| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Comments:
<0> rickety: well in first few tries it was really weird:)
<0> then i got feeling for it
<0> :))
<1> They're pretty good, knowledgable guys, fair prices
<1> Especially at the lower end
<2> rickety : nio works for server sockets ?
<1> I've upgraded my box so much, I'm getting close to switching to a dedicated server
<1> Which they're a too expensive for
<3> kmh: afaik. I've never actually used it.
<2> rickety : hmm i just regarded it as stream/file io but not in connection with server sockets
<2> i guess i should check it out
<3> Let me know.
<0> both on client and server side.
<4> LLyric: Yeah, I'm looking for simpler JSP+database hosting, myself, and dont' expect to need a whole server of my own
<1> Cool.
<1> Maybe, if you're interested, you want to consider splitting a dedicate server? You too, talios.
<4> LLyric: From the looks of it, I get a VM instance, and get to have pretty much full controll thereof?
<1> wlfshmn: absolutely, you can do whatever you want.
<1> Except change the kernel, or load modules.
<1> It looks just like your own linux box
<4> LLyric: Fair enough, Xen needs kerenl support after all
<4> LLyric: I think I will stick to their hosting services until I know what my real world requirement become ;)
<4> LLyric: at this stage, I'm mostly planning ahead
<1> wlfshmn: heheh, no problem.
<5> LLyric, what do they charge for a vm box anyway?
<1> The only thing to watch out for is how much memory you're going to need - java is a bit heavy on that
<1> talios: depends on the specs. Anything from us$20 to $80 iirc
<1> http://rimuhosting.com/order/startorder.jsp
<1> $20 for 96MM ram, 30GB traffic, 4GB disk
<4> ohh. debian support. that puts them over the top for me ;)
<5> ubuntu or debian?
<4> debian proper.
<1> talios: http://rimuhosting.com/distros.jsp
<1> They support ubantu too
<1> http://rimuhosting.com/distros.jsp#ubuntu
<5> nice
<4> LLyric: yeah, I've never quite fallen for ubuntu though I must say
<1> I'm a fedora/redhat guy, too lazy to change
<6> LLyric: going to use jboss, then? :)
<5> how may of you guys run ASP style hosted (commercial, for work) services over user-deployed apps? I'm considering switching our hosted app to an adminuser-deployable solution - thou I'd need to tighten up my install/config process ;)
<5> 'lo jottinger
<4> LLyric: i've been a debianite for longer than I care to remember, and to be honest, I don't see that changing any time soon. not while chocie is provided ;)
<0> i have a question..... do i have to explicitely set cyricil or other non-latin fonts? or is it automatically done by locale?
<3> wlfshmn: As long as you can type 'java -version' on Debian and see gcj, I'll know Debian still has at its heart idiots.
<7> rickety, It's not Solaris now is it ;)
<5> gcj--
<3> It's like typing realplayer and seeing xmms pop up.. It's simply wrong. gcj is not java.
<4> rickety: not idiots as much as idealists.
<5> rickety, if Redhat licenced Suns JDK like FreeBSD recently did - I'd switch back.
<3> wlfshmn: Both.
<3> talios: I understand that, but that's actually irrelevant.
<4> rickety: I'm of the more practical variety though. I'll install a proper JDK, and not feel bad about it just because RMS wouldn't approvie. ;)
<5> rickety, yes and no - if JavaWebStart and the Java browser plugin worked with SunJDK out of the box that's more relevant than not..
<3> talios: Debian pretends that gcj is Java, without the user being consulted/informed. So you get new Java programmers following Sun's instructions, and they get stupid gcj related error messages.
<5> you get the same with Fedora
<3> talios: Those work out of the box for me on Windows.
<5> rickety, I didn't realise Microsoft shipped the JDK?
<3> talios: I don't buy my computers from Microsoft, do you?
<5> rickety, No, but if you install Windows clean, you have no JDK.
<5> or JRE
<5> Mind you - you don't have .NET either.
<3> talios: 1. I thought you meant after installing Java. 2. My box actually came with the 1.5 JRE.
<3> Correctly configured.
<4> rickety: I believe it's not so much a matter as actually considering gcj a fully fledged java replacemtn (atleast not among the java-literate debianites) as it is a mater of policy not allowing packages into main unless they are buildable by a DFSG-free toolchain.
<3> wlfshmn: Again, that's irrelevant.
<3> If you don't allow Sun packages, fine. Pretending a non-Java package is Java is still incorrect.
<4> rickety: It's irrelevant to the practical thinker, But debian is, always ahs been, and liekly always will be a politically motivated project.
<3> With lots of practically-thinking users.
<4> aye
<3> Even political motivation shouldn't lead it to do incorrect things.
<3> If it wants to pretend that gcj is Java, it should consult/warn the user, not 'slip it in by the back door' when they install openoffice or something.
