Netbeans failure mode
secret decoder ring
only fix seems to be to close and reopen Netbeans, which takes ages.
The UI starts freezing every few characters typed or other actions
taken, and Task Manager shows it saturating a core for ten to thirty
seconds each time.
Looks like a long computation is being done on (or where it blocks) the
EDT, which is obviously bad.
NB is always very slow if the Start page is visible, in addition to the
above starts-freezing-syndrome.
GArlington
wrote:
Check your IDE version and JVM version...
Mark Space
NetBeans 6.5 takes about 50 seconds to start on my laptop, until I get a
regularly blinking cursor. It takes about 30 seconds more for the hard
drive to settle down. I notice that a fair amount of that time was
"scanning projects" so if you have many projects open, try closing as
many as possible. Also, there's a check box to hide the start page on
the start page itself.
I've also noticed that if I leave NetBeans minimized for a very long
time it can take as long or longer to fault back into memory. This I
blame on the OS, not NB.
I've got a 2 gigabyte laptop with a dual-core running at 2.1 GHz and a
reasonably fast (7200RPM) hard drive. What are your times for NB start
up and what's your hardware? What about OS, JVM & JDK versions? NB
version? Also, the start page accesses the Internet to get some info
from the web site? Is your network slow? What does 'tracert
netbeans.org' show?
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> I've seen this a few times and it's annoying when it happens, since
>> the only fix seems to be to close and reopen Netbeans, which takes ages.
>>
>> The UI starts freezing every few characters typed or other actions
>> taken, and Task Manager shows it saturating a core for ten to thirty
>> seconds each time.
>>
>> Looks like a long computation is being done on (or where it blocks)
>> the EDT, which is obviously bad.
>>
>> NB is always very slow if the Start page is visible, in addition to
>> the above starts-freezing-syndrome.
>
> NetBeans 6.5
What? I have
Product Version: NetBeans IDE 6.1 (Build 200805300101)
Java: 1.6.0_10-beta; Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM 11.0-b12
System: Windows XP version 5.1 running on x86; Cp1252; en_US (nb)
and I just ran its "check for updates" feature. It said everything was
up to date.
In other words, it said there is no NetBeans 6.5.
> I've got a 2 gigabyte laptop with a dual-core running at 2.1 GHz and a
> reasonably fast (7200RPM) hard drive. What are your times for NB start
> up and what's your hardware?
Slower startup, same hardware except only 1GB RAM.
Whatever you have that is calling itself "NetBeans 6.5", though, might
be or do almost anything differently from NetBeans 6.1. Or the RAM makes
the difference (though I don't see how, since it is fairly slow even
with only 4-500MB in use as reported by Task Manager).
> Also, the start page accesses the Internet to get some info
> from the web site? Is your network slow?
The start page being visible makes the whole UI sluggish and jerky. I
don't think my network is particularly slow, but even if that's it, it
would mean that when the start page is visible NB frequently does some
blocking I/O in the EDT, which is bad, bad, bad to the bone.
Lew
> What? I have
>
> Product Version: NetBeans IDE 6.1 (Build 200805300101)
> Java: 1.6.0_10-beta; Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM 11.0-b12
> System: Windows XP version 5.1 running on x86; Cp1252; en_US (nb)
>
> and I just ran its "check for updates" feature. It said everything was
> up to date.
>
> In other words, it said there is no NetBeans 6.5.
It said no such thing. What it actually said was that your NB 6.1 is up to date.
Mark Space
>> I've got a 2 gigabyte laptop with a dual-core running at 2.1 GHz and a
>> reasonably fast (7200RPM) hard drive. What are your times for NB
>> start up and what's your hardware?
secret decoder ring wrote:
> Slower startup, same hardware except only 1GB RAM.
He said "what are your times?" You haven't answered that question.
> Whatever you have that is calling itself "NetBeans 6.5", though, might
It is NetBeans 6.5. No need to be snide about it.
Regardless, I've been using NetBeans since well before 6.1 and do not observe
the behavior you describe with NB 6.1 either.
> be or do almost anything differently from NetBeans 6.1. Or the RAM makes
Not "almost anything", since 6.5 is an evolution from 6.1, Still, it could be
that 6.5 lacks some bug that 6.1 had, except that what you observe is not what
everyone observes, so it is more likely something specific to your setup.
> The start page being visible makes the whole UI sluggish and jerky. I
Not observed here, that phenomenon. I've not seen that either with NB 6.1 on
Linux or Windows.
> don't think my network is particularly slow, but even if that's it, it
> would mean that when the start page is visible NB frequently does some
> blocking I/O in the EDT, which is bad, bad, bad to the bone.
Actually, it's extremely unlikely that it misuses the EDT that way, given the
Java expertise involved in its development. More likely it is something about
swap in your OS or GC. You haven't answered Mark Space's question about your
OS, but I would also look into your swap space allocation, the -Xmx paramater
in your netbeans.conf, and what other apps are running at the same time.
Having less RAM than Mark Space's configuration, you could be seeing a swap
artifact. I have two machines running NB, one Windows, one Linux, both with 1
GB RAM, and I do not observe the phenomena you describe, neither now under NB
6.5 nor formerly with 6.1.
Like Mark Space, I observe slow startup times for NB generally, an attribute
it shares with Eclipse BTW, while it does its self-assembly and project-scan
things. I do not see the UI freeze after that.
I would look into your netbeans.conf. You might wish to allocate a wee bit
more -Xmx to NB, and perhaps tweak the GC parameters.
--
Lew
Lew
> You haven't answered Mark Space's question about your OS
Er, I mean you *have* answered that question.
--
Lew
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> What? I have
>>
>> Product Version: NetBeans IDE 6.1 (Build 200805300101)
>> Java: 1.6.0_10-beta; Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM 11.0-b12
>> System: Windows XP version 5.1 running on x86; Cp1252; en_US (nb)
>>
>> and I just ran its "check for updates" feature. It said everything was
>> up to date.
>>
>> In other words, it said there is no NetBeans 6.5.
>
> It said no such thing. What it actually said was that your NB 6.1 is up
> to date.
Which implies that there is no NetBeans 6.5, or any other number higher
than 6.1.
I suppose you are technically correct that it did not explicitly *say*
that, but it is a strong implication. "6.1 is the latest version" makes
it very unlikely that there is a 6.5, since it is very uncommon (if it's
ever happened at all) for an older version of something to have a higher
number than a newer version.
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> Slower startup, same hardware except only 1GB RAM.
>
> He said "what are your times?" You haven't answered that question.
That's because I don't have an exact number. I'd have to shut down NB,
dig up a stopwatch, and start it up again, and I can't be bothered to do
that at the drop of a proverbial hat.
I DID give an estimate, however, despite your implication above that I
didn't.
>> Whatever you have that is calling itself "NetBeans 6.5", though, might
>
> It is NetBeans 6.5. No need to be snide about it.
I am not being snide about anything. I am simply pointing out that
whatever it is, it is NOT NetBeans 6.1 and consequently might behave
differently from NetBeans 6.1.
> Regardless, I've been using NetBeans since well before 6.1 and do not
> observe the behavior you describe with NB 6.1 either.
CPU and RAM? JVM?
> Not "almost anything", since 6.5 is an evolution from 6.1
That statement is in direct contradiction with my copy of NB 6.1
self-reporting as being the most recent NetBeans, presumably based on
data it retrieved from the NB Web site that can reasonably be
characterized as having come from the proverbial horse's mouth.
Of course, it could be the case that your statement is correct and my
copy of NB 6.1 is in error (somehow failing to detect the existence of a
more up to date version), rather than the other way around.
> Still, it could be that 6.5 lacks some bug that 6.1 had, except that
> what you observe is not what everyone observes, so it is more likely
> something specific to your setup.
The problem with that hypothesis being that my setup is "nothing to
write home about". There is nothing exceptional, weird, strange, or very
far from the norm about it.
>> The start page being visible makes the whole UI sluggish and jerky. I
>
> Not observed here, that phenomenon. I've not seen that either with NB
> 6.1 on Linux or Windows.
That is very odd, in light of the above.
>> don't think my network is particularly slow, but even if that's it, it
>> would mean that when the start page is visible NB frequently does some
>> blocking I/O in the EDT, which is bad, bad, bad to the bone.
>
> Actually, it's extremely unlikely that it misuses the EDT that way,
> given the Java expertise involved in its development.
Then the behavior observed stems from another cause, unrelated to my
network's speed, as I suspected all along.
> More likely it is something about swap in your OS or GC.
Doubtful, since I see the slow-when-start-page-displayed behavior even
when the system's memory in use is smaller than the total physical
memory available, and separately since it is not a transient state that
goes away after a short time (as it would when something was finished
being swapped in) but persists for as long as the start page is visible.
> You haven't answered Mark Space's question about your OS
I most certainly have.
