do so just > as well with code written by "hobbyists" - companies like Red Hat and > LinuxCare have built thriving businesses on that model. > > Let me suggest a motive that makes sense. Inprise makes IDEs. IDEs > include debuggers. The Inprise debugger, like most JDK1.2 debuggers, > requires the Java Platform Debugging Architecture (JPDA). Blackdown has > never delivered JPDA... even the pending Blackdown JDK1.2.2 doesn't have > it. Connect the dots. > > Nathan > > > > > > Don't believe I mentioned the word conspiracy or even tried to > > represent any argument as such. Amazed at how the responses have > > represented the "crackpot" perspective so quickly. I don't believe > > Sun and Inprise conspired to block blackdown out. I think Inprise > > wants it's own presence for its own jdk. Period. They made a > > business decision to "roll their own" rather than pursue a > > collaborative relationship with the individuals who had written the > > code that Inprise was basing their jdk upon. Not Inprise-blackdown, > > but Inprise. Simply that Inprise doesn't want to dilute their brand, > > especially with the market, which might view an association with > > blackdown as a liability (being composed of, as you stated in an > > earlier posting, "volunteers".) > > > > To strengthen this argument, look at the perception of the public to a > > little company named RedHat. They went from giving away software, to > > charging for free software. The public went from skeptical when the > > software was free, to supportive/enthusiastic/euphoric when the > > software cost money and they offered a plan to support the software. > > Blackdown gives away software and is viewed as a collective of > > hobbyists. That's bad from the financial and business perspective > > where the question invariably is raised as to "who will support the > > software when we need a fix and the person that wrote the code is one > > of the hobbyists". I don't think Inprise wanted to ever have to field > > that question. I could be wrong, but if I am, I'd like to know why. > > > > My opinions are based on years of working in the industry and being > > involved in discussions involving brand representation and issues of > > brand dilution. To me, Inprise had no incentive to involve blackdown > > in their release, so they didn't involve blackdown. If my opinions > > are wrong, I'm more than happy to admit it and learn from my > > mistake(s). Just somebody point out the facts so I can understand. > > But calling my arguments or the arguments of others "conspiracy > > theory" does nothing to further discussion on the matters at hand. > > > > > The thing that is funny for me is that you, and other people on this > > > list, refer to who works in Inprise or other companies like we are not > > > part of the Linux community. > > > > Never said you weren't part of the linux community. My raising issue > > with you means that you're a peer in this community. If I felt > > otherwise I would let you know directly. > > > > Would appreciate it if you would consider addressing my main point, > > which is that fracturing the development efforts is divisive and in > > the long run potentially more harmful to the future of java on Linux. > > You have an opinion on that, I'd like to hear it. To me, the prospect > > of collaboration was worth more than a couple of phone calls. > > > > cheers, > > Mike > > > > -- > > To UNSU
error loading shared libraries
Hi, i have a problem executing the JVM for JDK 1.2.2 RC3. When I try to start the JVM (thru ./bin/java), I get the following error message: "/usr/local/jdk1.2.2/bin/i386/native_threads/java: error in loading shared libraries: /usr/local/jdk1.2.2/jre/lib/i386/native_threads/libphi.so: symbol sem_init, version GLIBC_2.1 not defined in file libpthread.so with link time reference" - my system has all the libraries that come along with RH 6.0. Nothing has been uninstalled. - the same problem occurs if I try to run any of the Java executables (such as javac) (- they all point to java_wrapper) - Is there any library I need to install or upgrade ?. - had set the JAVA_PATH variable to point to the Java home directory before executing (mentioned in the README files) - the problem also occurs even when I unset the above env variable - do I need to give 'exec' access to any scripts ? - tried running the JVM as a root, but did not help I have the following config : - Red Hat 6.0 - kernel 2.2.5-15 - JDK 1.2.2 RC3 (latest release) - pentium-class machine - XFree86 release number 3330 - libc 2.1.1 Please give me ideas to solve this problem. I am stuck here. thanks, -raghu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: error loading shared libraries
Raghu, If you look in the readme... one of them... you'll realize that you have to upgrade glibc. I haven't done it myself... so I went and got the jdk1.2.2 from Sun (it will work with the current glibc that you have).. Felix On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Raghu Havaldar wrote: > Hi, > > i have a problem executing the JVM for JDK 1.2.2 RC3. When I try > to start the JVM (thru ./bin/java), I get the following error message: > > "/usr/local/jdk1.2.2/bin/i386/native_threads/java: error in loading > shared libraries: > /usr/local/jdk1.2.2/jre/lib/i386/native_threads/libphi.so: > symbol sem_init, version GLIBC_2.1 not defined in file libpthread.so > with link time reference" > > - my system has all the libraries that come along with RH 6.0. Nothing > has been uninstalled. > - the same problem occurs if I try to run any of the Java executables > (such as javac) (- they all point to java_wrapper) > - Is there any library I need to install or upgrade ?. > - had set the JAVA_PATH variable to point to the Java home directory >before executing (mentioned in the README files) > - the problem also occurs even when I unset the above env variable > - do I need to give 'exec' access to any scripts ? > - tried running the JVM as a root, but did not help > > I have the following config : > - Red Hat 6.0 > - kernel 2.2.5-15 > - JDK 1.2.2 RC3 (latest release) > - pentium-class machine > - XFree86 release number 3330 > - libc 2.1.1 > > Please give me ideas to solve this problem. I am stuck here. > > thanks, > -raghu > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Felix Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED]The Way of da' Electron U of T, Engineering Science 9T9 PEY . Scientific-Atlanta . Embedded Systems -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: another possibility wrt the press-release.