<4> it would be nice if the user was somehow informed that gcj != java, but I don't really see how that should be acomplished
<3> wlfshmn: dpkg has reporting mechanisms..
<4> rickety: "reporting2?
<4> rickety: it can mention it in the package description sure, but noone that thinks gcj IS java will have read that
<3> dpkg can email you, it can interact with you, it can print stuff on your screen..
<3> The package description isn't dpkg, it's the .deb format. Afaik dpkg itself doesn't display that.
<3> At least in normal operation.
<4> rickety: and printing to the screen will be lost in the m***ive output of dist-install. You could display a debconf screen I suppose, but I wondr what policy says about disruptive screens for non-configuration
<4> perhaps the correct solution would be for gcj to simply not provide an alternative to /usr/bin/java
<2> wlfshmn : gcj pretendin java is not irrelevant for a pratical thinker
<4> that requires the interpretation that something isn't a java compiler unless it conforms to Sun's command line parameters for their java compiler though. Is that codified?
<2> wlfshmn : even "easy" 1.4 stuff does not run correctly or at all on gcj
<2> wlfshmn : gcj does not fully implements the specs nor is it certified 1.4/1.5 afaik
<4> oh, I very much doubt it is, or intends to be, certified
<2> contrary to other non sun implementations such as ibm
<2> wlfshmn : that's why it shouldn't call irself java 1.4 without a big warning
<6> heh, what's the conversation?
<6> kmh: it doesn't call itself java 1.4
<2> well it does/did afaik in the installation
<6> it should list itself as "compatible" at best
<2> well it isn't
<6> it isn't what?
<6> Compatible?
<2> compatible
<6> well, for varying definitions of "compatible" it is
<2> lol
<5> the jvm is - the cl***library however
<2> yes well 1.1 is somewhat compatible to 1.4 too
<5> kmh, 1.1 doesn't pretend to be able to run 1.4 stuff thou
<2> talios : exactly
<2> talios : so there you are aware from the start
<6> what's the conversation about, exactly
<2> the (dis)pleasure of gcj
<6> ah, not much to argue about there
<6> although I'm very interested in seeing RH's future plans
<5> started about the redhat/jboss thing - I was saying if redhat licenced suns jvm for an out-of-the-box 'decent java' experience I'd probably switch back.
<2> and that it poses as java 1.4 on various linux distributions
<5> doesn't Fedora5 include geronimo?
<6> talios: well, it won't soon!
<5> heh
<6> I think it had jonas, although it might have switched
<5> it did, then the final 5 has geronimo afaik
<2> so it has jonas running on gcj ?
<5> Red Hat Application Server is still Jonas based thou
<5> kmh, jonas, tomcat, geronino, eclipse, rssowl, azureus out of the box afaik
<5> all on gcj
<2> talios : sounds scary
<5> but they've all been tweaked to hell to actually work
<2> talios : haha i bet
<6> well, buying jboss will change their strategy, in all likelihood
<5> "New NativePages Technology" :)
<6> and yes, the formal term is "merged" but let's be real, they bought jboss
<4> I know tomcat and azureus atleast build with gcj. if they run that way or not I can't say, since I don't use them
<4> err, rather I mean I don't use gcj to run them
<2> so tomcat is not using 1.5 stuff ?
<2> or has gcj incorporated that now ?
<0> tomcat doesnt compile with 1.5
<2> really ? geez
<5> they were going to use the ecj compiler in gcj as well, but political bickering foiled that plan
<5> kmh, tomcat 5.5.x might thou
<5> i think 5.5 is the 1.5 only version
<6> fleury: "which way does the wind blow? WELL THAT'S BLOODY WELL HOW I FEEL!"
<6> "... AND HOW I ALWAYS FELT, except when the wind blew a different direction"
<2> talios : actually i thought i read/saw a tomcat based on 1.5
<6> tomcat pretty much requires 1.5 now :)
<5> they've probably bastardized it with retroweaver ;p
<2> so 1.5 with gcj ? or what now ?:)
<5> gcj doesn't do 1.5 stuff afaik
<6> kmh: no, tomcat 5.5.x requires some 1.5-isms. It can run with 1.4, as long as you provide a set of libraries for it.
<2> jottinger : ok but that means it usually is not based on gcj
<6> kmh: indeedily so
<2> ok
<6> I think it's funny that Marc - who's posted anti-RH stuff in the past - got bought by RH
<8> which one do you thnik is better for developing java applications, JBuilder, JDeveloper or some other one
<9> hey there!
Return to
#java
or
Go to some related
logs:
neosisani
vurnabilities linux
crack coldzero
#linux
gentoo logitech Media keyboard elite
googledeskop
MartYanu
#linux
#windows
#mirc
|
|