> but I would also look into your swap space allocation
2GB; and irrelevant (see above)
> the -Xmx paramater in your netbeans.conf
Haven't touched this file, so this should still be the default, and so
if this were the cause it would affect most copies of NB 6.1. Apparently
most copies are unaffected, which points to the problem being elsewhere.
> and what other apps are running at the same time. Having less RAM than
> Mark Space's configuration, you could be seeing a swap artifact.
When NB has been foregrounded and in use for an hour plus and the
system's total memory consumption at the time is only around 700MB out
of a physical 1024?
> Like Mark Space, I observe slow startup times for NB generally, an
> attribute it shares with Eclipse BTW, while it does its self-assembly
> and project-scan things. I do not see the UI freeze after that.
The slow startup time is not a primary complaint of mine. But it makes
problems that force the user to restart NB to be onerous enough for this
reason that I think suggesting people just resign themselves to
occasionally restarting NB is "not good enough".
> I would look into your netbeans.conf.
Why? It is not possible that I've munged this file, for the simple
reason that I've not edited it. (Indeed, didn't know it existed until
this post.) (I assume making some changes in NB's options dialogs might
indirectly alter that file, but those dialogs should trap any attempt to
enter unreasonable values, and I can't recall messing with anything to
do with its memory use or related behaviors.)
> You might wish to allocate a wee bit more -Xmx to NB
I doubt it. When it was doing its CPU-saturating-hang thing I noticed
the process size was upwards of 200 megs. I infer that the -Xmx is 256M
or more, which "ought to be enough", at least for the time being.
> and perhaps tweak the GC parameters.
I definitely didn't make any changes to these, so in particular didn't
make any that might have been ill-advised and that therefore ought to be
changed back.
Since my copy's GC parameters are still the factory defaults, if those
GC parameters were the problem, a large proportion of all NB 6.1
installs would be similarly affected, which you claim is not the case.
Mike Schilling
> Lew wrote:
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>>
>>> In other words, it said there is no NetBeans 6.5.
>>
>> It said no such thing. What it actually said was that your NB 6.1
>> is up to date.
>
> Which implies that there is no NetBeans 6.5, or any other number
> higher than 6.1.
Admirable logic. A shame that
http://www.netbeans.org/downloads/index.html contradicts this by
offering to download NetBeans 6.5.
Harold "Curly" Phillips
news:ggqjg3$fni$1...@aioe.org...
> Lew wrote:
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>> I have
>>> Product Version: NetBeans IDE 6.1 (Build 200805300101)
>>>
>>> up to date.
>>>
>>> In other words, it said there is no NetBeans 6.5.
>>
>> It said no such thing. What it actually said was that your NB 6.1 is up
>> to date.
>
> Which implies that there is no NetBeans 6.5, or any other number higher
> than 6.1.
>
http://www.netbeans.org/ prominently says "Netbeans IDE 6.5 Just Released".
Surely, only Paul Derbyshire could be so ignorant, inept, irrational and
argumentative?
Arved Sandstrom
news:ggqhs0$486$1...@news.albasani.net...
> secret decoder ring wrote:
[ SNIP ]
> Actually, it's extremely unlikely that it misuses the EDT that way, given
> the Java expertise involved in its development. More likely it is
> something about swap in your OS or GC. You haven't answered Mark Space's
> question about your OS, but I would also look into your swap space
> allocation, the -Xmx paramater in your netbeans.conf, and what other apps
> are running at the same time. Having less RAM than Mark Space's
> configuration, you could be seeing a swap artifact. I have two machines
> running NB, one Windows, one Linux, both with 1 GB RAM, and I do not
> observe the phenomena you describe, neither now under NB 6.5 nor formerly
> with 6.1.
>
> Like Mark Space, I observe slow startup times for NB generally, an
> attribute it shares with Eclipse BTW, while it does its self-assembly and
> project-scan things. I do not see the UI freeze after that.
>
> I would look into your netbeans.conf. You might wish to allocate a wee
> bit more -Xmx to NB, and perhaps tweak the GC parameters.
>
> --
> Lew
The above would also be my first angle of investigation. For starters, the
default memory settings for NetBeans and Eclipse both are inadequate...-Xms
is 40m default for Eclipse 3.4, and IIRC I think NB 6.1 -Xms is 32m. As you
say, -Xmx can also be bumped.
Also as you point out, there are other services and apps running. If you're
developing J2EE, you'll have (potentially) NetBeans or Eclipse, your J2EE
server (Glassfish, JBoss, oc4j, whatever), your DBMS (PostgreSQL, MySQL
etc), one or more web browsers (no slouches in the memory dept either), and
assorted other apps, not to mention whatever else the OS has claimed.
I myself upgraded my aging machine (a Dell Dimension 3100) to 2 GB (as much
as it'll take), and I've jacked up Xms/mx and the GC settings ...makes a
huge difference. Startup time hasn't necessarily dropped much - the IDEs
gotta do what they gotta do, and it's not like my CPU got faster or disk
access time decreased - but once running there is a substantial difference.
Not that I normally do it this way, but just for giggles I started up a
normal Windows dev environment - Visual Web Developer Express 2008, SQL
Server Express 2008, SQL Management Studio 2008, Notepad++, and two
browsers, then I fired up the ASP.NET MVC app I'm currently working on in
debugging mode...and then I launched NB 6.1. Took about 45 seconds until I
was able to actually start opening Java and XHTML source files and doing
work...not so bad. Responsive afterwards.
These days I myself would recommend a minimum of 2 GB of RAM for a dev box,
but the current norm in the workplace seems to be more like 4 GB. I wouldn't
expect anything less from a computer provided by an employer, and in fact 4
gigs is what i have on my work laptop.
Of course, you have what you have. Running System Monitor (on Windows) for a
while, and then adjusting swap size, is (as you suggest) also a good idea.
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>> What? I have
>>>
>>> Product Version: NetBeans IDE 6.1 (Build 200805300101)
>>> Java: 1.6.0_10-beta; Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM 11.0-b12
>>> System: Windows XP version 5.1 running on x86; Cp1252; en_US (nb)
>>>
>>> and I just ran its "check for updates" feature. It said everything was
>>> up to date.
>>>
>>> In other words, it said there is no NetBeans 6.5.
>>
>> It said no such thing. What it actually said was that your NB 6.1 is up
>> to date.
>
> Which implies that there is no NetBeans 6.5, or any other number higher
> than 6.1.
And when you're doing Windows Updates on your WinXP installation, does it
upgrade you to Vista?
AHS
secret decoder ring
That would merely indicate that NB 6.1's claim to be the most up-to-date
version was incorrect. NB 6.1 did indeed indicate that there was no NB
6.5, as I said; it just was inaccurate in making that indication.
An interesting question would be "why?".
secret decoder ring
> "secret decoder ring" <sdr...@foomail.bar.com> wrote in message
> news:ggqjg3$fni$1...@aioe.org...
>> Lew wrote:
>>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>>> I have
>>>> Product Version: NetBeans IDE 6.1 (Build 200805300101)
>>>>
>>>> and I just ran its "check for updates" feature. It said everything
>>>> was up to date.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, it said there is no NetBeans 6.5.
>>>
>>> It said no such thing. What it actually said was that your NB 6.1 is
>>> up to date.
>>
>> Which implies that there is no NetBeans 6.5, or any other number
>> higher than 6.1.
>>
>
> http://www.netbeans.org/ prominently says "Netbeans IDE 6.5 Just Released".
Which implies that NB 6.1's assessment of itself as fully up-to-date was
erroneous.
> Surely, only Paul Derbyshire could be so ignorant, inept, irrational and
> argumentative?
I don't get this. Why are you verbally attacking someone I've never
heard of in the middle of a discussion about NetBeans? It looks irrelevant.
secret decoder ring
What are you talking about? You have to pay to upgrade to Vista, so
obviously Windows Update can't do it automatically. You don't, on the
other hand, have to pay to upgrade to NB 6.5.
Furthermore, Windows Update can certainly download XP SP3 and install it
(although I've blocked mine from doing so, because I've heard many bad
things about SP3 and few good things), and the jump from NB 6.1 to NB
6.5 seems more like the equivalent of a service pack upgrade to me.
The jump from NB 6.1 to, say, a future NB 7.0 might be more akin to
going from XP to Vista. (Actually, probably closer to the not-as-major
change from Win95 to Win98, or perhaps that from Win95 to WinME.)
And even that is not a problem for the auto-updater when the new version
is free.
And even if for some reason it was deemed undesirable for it to
*automatically download and install* a major-version increase, it
certainly is still ridiculous for it to claim to actually be the most
current version when it is not. It should certainly *notify* the user
that a newer version exists, even if perhaps without being able to
download and install it without the user's prompting.
For a minor-version increase, the above goes double.
Arne Vajhøj
NB is correct - assuming that all the modules are at latest.
NB is not a module at version 6.1. NB 6.1 is a module at a given
version (I believe version 1.1.1 is current).
There are good reasons not to allow an IDE to upgrade itself
to a new major version.