Mike Ajemian wrote: > > Let me suggest a motive that makes sense. Inprise makes IDEs. IDEs > > include debuggers...Connect the dots. > > This was the point, Einstein. Inprise relies on its brand. I didn't > think I had to spell this out to the nth degree (I mean, who in this > discussion doesn't know about ownership of Java and the JDK?). Yes, Inprise relies on branding an IDE. Just like Red Hat (to use your earlier example) relies on branding a distribution, some tools, and user support. But Red Hat doesn't brand the kernel or anything else about Linux. Inprise's JBuilder is a cross-platform product that runs on any Java platform; why would they want to dilute their brand by going into the Linux JDK business? Where's the motive? What's the payoff? If JDKs are a business they want to own, why don't they have one for a big market like Windows? Looking back on the notes that have comprised this conversation, you've described some motives that have me scratching my head: that Inprise wants to be in the Linux JDK business, that a "decision was made pretty high up" (your words) to deliberately piss off the Blackdown community, that the "poor communications" argument is spin-doctoring. All pretty serious stuff, but I still haven't seen any evidence. Why would companies that depend on a) spending money wisely, b) maintaining user good will, and c) supporting their core brands make such decisions? Are they run by lunatics? I'm sorry to keep hammering on the communications thing, but there is a lot of experience in this group to support it. When I tried to contact Blackdown about including the Blackdown JDK with my book (a simple enough question), it took me many attempts to get an answer. My other book-related queries were ignored completely. A look through past mail turns up many similar experiences: developers willing to sign the SCSL but unable to participate, questions about schedule and availability that were never answered, and so on. How about that JDK1.2.2... did you know it was coming? As far as I can tell, nobody else outside of Blackdown did (and, BTW, JBuilder3 requires 1.2.2). To quote Einstein (where did I see his name recently? :-), "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." I've presented a simple explanation supported by facts and experience. I'm ready to hear your simple explanation. Nathan Mike Ajemian wrote: > > > Well, there doesn't seem to be any dispute that Inprise contacted > > Blackdown repeatedly and was ignored. > > Really? I thought this was in dispute. > > > I'm sorry you object to the term "conspiracy theory", but one of my > > criteria for using the term is when I see motives being assigned that > > make absolutely no sense. > > Hmmm. Usually, when I see things that somebody has written that make > no sense to me, I ask for clarification. I guess I could call people > crackpots in my own way, but that probably wouldn't make people keen > on corresponding with me more than a couple of times. > > It's not unusual for people to write something that doesn't get their > message across the first or second time around. Calling people names > is a sure-fire way to piss them off, since the attempt to impune their > credibility is real. > > > Let me suggest a motive that makes sense. Inprise makes IDEs. IDEs > > include debuggers...Connect the dots. > > This was the point, Einstein. Inprise relies on its brand. I didn't > think I had to spell this out to the nth degree (I mean, who in this > discussion doesn't know about ownership of Java and the JDK?). Do > yourself a favor and ask a few questions of somebody *before* you > flame them or start calling them names. > > cheers, > Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: another possibility wrt the press-release.
Agree with you, simple is good. This is getting a little blown out of proportion. My points are as follows: 1. Inprise JBuilder, sitting on top of JDK that Inprise authored. Good brand. Not involving Blackdown as the market might perceive that as a dilution (I know finance folks who would view the relationship as a major liability.) That's it. It's not specifically about the JDK, that's a component in the solution. It's about the packaging of Java tools from Inprise and selling those tools to (especially) corporate buyers who are still twitchy about Linux. For the corporate tools builder (IT departments are potential customers who stand out to me), they might want Linux if somebody supplied all the Java tools and supported them, too. So Inprise supplies all the tools and supports all the components, too. I know corporations that make decisions this way and it's not a bad thing. Integrated components, one point-of-contact. The market assigns a lot of value to that. 2. I don't think that forking the code is a good thing. In fact, I think it's such a bad thing, that, if I was in charge of this, I would have flown the blackdown reps to my office (or vice-versa) to find a way to work together with them. It would be different if the blackdown folks didn't want to collaborate, but that's not the sense I get from some of the postings. 3. Without a clear representation of the dialogs that took place between Blackdown and Inprise, all the discussions about how this came about and why are based on heresay. I read the blackdown response to Paolo's comments about Inprise contacting them. It sounded like there was major miscommunication there. My feeling is that Inprise had an incentive to work closely with Blackdown (faster releases, potentially more stable code, more mindshare.) It suprises me, from what I've read, that it appears more wasn't done to open communication with the Blackdown team from Inprise. I fully recognize that they had no legal obligation to do so. It's just something that doesn't sit well with me. Appreciate your patience and your dialog. It sounds like I'm having difficulty getting my point across in a clear and cogent manner. Hopefully, this mail gets more to the point. I look forward to your response. Points #2 and #3 are far more important to me than #1. In fact, if people in the know (read: direct experience) from both sides want to comment about how the communication really went down, I would really appreciate it since I don't want to dialog with scraps (I have big feet and don't like the taste of them, if you know what I mean.) cheers, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: another possibility wrt the press-release.
