I prefer closed-source development. But then I also would prefer it being something people had to pay for, because then it’d have a budget and people who actually got paid to make it good, and so on. And then I’d also like it so they opened the source for perusal, if not necessarily allowing any old internet person to actually commit changes or patches.
Cas 
hmm … if only that translated into quality. I’m pretty biased these days having switched over to working with open-source software exclusively in my work, but one of the reasons that made me switch is I simply got fed up of paying for crap that didn’t work properly. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of great commercial software out there - there’s also a lot that isn’t worth the paper its warranty ain’t written on. There’s a lot of stuff that doesn’t work properly on Linux too, but at least I don’t feel ripped off when it doesn’t work.
A lot of the best open-source software also does have a budget and people paid to make it good - there are different ways of monetizing your work.
I can’t think of any (successful ) open-source project that works like that!
Generally, I find closed-source software to be better made then open-source, so I agree with Cas here too. The best nvidia drivers on Linux are easily the closed source ones, and you can compare .NET to Mono, or a few years ago the then closed-source Java to the open-source alternatives of the time. Today the Oracle JDK is much more commercially backed then OpenJDK, and the difference shows.
Er … I don’t entirely disagree with your first sentence, but your examples are rubbish! Of course the closed-source nvidia drivers are better - the hardware is closed and has to be reverse engineered. If you look at AMD/ATI where the specs have been released then it’s becoming a different story (which wouldn’t be hard!). Both Mono and early open-source Java alternatives were playing catch up with existing products so of course were behind - and don’t forget that Harmony led to Android which is a huge step beyond JavaME! And as for Oracle JDK <> OpenJDK, a lot of the commercial backing is now going into OpenJDK, the code is practically identical, OpenJDK is now the reference implementation for Java, and quite a chunk of the interesting stuff in Java 7 came through the OpenJDK process.
I could fly back a load of examples that could prove either side of this argument, but it’s pointless because (I say again) my real issue here is the prospect of a two-tier Java ecosystem which doesn’t benefit anyone, whether they’re more of a fan of open or closed development. I want to see this stuff in the core JDK, and the only way that’s going to happen is if it’s license compatible.
Javafx2 is the bee’s knees
http://www.prime.programming-designs.com/galaxy/Galaxy.html
Can I get some feedback on how awesome this is?
Failed to run:
[quote]MissingFieldException[ The following required field is missing from the launch file: (|||)]
at com.sun.javaws.jnl.XMLFormat.parse(Unknown Source)
at com.sun.javaws.jnl.LaunchDescFactory.buildDescriptor(Unknown Source)
at com.sun.javaws.jnl.LaunchDescFactory.buildDescriptor(Unknown Source)
at com.sun.javaws.jnl.LaunchDescFactory.buildDescriptor(Unknown Source)
at com.sun.javaws.Main.launchApp(Unknown Source)
at com.sun.javaws.Main.continueInSecureThread(Unknown Source)
at com.sun.javaws.Main$1.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
[/quote]
Was that the applet? or the jnlp you tried to run?
edit: you have javafx 2.0 installed right?
I ran using Webstart, and no I don’t have JavaFX installed. I presumed you had linked to it in the JNLP. If you can do that, then you might want to do the same with the applet, as you can use JNLP files with applets too.
Also it says:
[quote]JavaFX 2.0 is required to view this content but JavaFX
[/quote]
Should that be ‘not’?
Couldn’t get it to work on any browser using any link at all. Gave up. This is typical of the Java experience.
Cas
I was thinking the same thing.
I wish they’d just steal whatever it is Flash does and use that.
Cas
For one they never (intentionally) show the end user that Flash has crashed, no visible stacktraces, no error messages, just silent failure. Thus avoiding attention being drawn towards it as a technology that is unstable which something Java has picked up with all its history of locking up systems and crashing browsers.
Second they have a really smooth, consistent and painless (almost one click) update mechanism, unlike java for example where you must run a full heavyweight installer, run the risk of installing bundled adware, see ads for other Oracle products, have it take over 5 minutes to complete, etc.
Flash also just works and doesn’t spend time alerting end-users that its a plugin. Java on the other hand has a massive Java logo when starting any applet (hey end-user look Java is starting, if anything goes wrong you’ll know where to vent your frustration), multiple system tray icons appearing (why are they needed anyway?), etc (They even did the same thing for Java Apps running on mobiles). Why is so much advertising needed for Java to people already using it? they don’t need to know or care what their content is using.
and the start up time, don’t forget that!
But even Flash’s updater is dead simple and really pretty. It’s stuff like that which helps to make it look like a good platform.
Embedded applet just keeps loading something, but webstart link started an application in 20 seconds. System was Win7-64bit, Firefox5.0-32bit, javafx-2_0-beta-b37-windows-i586-19_jul_2011.exe. About the application itself…well…I saw the starfield, you(?) blabbing, heard Linkin Park = Total Awesome Experience. We the people want to see the source code.
The applet takes some time to load. Just have faith :3
updated. Now you have a player, and you can shoot the enemy’s Options.
Can’t die or kill boss yet though.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28109593/bulletseverywhere.png
http://www.prime.programming-designs.com/galaxy/Galaxy.html
Yes now applet was fine. My laptop Core i5 430M 2.27GHz/Mobility Radeon HD5650 1GB RAM runs it fine java.exe cpu only 10-12% load. About the video clip at the start is it .flv flash video?
Yeah, has to be .flv with VP6 video and MP3 audio.
[quote]JavaFX 2.0 is required to view this content but JavaFX is currently unsupported on this platform.
[/quote]
[quote=“JL235,post:95,topic:36299”]
Its updater/installer is very buggy. The weight of the updater/installer is about 3 MB but it download more than 10 MB of data. Even on Windows, the last time I had to install Flash, I had problems, I had to try to do it several times to make it work.