Arne
Mike Schilling
Not if it knows what's good for it.
Lew
>
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>> In other words, it said there is no NetBeans 6.5.
Lew wrote:
>> It said no such thing. What it actually said was that your NB 6.1 is
>> up to date.
secret decoder ring wrote:
> Which implies that there is no NetBeans 6.5, or any other number higher
> than 6.1.
No, it doesn't. Up-to-dateness checks for a specific version do not imply
anything about the existence or non-existence of a later version.
> I suppose you are technically correct that it did not explicitly *say*
> that, but it is a strong implication. "6.1 is the latest version" makes
It doesn't say "6.1 is the latest version". It says, "Your 6.1 version is up
to date".
> it very unlikely that there is a 6.5, since it is very uncommon (if it's
And yet, there is a 6.5 version of NetBeans. Doesn't that hint that your
analysis needs enhancement?
Lew wrote:
>> He said "what are your times?" You haven't answered that question.
secret decoder ring wrote:
> That's because I don't have an exact number. I'd have to shut down NB,
> dig up a stopwatch, and start it up again, and I can't be bothered to do
> that at the drop of a proverbial hat.
But you are investigating a specific problem that is hurting you, that's
exactly what you need to do. That's just common sense.
> I DID give an estimate, however, despite your implication above that I
> didn't.
I must have missed it. What was that estimate again?
secret decoder ring wrote:
> I am not being snide about anything. I am simply pointing out that
> whatever it is, it is NOT NetBeans 6.1 and consequently might behave
> differently from NetBeans 6.1.
Agreed, but not, as it happens, with respect to your described behaviors, at
least not in my experience.
> That statement is in direct contradiction with my copy of NB 6.1
> self-reporting as being the most recent NetBeans, presumably based on
Which it doesn't do. NetBeans 6.5 is the most recent version.
> data it retrieved from the NB Web site that can reasonably be
> characterized as having come from the proverbial horse's mouth.
And yet NetBeans 6.5 is the most recent version. That's easily verifiable.
> Of course, it could be the case that your statement is correct and my
> copy of NB 6.1 is in error (somehow failing to detect the existence of a
> more up to date version), rather than the other way around.
Depends on how you define "error". It happens that NB 6.5 is the most recent
version of NB, and, from your evidence, that version 6.1 doesn't report that.
Maybe, like many, many other software products, versions only report
up-to-dateness in their own context and not that of some later version when it
comes out.
Lew said:
>> Not observed here, that phenomenon. I've not seen that either with NB
>> 6.1 on Linux or Windows.
secret decoder ring wrote:
> That is very odd, in light of the above.
It just means that you have to investigate what's different between the
setups. I suggest you examine netbeans.conf.
Lew:
>> Actually, it's extremely unlikely that it misuses the EDT that way,
>> given the Java expertise involved in its development.
secret decoder ring wrote:
> Then the behavior observed stems from another cause, unrelated to my
> network's speed, as I suspected all along.
Seems likely.
>> More likely it is something about swap in your OS or GC.
> Doubtful, since I see the slow-when-start-page-displayed behavior even
> when the system's memory in use is smaller than the total physical
> memory available, and separately since it is not a transient state that
> goes away after a short time (as it would when something was finished
> being swapped in) but persists for as long as the start page is visible.
>> You haven't answered Mark Space's question about your OS
> I most certainly have.
I corrected that typo before you responded.
>> but I would also look into your swap space allocation
>
> 2GB; and irrelevant (see above)
>
>> the -Xmx paramater in your netbeans.conf
>
> Haven't touched this file, so this should still be the default, and so
> if this were the cause it would affect most copies of NB 6.1. Apparently
> most copies are unaffected, which points to the problem being elsewhere.
It is a mystery.
>> and what other apps are running at the same time. Having less RAM than
>> Mark Space's configuration, you could be seeing a swap artifact.
>
> When NB has been foregrounded and in use for an hour plus and the
> system's total memory consumption at the time is only around 700MB out
> of a physical 1024?
Yes, that militates against that hypothesis.
> The slow startup time is not a primary complaint of mine. But it makes
> problems that force the user to restart NB to be onerous enough for this
> reason that I think suggesting people just resign themselves to
> occasionally restarting NB is "not good enough".
Who made that suggestion? Not I.
>> I would look into your netbeans.conf.
> Why? It is not possible that I've munged this file, for the simple
It's not a question of you "munging" the file, but of it perhaps not being
optimal out of the box.
> reason that I've not edited it. (Indeed, didn't know it existed until
> this post.) (I assume making some changes in NB's options dialogs might
> indirectly alter that file, but those dialogs should trap any attempt to
> enter unreasonable values, and I can't recall messing with anything to
> do with its memory use or related behaviors.)
>
>> You might wish to allocate a wee bit more -Xmx to NB
>
> I doubt it. When it was doing its CPU-saturating-hang thing I noticed
> the process size was upwards of 200 megs. I infer that the -Xmx is 256M
> or more, which "ought to be enough", at least for the time being.
The process size is not a reliable indicator of maximum heap, quite the
contrary. It actually indicates that -Xmx is far below 200 MB. Process size
includes class space, the JVM itself and a host of non-heap allocations.
> Since my copy's GC parameters are still the factory defaults, if those
> GC parameters were the problem, a large proportion of all NB 6.1
> installs would be similarly affected, which you claim is not the case.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Or perhaps more people who use NB are modifying
netbeans.conf than you think.
In any event, empirical evidence is best. If you adjust the configuration and
the problem goes away, Bob's your uncle.
--
Lew
Lew
> ... the jump from NB 6.1 to NB
> 6.5 seems more like the equivalent of a service pack upgrade to me.
Maybe it seems that way to you, but what counts is how it seems to the folks
over at netbeans.org.
--
Lew
Lew
> And even if for some reason it was deemed undesirable for it to
> *automatically download and install* a major-version increase, it
> certainly is still ridiculous for it to claim to actually be the most
> current version when it is not. It should certainly *notify* the user
> that a newer version exists, even if perhaps without being able to
> download and install it without the user's prompting.
That notification is given. You mentioned that you have certain behaviors
with the start page visible in NetBeans. If you look at that start page, you
will see a headline that reads, "NetBeans IDE 6.5 Now Available for Download".
That's one of the reasons why NB provides a start page, to give such notification.
--
Lew
Arved Sandstrom
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
[ SNIP ]
>> And when you're doing Windows Updates on your WinXP installation, does it
>> upgrade you to Vista?
>
> What are you talking about? You have to pay to upgrade to Vista, so
> obviously Windows Update can't do it automatically. You don't, on the
> other hand, have to pay to upgrade to NB 6.5.
>
> Furthermore, Windows Update can certainly download XP SP3 and install it
> (although I've blocked mine from doing so, because I've heard many bad
> things about SP3 and few good things), and the jump from NB 6.1 to NB 6.5
> seems more like the equivalent of a service pack upgrade to me.
>
> The jump from NB 6.1 to, say, a future NB 7.0 might be more akin to going
> from XP to Vista. (Actually, probably closer to the not-as-major change
> from Win95 to Win98, or perhaps that from Win95 to WinME.)
>
> And even that is not a problem for the auto-updater when the new version
> is free.
>
> And even if for some reason it was deemed undesirable for it to
> *automatically download and install* a major-version increase, it
> certainly is still ridiculous for it to claim to actually be the most
> current version when it is not. It should certainly *notify* the user that
> a newer version exists, even if perhaps without being able to download and
> install it without the user's prompting.
>
> For a minor-version increase, the above goes double.
Thing is, when you see a x.y or x.y.z version numbering scheme, you can't
assume that x=major, y=minor, and z=maintenance, or anything else. NetBeans
calls NB 6.5 a "significant update" to NB 6.1, and some people would not
call that a minor version increase. As another example, when JDKs were being
numbered 1.x, an increase in 'x' most certainly was a major release, not a
minor one.
I don't know exactly what the 'y' in NetBeans x.y versioning is...all I know
is that it signifies enough of a change and enough incompatibilities that
the project requires people to do a complete new install. That's all I need
to know.
I still have NB 6.1 - I won't be upgrading for a while. I just tried another
"Check for Updates", and that reported simply that my IDE was up to date,
and that there were no updates available. That is completely different from
claiming that my version of NetBeans is the latest one out there. It just
says that there are no updates available for NB 6.1 that I don't already
have (for my installed stuff). By definition, there are no updates to get
you from NB 6.1 to NB 6.5.
And as others pointed out, the Start Page for 6.1 is crawling with mentions
of 6.5.
AHS
Gilbert
> paramater in your netbeans.conf, and what other apps are running at the
> same time.
I notice that in my netbeans.conf for Netbeans 6.5 it says that the -Xmx
parameter is automatically calculated. Is this generally sufficient or
should I be looking to manually override it. (Currently calculates Xmx as
125M on a 640M machine)
Lew
>> but I would also look into your swap space allocation, the -Xmx
>> paramater in your netbeans.conf, and what other apps are running at the
>> same time.