I have to agree with Nathan. Until recently ("recently" being defined as
within the last two or three months), I never got any response from the
Blackdown team to my offers of assistance with porting -- and I'm from
Sun.
Now, don't get me wrong here -- the Blackdown team are volunteers and
don't necessarily have the time to jump everytime someone knocks. They
have personal lives, day jobs, families. They have to take time for
themselves, just like the rest of us do.
I wasn't involved in the Inprise deal, and I don't buy the argument that
Inprise wanted "brand recognition" on the JVM for Linux. Why don't I buy
that argument? Because Sun owns the trademark and copyright on the Java
"brand". No one else can "brand" Java. Does Inprise have their own
"brand" of C? No, they have a compiler set that perform exceptionally
well on Windows/DOS. Does Inprise have their own "brand" of Java?
Absolutely not. Java is Java is Java. That's the point of the JCK, the
specification, the required core libraries.
I tend to believe what Paolo Ciccone has posted regarding the why and
how of the Sun JDK for Linux release: Inprise had a business need and a
hard deadline (businesses tend to set unchangeable deadlines).
I've been seeing alot of anti-Sun sentiment since the release. Some of
it may be deserved (I was horrified that whoever wrote the release left
out acknowledgement of Blackdown -- and I was very vocal about that
internally), but most of what I've been seeing has amounted to "Sun has
no right to put out a JVM/JDK for Linux, because that belongs to
Blackdown."
I want to make something very clear here: just because Sun has released
a JDK for Linux, that does not mean that Blackdown can't. They licensed
the code, they can do their port. When all the JCK tests are being
passed (currently held up by the sunwjit on Linux, which I'm working on
fixing), then they can call their port an FCS. Even if we continue to
release more ports of Java for Linux, it doesn't change anything.
Blackdown can continue to do ports of Java to Linux as long as they are
licensees and willing to give up most of their spare time and not get
any gratitude for it.
Someone suggested that Sun is trying to "fracture" the Linux Java
community. How does that make any sense? Do you really think Sun cares
in the least whose VM you're using? All Sun cares about is that *all*
implementations of Java conform to the spec - otherwise compatibility is
compromised and you lose the cross-platform nature of Java. That's one
of the best things about Java - it doesn't matter which vendor's VM you
run on as long as that VM implementation has been shown to be fully
compatible.
Just my two cents.
--Jeff
Nathan Meyers wrote:
>
> Mike Ajemian wrote:
> > > Let me suggest a motive that makes sense. Inprise makes IDEs. IDEs
> > > include debuggers...Connect the dots.
> >
> > This was the point, Einstein. Inprise relies on its brand. I didn't
> > think I had to spell this out to the nth degree (I mean, who in this
> > discussion doesn't know about ownership of Java and the JDK?).
>
> Yes, Inprise relies on branding an IDE. Just like Red Hat (to use your
> earlier example) relies on branding a distribution, some tools, and user
> support. But Red Hat doesn't brand the kernel or anything else about
> Linux. Inprise's JBuilder is a cross-platform product that runs on any
> Java platform; why would they want to dilute their brand by going into
> the Linux JDK business? Where's the motive? What's the payoff? If JDKs
> are a business they want to own, why don't they have one for a big
> market like Windows?
>
> Looking back on the notes that have comprised this conversation, you've
> described some motives that have me scratching my head: that Inprise
> wants to be in the Linux JDK business, that a "decision was made pretty
> high up" (your words) to deliberately piss off the Blackdown community,
> that the "poor communications" argument is spin-doctoring. All pretty
> serious stuff, but I still haven't seen any evidence. Why would
> companies that depend on a) spending money wisely, b) maintaining user
> good will, and c) supporting their core brands make such decisions? Are
> they run by lunatics?
>
> I'm sorry to keep hammering on the communications thing, but there is a
> lot of experience in this group to support it. When I tried to contact
> Blackdown about including the Blackdown JDK with my book (a simple
> enough question), it took me many attempts to get an answer. My other
> book-related queries were ignored completely. A look through past mail
> turns up many similar experiences: developers willing to sign the SCSL
> but unable to participate, questions about schedule and availability
> that were never answered, and so on. How about that JDK1.2.2... did you
> know it was coming? As far as I can tell, nobody else outside of
> Blackdown did (and, BTW, JBuilder3 requires 1.2.2).
>
> To quote Einstein (where did I see his name recently? :-), "Things
> s