Gilbert wrote:
> I notice that in my netbeans.conf for Netbeans 6.5 it says that the -Xmx
> parameter is automatically calculated. Is this generally sufficient or
> should I be looking to manually override it. (Currently calculates Xmx as
"mx" - "-X" is just the indicator that it's an advanced parameter.
> 125M on a 640M machine)
You should look into it, but you might not need to override that. Is the
amount allocated sufficient on your machine?
It also depends on what else you're running, e.g., whether you have NB kick
off servers, where the database is running, etc.
How is it that you have 640MB of RAM? RAM sticks are almost always installed
in pairs, and the smallest for modern machines AFAIK are 128 MB. You should
consider 1 GB as minimal for a development machine; 2GB or more is far better.
--
Lew
Arne Vajhøj
> Gilbert wrote:
>> I notice that in my netbeans.conf for Netbeans 6.5 it says that the -Xmx
>> parameter is automatically calculated. Is this generally sufficient or
>> should I be looking to manually override it. (Currently calculates Xmx as
>
> "mx" - "-X" is just the indicator that it's an advanced parameter.
SUN uses the term "the -Xmx command-line option"
(http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/vm/gc-ergonomics.html)
so I think Gilbert can use "the -Xmx parameter".
>> 125M on a 640M machine)
>
> You should look into it, but you might not need to override that. Is
> the amount allocated sufficient on your machine?
>
> It also depends on what else you're running, e.g., whether you have NB
> kick off servers, where the database is running, etc.
Most servers and database would run in its own process and not
be relevant for -Xmx.
> How is it that you have 640MB of RAM? RAM sticks are almost always
> installed in pairs, and the smallest for modern machines AFAIK are 128
> MB.
256+256+64+64 would be possible for a not quite modern system.
> You should consider 1 GB as minimal for a development machine; 2GB
> or more is far better.
Some apps are extremely memory hungry. Like JSR 168 compliant portals
with a bunch of portlets installed.
Arne
Lew
> Lew wrote:
>> Gilbert wrote:
>>> I notice that in my netbeans.conf for Netbeans 6.5 it says that the -Xmx
>>> parameter is automatically calculated. Is this generally sufficient or
>>> should I be looking to manually override it. (Currently calculates
>>> Xmx as
>>
>> "mx" - "-X" is just the indicator that it's an advanced parameter.
>
> SUN uses the term "the -Xmx command-line option"
> (http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/vm/gc-ergonomics.html)
> so I think Gilbert can use "the -Xmx parameter".
Point taken. So the correction should have read "-Xmx".
--
Lew
Arne Vajhøj
I am not really an expert on NetBeans - I prefer Eclipse.
But my understanding of NetBeans versions is:
app moves typical n.0 -> n.5 -> n+1.0 -> n+1.5 ...
occasionally it happen that n.0 -> n.1 or n.5 -> n.6
and n.m -> n.m.1
the modules/plugins inside NetBeans uses a variety of
a.b and x.y.z version numbers
updates are updates to the modules/plugins
Arne
Lew
> updates are updates to the modules/plugins
I surmise that this is the thing that misled "secret decoder ring", that the
assertion that everything was up to date did not refer to NB itself.
Regardless, and we can speculate 'til the cows come home or ask the NB guys
themselves, the fact is that there is a NetBeans 6.5 and that the 6.1 updater
does not hint that one should update to NB 6.5.
A review of the netbeans.org pages on the upgrade reveals many significant
changes between versions 6.1 and 6.5.
Given that there is no universal standard for version numbering, it is
dangerous to impose one's own on a product that one does not control. It is
even more dangerous to reject the vendor's scheme because it doesn't match
one's æsthetic. It is better, in the case of NetBeans, to notice the
announcement provided by the start page in the product itself, to visit their
web site periodically, or to subscribe to their email notifications, or even
do all three. The start page often points to useful articles, their web site
continues to provide interesting new articles, tutorials, white papers and
other information, and the newsletter usefully alerts one to the goings on of
NetBeans.
Failure to stay informed is not excused by blaming NetBeans when they are so
forthcoming with opportunities to stay abreast.
--
Lew
Arne Vajhøj
> Failure to stay informed is not excused by blaming NetBeans when they
> are so forthcoming with opportunities to stay abreast.
I completely agree.
Arne
Nigel Wade
>
> I don't get this. Why are you verbally attacking someone I've never
> heard of in the middle of a discussion about NetBeans? It looks irrelevant.
Perhaps because you are posting from his machine?
--
Nigel Wade
Gilbert
> How is it that you have 640MB of RAM? RAM sticks are almost always
> installed
> in pairs, and the smallest for modern machines AFAIK are 128 MB. You
> should consider 1 GB as minimal for a development machine; 2GB or more is
> far better.
>
128Mb. Mind you, in it's day it was a screamer :-)
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>>> Lew wrote:
>>>>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>>>>> In other words, it said there is no NetBeans 6.5.
>>>>> It said no such thing. What it actually said was that your NB 6.1
>>>>> is up to date.
>>>> Which implies that there is no NetBeans 6.5, or any other number
>>>> higher than 6.1.
>>>
>>> Admirable logic. A shame that
>>> http://www.netbeans.org/downloads/index.html contradicts this by
>>> offering to download NetBeans 6.5.
>>
>> That would merely indicate that NB 6.1's claim to be the most
>> up-to-date version was incorrect. NB 6.1 did indeed indicate that
>> there was no NB 6.5, as I said; it just was inaccurate in making that
>> indication.
>>
>> An interesting question would be "why?".
>
> NB is correct
Apparently not. I have now confirmed that the Web site has an NB 6.5
available.
> NB is not a module at version 6.1. NB 6.1 is a module at a given
> version (I believe version 1.1.1 is current).
This does not make sense.
> There are good reasons not to allow an IDE to upgrade itself
> to a new major version.
I don't necessarily agree. Moreover, this is irrelevant -- it should not
claim to be up to date when it is not. It should notify the user that a
more recent version exists, whether or not it downloads and installs
that update automatically.
If you are right and it should not update itself automatically in this
case, it should still report to the user that he no longer has the most
current NB. It should not be silent, and it most certainly should not
incorrectly claim the polar opposite!
secret decoder ring
I own this computer and nobody else uses it. I have never heard of that
man. To my knowledge, the machine is free of trojans and viruses, and
I'm not aware of any recent break-ins. Certainly there have been none
with forced entry, nor any ransackings or thefts of items here.
You are clearly mistaken.
Interestingly, when I look at the headers of one of my posts, I can't
find an originating IP address anywhere. Usually such a thing would be
in an NNTP-Posting-Host header, as I recall. (Yours has such a header,
but it has a domain name in the .uk space rather than an IP, which is
nearly as unusual.)
So it does not seem plausible that you could correctly identify where I
am posting from.
And therefore does not surprise me in the least that you failed to do so.
It only surprises me that you apparently tried, given that one, what
machine who posts from has nothing to do with Java programming, the
ostensible topic of this newsgroup; two, what machine who posts from is
apropos of nothing anyway; and three, since there was no possible way
you could determine the answer other than by guessing, and guessing gave
you only a 1 in 4294967296 chance of being right (or thereabouts), any
attempt would amount to trying to guess the winning lotto numbers when
the jackpot size is zero -- that is, it would be a complete and utter
waste of time.
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> ... the jump from NB 6.1 to NB
>> 6.5 seems more like the equivalent of a service pack upgrade to me.
>
> Maybe it seems that way to you, but what counts is
I am getting rather tired of your arrogance, Lew. You do not decide
whether what I say "counts" or not. WE ARE ALL EQUALS HERE. GET THAT
THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, PLEASE, BEFORE YOU DRIVE BOTH OF US BATTY!
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> And even if for some reason it was deemed undesirable for it to
>> *automatically download and install* a major-version increase, it
>> certainly is still ridiculous for it to claim to actually be the most
>> current version when it is not. It should certainly *notify* the user
>> that a newer version exists, even if perhaps without being able to
>> download and install it without the user's prompting.
>
> That notification is given. You mentioned that you have certain
> behaviors with the start page visible in NetBeans. If you look at that
> start page, you will see a headline that reads, "NetBeans IDE 6.5 Now
> Available for Download".
No, because, following your advice earlier, I found out how and disabled
the damn thing.
> That's one of the reasons why NB provides a start page, to give such
> notification.
Be that as it may, the "check for updates" feature should certainly give
such notification, since its failure to do so will be misleading at best.
In this instance we had far worse -- a more or less explicit assertion
by that feature that there was nothing new under the NB sun when, in
fact, there was something new.
secret decoder ring
> "secret decoder ring" <sdr...@foomail.bar.com> wrote in message
> news:ggrotu$ok3$1...@aioe.org...
>
> Thing is, when you see a x.y or x.y.z version numbering scheme, you can't
> assume that x=major, y=minor, and z=maintenance
Actually, I can, and I do, since that IS the standard.
You don't get to decide what I do or do not assume, or what is or is not
standard, shocking though this may be for you to hear.
How major an update 6.5 is is entirely beside the point anyway. That it
is an update of any magnitude, rather than a downgrade, suffices to make
a liar out of the NB "check for updates" feature when it claimed there
were none.
> As another example, when JDKs were being
> numbered 1.x, an increase in 'x' most certainly was a major release, not a
> minor one.
That was clearly an error on Sun's part, one they've since rectified
with Java 5, Java 6, and similar names. Java "1.6.0_10" is really Java
6.0.10 by any sensible reckoning, and the phrase "Java 6" indicates
Sun's acknowledgement of that fact.
> I still have NB 6.1 - I won't be upgrading for a while. I just tried another
> "Check for Updates", and that reported simply that my IDE was up to date,
> and that there were no updates available.
So yours, too, is mistaken (or even lying). Interesting. Whatever is
wrong is apparently reproducible. That increases the odds it can be
fixed. Heck, maybe 6.5 has fixed it and will correctly claim to no
longer be up to date when 6.6 or 7.0 or whatever comes out.
> That is completely different from claiming that my version of NetBeans
> is the latest one out there.
No, it isn't. How can you possibly say that? "No updates" means no
updates. 6.5 is an update. It even says so right on the release notes
page: "NetBeans IDE 6.5 is a significant update to NetBeans IDE 6.1..."
(http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html).
> By definition, there are no updates
Nonsense. See above.
> And as others pointed out, the Start Page for 6.1 is crawling with mentions
> of 6.5.
Irrelevant. The problem is that the "check for updates" feature is NOT.
People expect that if there is a new version out, a feature named "check
for updates" will tell them this. If it does not, that feature is
failing to live up to its name and is, at best, being misleading.
Let's clear the developing thicket of red herrings, irrelevant asides,
and pointless hair-splitting before it gets any worse.
NB web site says "NetBeans IDE 6.5 is a significant update to NetBeans
IDE 6.1".
NB 6.1, when told to check for updates, says "Your IDE is up to date!
There are no updates available."
These two assertions directly and explicitly contradict one another.
Citation for first item:
http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html
Citation for second: start NB 6.1, "Help" menu, "Check For Updates"
secret decoder ring
> updates are updates to the modules/plugins
http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html says otherwise.
Such a definition would be extremely counterintuitive anyway, so it's
not surprising you're wrong.
secret decoder ring
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> updates are updates to the modules/plugins
>
> I surmise that this is the thing that misled "secret decoder ring"
No, nothing misled me. Something apparently has a bug. "Misled" implies
a deliberate intent to deceive. I find it difficult to believe that NB's
programmers intended to deceive anyone; they simply made an error. (The
notion that NB *itself* might harbor deceptive intentions is simply
laughable. We are not even close to being able to create an AI that
models others' mental states and lies to people yet. Fortunately.)
> Regardless, and we can speculate 'til the cows come home or ask the NB
> guys themselves, the fact is that there is a NetBeans 6.5 and that the
> 6.1 updater does not hint that one should update to NB 6.5.
THANK you.
Now can we lay this to rest?
> Given that there is no universal standard for version numbering, it is
> dangerous to impose one's own on a product that one does not control.
> It is even more dangerous
I'll take these veiled insults as a "no".
I am imposing nothing. I am merely pointing out that a statement uttered
by NB 6.1 and a statement on the NB Web site directly contradict one other.
Quibbling over what's a major version increase and what's not is
completely missing the point. A point that YOU had made, in your
previous paragraph.
> It is better, in the case of NetBeans, to notice the announcement
> provided by the start page
Disabled it; caused too much slowness and trouble. Besides, the "Check
For Updates" feature should be trustworthy to actually accurately report
whether there is anything new, so the start page shouldn't be needed for
this.
> to visit their web site periodically
Yeah, right, add yet another bookmark to my burgeoning list, AND yet
another weekly to-do to yet another burgeoning list.
If I did that for every piece of software I used, both lists would
double in length and I'd get minus three hours of sleep a night on average.
This is the age of automation. I'm not going to manually check all kinds
of things periodically because my computer is apparently too lazy to do
the job right. :P
> or to subscribe to their email notifications
It'll be a frosty day in Hell before I give out an email address that I
routinely read to any web site.
> Failure to stay informed
I failed at nothing.
The NB "check for updates" feature failed to detect a rather significant
one.
By clicking "check for updates" I performed due diligence.
Indeed, it is supposed to check periodically in the background anyway,
so even by simply using it I would have been performing due diligence.
No, the only failure here is you, and you get failing grades in all of
the following: one, getting along with others; two, being polite to
one's elders; three, logical reasoning; and four, reading comprehension.
No lollipop for you, Lew.
secret decoder ring
But as I explained to Lew, I have failed at nothing. Invoking "check for
updates" (by menu item or just by using the software long enough, as it
periodically checks in the background) should suffice as due diligence.
It's hardly MY fault if "check for updates" makes glaring omissions from
time to time -- this occurrence was my first indication that it might do so.
secret decoder ring
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> And when you're doing Windows Updates on your WinXP installation,
>> does it upgrade you to Vista?
>
> Not if it knows what's good for it.
Increasingly beside the point, which is that a feature prominently
labeled "check for updates" should certainly at least *notify* about an
update, even if it does not download or install it automatically, and
should certainly *not* utter a statement that explicitly contradicts a
statement on the product's Web site.
Yet I have demonstrated elsewhere that it has, indeed, done the latter
and failed to do the former in one particular instance.
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> Which implies that there is no NetBeans 6.5, or any other number
>> higher than 6.1.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Sure it does.
>> I suppose you are technically correct that it did not explicitly *say*
>> that, but it is a strong implication. "6.1 is the latest version" makes
>
> It doesn't say "6.1 is the latest version". It says, "Your 6.1 version
> is up to date".
Those statements are synonymous.
And 6.1 version is not up to date, is it?
So those statements are also false.
>> it very unlikely that there is a 6.5, since it is very uncommon (if it's
>
> And yet, there is a 6.5 version of NetBeans. Doesn't that hint that
> your analysis needs enhancement?
No, it just means that the statement made by the updater was incorrect.
My analysis of what that statement implied stands.
Elsewhere I have highlighted an explicitly contradictory pair of
statements, one uttered by the "check for updates" menu item of NB 6.1
when activated and one on the NB Web site.
It seems clear that both statements cannot simultaneously be true, and
that the one on the Web site is true.
It follows that the updater has a bug that causes it to make incorrect
statements to the user from time to time.
Elsewhere, another user reported reproducing this behavior, so it is
likely that the bug can be corrected with relative ease.
>> That's because I don't have an exact number. I'd have to shut down NB,
>> dig up a stopwatch, and start it up again, and I can't be bothered to
>> do that at the drop of a proverbial hat.
>
> But you are investigating a specific problem that is hurting you, that's
> exactly what you need to do.
No, I do not. I simply need to report the problem, not investigate it
laboriously like I was going to be fixing it myself. That's not my
responsibility. It is the development team's responsibility.
If you want me to do that work for them, even though I have other fish
to fry right now, my going rate is $60 an hour.
>> I DID give an estimate, however, despite your implication above that I
>> didn't.
>
> I must have missed it.
That you have. Reread my earlier posts if you want to find it.
Otherwise, this discussion is over.
>> I am not being snide about anything. I am simply pointing out that
>> whatever it is, it is NOT NetBeans 6.1 and consequently might behave
>> differently from NetBeans 6.1.
>
> Agreed
>
>> That statement is in direct contradiction with my copy of NB 6.1
>> self-reporting as being the most recent NetBeans
>
> Which it doesn't do.
It certainly does. I posted the exact message a short time ago, along
with a message on the NB Web site that directly contradicts it. Of the
two, the message on the Web site appears to be accurate, making it the
updater that is in error.
>> data it retrieved from the NB Web site that can reasonably be
>> characterized as having come from the proverbial horse's mouth.
>
> And yet NetBeans 6.5 is the most recent version.
That would mean that the Web site has two contradictory pieces of
information: one, a certain statement at
http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html and two,
whatever data is retrieved by the NB updater when it goes checking for
whether there are any updates.
It's clearly possible that the bug in the NB updater is physically
located on their web server rather than in the client code in NB. It
remains the case that the bug exists, though, regardless of its precise
location.
If it's on the server, though, it might be possible to fix it simply by
updating an apparently-outdated piece of data somewhere on the site,
without having to change any of the client code. That would be convenient.
>> Of course, it could be the case that your statement is correct and my
>> copy of NB 6.1 is in error (somehow failing to detect the existence of
>> a more up to date version), rather than the other way around.
>
> Depends on how you define "error".
It certainly includes the case that the software says, and I quote,
"Your IDE is up to date!" when the Web site makes it clear that that's
not true.
> It happens that NB 6.5 is the most
> recent version of NB, and, from your evidence, that version 6.1 doesn't
> report that.
It in fact DOES, EXPLICITLY report the inverse, when asked explicitly to
"Check For Updates".
And that, by any reasonable definition, constitutes an error.
> Maybe, like many, many other software products, versions
> only report up-to-dateness in their own context and not that of some
> later version when it comes out.
That does not make sense. If every version is an island, then every
version is always the most up to date version of that version, which
renders the whole notion of versions or of "up-to-dateness" useless.
Regardless of the above, it is not what users expect. Users expect that
a feature named "check for updates" will say "no updates available" if
and only if they are using the absolutely most current, gee-whiz,
bleeding-edge released version of a product. So, not beta or alpha
versions or nightly builds, but certainly versions prominently featured
as non-beta on the front page of the product's Web site.
>> That is very odd, in light of the above.
>
> It just means that you have to investigate what's different between the
> setups. I suggest you examine netbeans.conf.
I haven't hand-hacked mine, so nothing about it should be "wrong" in any
trouble-causing way. If anything is, it means the preferences dialog
code contains a bug in that it wrote through a change without properly
validating it first.
Then again, I haven't used the preferences dialog to tweak anything that
was obviously related to NB's memory-allocation or garbage-collection
policy, either. So that stuff should be factory-default on my
installation, regardless. And if the factory defaults are bad, then once
again the fault lies elsewhere than with me.
>>> You haven't answered Mark Space's question about your OS
>
>> I most certainly have.
>
> I corrected that typo before you responded.
What? That's not a typo, it's a baldly false statement. It's perfectly
grammatical and correctly spelled, but semantically wrong, in other words.
And I certainly had not read any correction or retraction of it at the
time that I posted my response.
>> The slow startup time is not a primary complaint of mine. But it makes
>> problems that force the user to restart NB to be onerous enough for
>> this reason that I think suggesting people just resign themselves to
>> occasionally restarting NB is "not good enough".
>
> Who made that suggestion? Not I.
Somebody did.
>>> I would look into your netbeans.conf.
>
>> Why? It is not possible that I've munged this file, for the simple
>
> It's not a question of you "munging" the file, but of it perhaps not
> being optimal out of the box.
I should not need to hand-hack a .conf file just to use a product in the
manner intended by its developers. This isn't the dark ages when the
state of the art in computer user interfaces was a unix command prompt,
vi, and emacs. This is twenty years later.
>>> You might wish to allocate a wee bit more -Xmx to NB
>>
>> I doubt it. When it was doing its CPU-saturating-hang thing I noticed
>> the process size was upwards of 200 megs. I infer that the -Xmx is
>> 256M or more, which "ought to be enough", at least for the time being.
>
> The process size is not a reliable indicator of maximum heap, quite the
> contrary. It actually indicates that -Xmx is far below 200 MB. Process
> size includes class space, the JVM itself and a host of non-heap
> allocations.
Wrong. Generously assuming that all of that stuff required a whopping 50
megs, if the -Xmx was the next lower setting, 128M, the process size
would be at most around 180. 200+ therefore requires the -Xmx be at 256
or higher, though a process size below 300 or so would indicate that the
actual Java heap is not all the way up to 256 megs in size.
With tens of megs of room in the heap, GC pauses should then only be
occasional and very brief.
The problem observed is something unrelated to memory use, save that it
may have CAUSED memory use. With the stuff open I usually have open, NB
is usually around 150-180M in size. When it goes into freezy-slushy-mode
it bloats up suddenly to up to 240. Something is both creating and
referencing a lot of objects AND using a lot of CPU when that happens.
Packratting combined with consequent ArrayList/HashMap resizing could be
the culprit.
>> Since my copy's GC parameters are still the factory defaults, if those
>> GC parameters were the problem, a large proportion of all NB 6.1
>> installs would be similarly affected, which you claim is not the case.
>
> Perhaps, or perhaps not. Or perhaps more people who use NB are
> modifying netbeans.conf than you think.
Few users hand-hack configuration files in this day and age. That is a
statistical fact, Jack.
> In any event, empirical evidence is best. If you adjust the
> configuration and the problem goes away, Bob's your uncle.
I do not know how, and I'd much rather it work properly out of the box
anyway.
AL
I couldn't help noticing how busy you were posting to this subject so I
did a quick read of your material. I may have missed it, but what
response did you receive from the NB folks about this "omission"?
Seeing how you claim to exercise due diligence and have failed at
nothing, you surely have addressed this problem with the people who
might actually resolve the matter. So, what *was* their response? IMWTK.
AL
Lew
> I couldn't help noticing how busy you were posting to this subject so I
> did a quick read of your material. I may have missed it, but what
> response did you receive from the NB folks about this "omission"?
> Seeing how you claim to exercise due diligence and have failed at
> nothing, you surely have addressed this problem with the people who
> might actually resolve the matter. So, what *was* their response? IMWTK.
For those whose inquiring minds want to know what "IMWTK" means:
"Inquiring minds want to know".
--
Lew
Lew
re-plonk
--
Lew
Lew
Lew wrote:
>> It doesn't say "6.1 is the latest version". It says, "Your 6.1
>> version is up to date".
secret decoder ring wrote:
> Those statements are synonymous.
Except for meaning different things.
> And 6.1 version is not up to date, is it?
Apparently yours is.
> So those statements are also false.
Whatever you say. I won't see your response since I re-plonked you.
--
Lew
Arved Sandstrom
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> "secret decoder ring" <sdr...@foomail.bar.com> wrote in message
>> news:ggrotu$ok3$1...@aioe.org...
>>> For a minor-version increase, the above goes double.
>>
>> Thing is, when you see a x.y or x.y.z version numbering scheme, you can't
>> assume that x=major, y=minor, and z=maintenance
>
> Actually, I can, and I do, since that IS the standard.
No, it is not. It's not even remotely *the* standard - that terminology
implies one versioning system that everyone uses.
All the x.y.x system is, is a versioning system that's fairly common.
However, the meaning of 'x' and 'y' and 'z' in an x.y.z versioning system is
not standardized, and moreover, even where 2 teams both use x=major,
y=minor, z=maintenance, their definitions of what constitute major and minor
changes may be quite different.
> You don't get to decide what I do or do not assume, or what is or is not
> standard, shocking though this may be for you to hear.
No, I don't get to decide what you assume. I expect that you get corrected a
lot when you join a new programming team, though.
> How major an update 6.5 is is entirely beside the point anyway. That it is
> an update of any magnitude, rather than a downgrade, suffices to make a
> liar out of the NB "check for updates" feature when it claimed there were
> none.
Not really. It's been explained to you that some things in NetBeans can be
updated, and some things cannot. If you cannot proceed from NB 6.1 to NB 6.5
by means of updates, then the message makes sense. Yes, further on you're
going to jump all over the fact that the progression from NB 6.1 to 6.5 is
also referred to as an update, but that can't be helped.
>> As another example, when JDKs were being numbered 1.x, an increase in 'x'
>> most certainly was a major release, not a minor one.
>
> That was clearly an error on Sun's part, one they've since rectified with
> Java 5, Java 6, and similar names. Java "1.6.0_10" is really Java 6.0.10
> by any sensible reckoning, and the phrase "Java 6" indicates Sun's
> acknowledgement of that fact.
Consider that the official version as reported by "java -version" still _is_
1.5.x or 1.6.x. The Java 5, Java 6 is for marketing.
>> I still have NB 6.1 - I won't be upgrading for a while. I just tried
>> another "Check for Updates", and that reported simply that my IDE was up
>> to date, and that there were no updates available.
>
> So yours, too, is mistaken (or even lying). Interesting. Whatever is wrong
> is apparently reproducible. That increases the odds it can be fixed. Heck,
> maybe 6.5 has fixed it and will correctly claim to no longer be up to date
> when 6.6 or 7.0 or whatever comes out.
>
>> That is completely different from claiming that my version of NetBeans
>> is the latest one out there.
>
> No, it isn't. How can you possibly say that? "No updates" means no
> updates. 6.5 is an update. It even says so right on the release notes
> page: "NetBeans IDE 6.5 is a significant update to NetBeans IDE 6.1..."
> (http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html).
>
>> By definition, there are no updates
>
> Nonsense. See above.
You may wish to consider that an update available through the "Check for
Updates" feature is not quite the same thing as a completely general use of
the word "update". To keep you happy I guess the NB team should have used
the word "improvement" or "feature add" or something.
>> And as others pointed out, the Start Page for 6.1 is crawling with
>> mentions of 6.5.
>
> Irrelevant. The problem is that the "check for updates" feature is NOT.
> People expect that if there is a new version out, a feature named "check
> for updates" will tell them this. If it does not, that feature is failing
> to live up to its name and is, at best, being misleading.
>
> Let's clear the developing thicket of red herrings, irrelevant asides, and
> pointless hair-splitting before it gets any worse.
Nobody else actually is hair-splitting, boss. Everyone else managed to
adjust to the NetBeans way of doing things.
I'll bet you're a real treat when someone throws a curveball your way.
> NB web site says "NetBeans IDE 6.5 is a significant update to NetBeans IDE
> 6.1".
>
> NB 6.1, when told to check for updates, says "Your IDE is up to date!
> There are no updates available."
>
> These two assertions directly and explicitly contradict one another.
>
> Citation for first item:
> http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html
>
> Citation for second: start NB 6.1, "Help" menu, "Check For Updates"
Well, get on the horn to the NB team and tell them that the jump from 6.1 to
6.5 should not be referred to as an update. It's an "advance", or a
"expanded feature suite" or a "service pack".
AHS
Joshua Cranmer
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> Thing is, when you see a x.y or x.y.z version numbering scheme, you
>> can't assume that x=major, y=minor, and z=maintenance
>
> Actually, I can, and I do, since that IS the standard.
There's no major difference between, say, Linux 2.4 and 2.6, then. Or
glib 2.10 and glib 2.16. Or Windows 5.0 and 5.2 (or Windows 6.0 and
6.1). Firefox 3.0 and Firefox 3.1.
> How major an update 6.5 is is entirely beside the point anyway. That it
> is an update of any magnitude, rather than a downgrade, suffices to make
> a liar out of the NB "check for updates" feature when it claimed there
> were none.
Many products do not bug you to update between major version changes.
This is generally because changes in products may involve breakage.
Anything with extensions or plugins is extremely sensitive to major
version changes.
For example, many kernel modules would not survive a 2.4->2.6 upgrade.
Windows programs would run afoul of an XP->Vista update. Firefox 2.0
compatibility does not necessity imply Firefox 3.0 compatibility.
Essentially, a major update is roughly equivalent to a new product
altogether. Just ask the Microsoft IE development team. :-)
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
secret decoder ring
This response appears to be hostile and childish. Furthermore it appears
to have nothing whatsoever to do with Java, or with what I'd said.
secret decoder ring
> "secret decoder ring" <sdr...@foomail.bar.com> wrote in message
> news:gh6hdp$us7$1...@aioe.org...
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> "secret decoder ring" <sdr...@foomail.bar.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ggrotu$ok3$1...@aioe.org...
>>>> For a minor-version increase, the above goes double.
>>> Thing is, when you see a x.y or x.y.z version numbering scheme, you can't
>>> assume that x=major, y=minor, and z=maintenance
>> Actually, I can, and I do, since that IS the standard.
>
> No, it is not.
Yes, it is.
> It's not even remotely *the* standard - that terminology
> implies one versioning system that everyone uses.
No, it implies one versioning system that most people use.
The convention is for the first digit to denote major versions and each
successive digit less-major changes.
This is a simple and inarguable fact.
>> You don't get to decide what I do or do not assume, or what is or is not
>> standard, shocking though this may be for you to hear.
>
> No, I don't get to decide what you assume.
I'm glad you now realize that.
> I expect that you get corrected a lot when you join a new programming team,
> though.
Then you expect wrong.
Also, I'll thank you to stop making gratuitous personal attacks. I have
done nothing to deserve such treatment. Your above statement suggests
something insulting about my programming competence. Furthermore, the
suggested insult is factually incorrect.
>> How major an update 6.5 is is entirely beside the point anyway. That it is
>> an update of any magnitude, rather than a downgrade, suffices to make a
>> liar out of the NB "check for updates" feature when it claimed there were
>> none.
>
> Not really.
Yes really. "Your IDE is up to date!" when it's actually four minor
versions behind "up to date" is quite clearly an incorrect statement.
Ask any random twelve people off the street and they will all, or almost
all, tell you the same thing.
> It's been explained to you
Various incorrect things have been "explained to me". That I do not
believe them does not mean that I am hard of hearing, or an idiot.
Rather the reverse -- I would be an idiot if I *did* believe some of the
things you've said.
> some things in NetBeans can be updated, and some things cannot
This has no bearing on the mere NOTIFICATION of the user of the
existence of an update.
A feature named "Check For Updates" should not falsely report that there
ARE NO UPDATES when there ARE UPDATES, even if they are not updates that
can be automatically downloaded and installed.
To claim that there are none at all, rather than that there are some but
none that will be automatically downloaded and installed, is to be in error.
Any randomly-selected fifth-grader would understand this.
How old are you, Arved, and what is your highest completed education?
> the message makes sense.
It is well-formed and semantically meaningful, so yes, technically it
"makes sense". However the sense that it makes is a false statement in
this particular case.
> Yes, further on you're
> going to jump all over the fact that the progression from NB 6.1 to 6.5 is
> also referred to as an update, but that can't be helped.
Of course it can't be helped, because it proves that I am right!
You apparently don't like this.
Tough.
You insulted me and attacked me for making true and reasonable
statements. You get to reap the whirlwind.
Them's the breaks.
Next time, think twice before picking on random people on Usenet.
>> That was clearly an error on Sun's part, one they've since rectified with
>> Java 5, Java 6, and similar names. Java "1.6.0_10" is really Java 6.0.10
>> by any sensible reckoning, and the phrase "Java 6" indicates Sun's
>> acknowledgement of that fact.
>
> Consider that the official version as reported by "java -version" still _is_
> 1.5.x or 1.6.x. The Java 5, Java 6 is for marketing.
In other words, the code, under the hood, maintains backwards
compatibility with the old, deprecated system, but the system they
actually use when communicating with actual human beings is the
corrected one.
This no more indicates that the old system is somehow "better" than the
persistence of old, deprecated methods littering the API indicate that
those older methods are "better" than their replacements. They are just
retained for backwards compatibility.
>>> By definition, there are no updates
>> Nonsense. See above.
>
> You may wish to consider that an update available through the "Check for
> Updates" feature is not quite the same thing as a completely general use of
> the word "update".
But that is not correct. An "update" is an "update" is an "update". If
the "Check For Updates" feature is really intended to be a "Check For A
Specific Subset Of Updates" feature, then it has been incorrectly
labeled. Likewise if the message "Your IDE is up to date!" is supposed
to mean something other than the literal meaning of the phrase "Your IDE
is up to date!", then that message is incorrect and should be different.
A bug exists, whether you like it or not. I have proven it logically.
That you continue to argue in the face of irrefutable reasoning can only
indicate that your objections stem from *un*reason, from emotion of some
kind. Attachment, creating a will to defend NB from all criticisms
however valid, perhaps. Or maybe defending a dogma.
Please let us know when you're ready to renounce your membership in the
Flat Earth Society, Arved. That way we'll know when to start maybe
taking you seriously again.
> To keep you happy I guess the NB team
This isn't about keeping me happy; it is about not making inaccurate
statements to the entire user base.
>> Irrelevant. The problem is that the "check for updates" feature is NOT.
>> People expect that if there is a new version out, a feature named "check
>> for updates" will tell them this. If it does not, that feature is failing
>> to live up to its name and is, at best, being misleading.
>>
>> Let's clear the developing thicket of red herrings, irrelevant asides, and
>> pointless hair-splitting before it gets any worse.
>
> Nobody else actually is hair-splitting, boss.
I am not hair-splitting. I am pointing out what really should be obvious
to any random fifth-grader.
> Everyone else managed to
> adjust to the NetBeans way of doing things.
There is no "NetBeans way of doing things" when it comes to the meanings
of commonplace English words!
> I'll bet you're a real treat when someone throws a curveball your way.
I can only assume that this is meant as some sort of a personal attack
irrelevant to the question of NB's behavior, and irrelevant to Java in
general.
This kind of childish behavior also does not give us any reason to take
you seriously.
>> NB web site says "NetBeans IDE 6.5 is a significant update to NetBeans IDE
>> 6.1".
>>
>> NB 6.1, when told to check for updates, says "Your IDE is up to date!
>> There are no updates available."
>>
>> These two assertions directly and explicitly contradict one another.
>>
>> Citation for first item:
>> http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html
>>
>> Citation for second: start NB 6.1, "Help" menu, "Check For Updates"
>
> Well, get on the horn to the NB team and tell them that the jump from 6.1 to
> 6.5 should not be referred to as an update.
But it is an update.
What is incorrect is the behavior of the "Check For Updates" feature,
not the web site's statement. The web site's statement is 100% accurate.
The "Check For Updates" feature's correct behavior is to discover if
there are any updates, notify the user if so, and if any nonempty subset
of those are of the "may be downloaded and installed through the
interface" type, prompt the user whether it should do so.
This is also something that any fifth-grader should agree with. That you
apparently do not is frankly astonishing to me.
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> Thing is, when you see a x.y or x.y.z version numbering scheme, you
>>> can't assume that x=major, y=minor, and z=maintenance
>>
>> Actually, I can, and I do, since that IS the standard.
>
> There's no major difference between, say, Linux 2.4 and 2.6, then. Or
> glib 2.10 and glib 2.16. Or Windows 5.0 and 5.2 (or Windows 6.0 and
> 6.1). Firefox 3.0 and Firefox 3.1.
Entirely irrelevant. The primary point is that the NB UI and the NB Web
site contain a pair of mutually exclusive statements -- it is logically
impossible for both to be true -- and the one on the Web site appears to
be accurate.
>> How major an update 6.5 is is entirely beside the point anyway. That
>> it is an update of any magnitude, rather than a downgrade, suffices to
>> make a liar out of the NB "check for updates" feature when it claimed
>> there were none.
>
> Many products do not bug you to update between major version changes.
NetBeans does; it bugs you to update even for fairly minor changes.
Did you have some sort of a point here?
> This is generally because changes in products may involve breakage.
> Anything with extensions or plugins is extremely sensitive to major
> version changes.
This is an argument against automatically downloading and installing
such. It is neither an argument against prompting the user whether to
download and install such nor an argument against merely notifying the user.
It is certainly not an argument in favor of displaying blatantly
incorrect information in the software's user interface.
secret decoder ring
>
> Lew wrote:
>>> It doesn't say "6.1 is the latest version". It says, "Your 6.1
>>> version is up to date".
>
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> Those statements are synonymous.
>
> Except for meaning different things.
But they do not. Look up "synonymous" in the dictionary, Lew. It means
they mean the same thing!
>> And 6.1 version is not up to date, is it?
>
> Apparently yours is.
But it isn't! 6.5 is up to date. 6.1 is now four minor version number
points behind the times. This should be immediately apparent from
visiting the NB Web site, Lew. I don't see how any reasonable person can
argue in the face of such clear evidence.
But then, I'm beginning to suspect that you are not a reasonable person,
Lew.
>> So those statements are also false.
>
> Whatever you say.
I'm glad you're beginning to show some signs of absorbing some sense.
Let us hope that this process, once begun, continues with alacrity and
is completed soon, transforming you into a normal, educated adult human
being.
Arved Sandstrom
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
[ SNIP ]
> Any randomly-selected fifth-grader would understand this.
>
> How old are you, Arved, and what is your highest completed education?
Old enough and educated enough to realize the futility of reasoning with
you. I knew it was a lost cause when you dug in your heels about x.y.x
versioning. My original comment was that you cannot assume that x=major,
y=minor, z=maintenance in x.y.z versioning systems, and you stated that you
can, because it's the STANDARD.
Try Googling on "software versioning". No shortage of links. Every article
says that the *most common* versioning schemes are numeric. Not the only,
the most common. The *most common* _numeric_ versioning scheme is a form of
x.y.z. Not the only, the most common. And the *usual* interpretation of the
latter is major.minor.something.
You understand the difference between that and "the STANDARD?"
Incidentally, how do you explain Linux kernel versioning? That uses (to
borrow from Wikipedia, so you have something to refer to) A.B.C[.D]. A and B
work quite differently from 'x' in your picture of z.y.z. A is so major that
it barely ever changes. B is a match for 'x' in your picture, and C for 'y',
and D more or less matches your idea of 'z'.
But I guess Linux kernel versioning is non-standard.
I could trot out any number of programs that version according to x.y, and
'y' gets incremented on every routinely scheduled build, each of the latter
incorporating both feature changes and bug fixes. Would you dismiss those
versioning schemes as non-standard?
A couple of major government systems that I am working on right now are in
production, have been for a while, and the development, test and production
builds have a very simple numerical scheme, namely, the Subversion revision
number. An 'x' scheme, so to speak. When a new production build gets
approved every few months, that's a major version; new test builds
correspond roughly to minor versions. Would you call this non-standard?
And I can think of dozens of programs that do have a x.y.z scheme with a
purported correspondence of x=major, y=minor, and z=maintenance, but the
actual mapping of functionality changes to version changes is so tenuous as
to make the versioning somewhat useless. But I guess it's ok, because
they're speaking your language, eh?
Absolutely no point in discussing NetBeans updates with you. Their system
clearly caused you lots of difficulties. Most of us have had no issues.
Enough said.
AHS
John W Kennedy
I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
to someone else, whereas Paul is usually very sloppy in his attempts to
disguise himself.
"Secret decoder ring", if you are, indeed, not Paul Derbyshire, you must
understand that there is a lunatic by that name who posts here under a
dozen different aliases, which he frequently changes. I'm afraid that he
has this entire group rather on edge -- not that we're seriously
bothered about him, but when someone keeps jumping into technical
conversations yelling, "I don't exist, and you can't prove that I do!"
or says that he is personally insulted because someone quoted
Christopher Marlowe, it gets /very/ annoying, after a while.
So we get nervous around strangers.
--
John W. Kennedy
A proud member of the reality-based community.
Lew
> I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
> prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
> to someone else, whereas Paul is usually very sloppy in his attempts to
> disguise himself.
They do share a propensity to say nasty, actually downright abusive
things about people who disagree with them, for no sin worse than not
agreeing.
--
Lew
Arved Sandstrom
[ SNIP ]
> But it isn't! 6.5 is up to date. 6.1 is now four minor version number
> points behind the times. This should be immediately apparent from visiting
> the NB Web site, Lew. I don't see how any reasonable person can argue in
> the face of such clear evidence.
6.1 is most definitely not 4 minor version number points behind the times,
because that would mean that NetBeans uses a versioning system where the 'y'
in x.y gets incremented by one for each "minor" release. Here you go
thinking that everyone uses this supposed STANDARD system of yours. There
isn't and won't be a 6.2, 6.3 or 6.4. There probably won't be a 6.6, 6.7,
6.8 or 6.9 either.
AHS
Lew
"secret decoder ring" wrote ...
>> But it isn't! 6.5 is up to date. 6.1 is now four minor version number
>> points behind the times. This should be immediately apparent from visiting
>> the NB Web site, Lew. I don't see how any reasonable person can argue in
>> the face of such clear evidence.
> [ SNIP ]
It doesn't do any good to address comments to me, "secret decoder ring", on
account of I've already plonked you. If it weren't for Arved, who has
answered your point definitively /infra/, I wouldn't know you were even
posting, much less addressing me. Besides, this is a public forum, not just a
conversation between two people.
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> 6.1 is most definitely not 4 minor version number points behind the times,
> because that would mean that NetBeans uses a versioning system where the 'y'
> in x.y gets incremented by one for each "minor" release. Here you go
> thinking that everyone uses this supposed STANDARD system of yours. There
> isn't and won't be a 6.2, 6.3 or 6.4. There probably won't be a 6.6, 6.7,
> 6.8 or 6.9 either.
Note, "secret decoder ring", that despite your attempt to impose an
idiosyncratic so-called "standard" on NetBeans, that they aren't doing it your
way.
--
Lew
secret decoder ring
> Nigel Wade wrote:
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>
>>> I don't get this. Why are you verbally attacking someone I've never
>>> heard of in the middle of a discussion about NetBeans? It looks
>>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Perhaps because you are posting from his machine?
>
> I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire.
Indeed that is not my name.
> "Secret decoder ring", if you are, indeed, not Paul Derbyshire, you must
> understand that there is a lunatic by that name who posts here
Ah. I see. There is some kind of feud going on here, and for some reason
one side or the other is trying to drag me into it.
Sorry, not interested.
secret decoder ring
I have not said anything that I'd characterize as "nasty, actually
downright abusive" in response to mere disagreement.
secret decoder ring
> Old enough and educated enough to realize the futility of reasoning with
Your personal insults and general rudeness are uncalled-for. We had been
having a perfectly civil debate about NetBeans versioning. Then when I
managed to produce incontrovertible proof in support of my side of our
argument, you began to make snide remarks. When I called you on that,
you responded with this ... trash-talking nonsense.
I think we're through here.
I have little interest in continuing to debate anything with a sore
loser such as yourself.
> Absolutely no point in discussing NetBeans updates with you. Their system
> clearly caused you lots of difficulties.
Their system makes at-best-misleading statements to the user through the
software's own user-interface. That much I have proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. The error lies clearly at their doorstep, not mine. So
this is just another fairly transparent attempt to make things personal
when you find yourself on the losing end of an argument, and facts come
to light that support the other side.
Shame on you.
secret decoder ring
>> But it isn't! 6.5 is up to date. 6.1 is now four minor version number
>> points behind the times. This should be immediately apparent from visiting
>> the NB Web site, Lew. I don't see how any reasonable person can argue in
>> the face of such clear evidence.
>
Yet quite clearly it is, since their Web site announces proudly the
release of a shiny new version, and that version is 6.5.
Five minus one is four, as almost any child with passable grades in
arithmetic will be willing to confirm for you.
Whether there were actually three intermediate versions or not is
immaterial, since I said it is four minor version number POINTS, rather
than four VERSIONS, behind. They jumped by more than one presumably
because the changes from 6.1 to 6.5 are somewhat greater than those from
6.0 to 6.1 were. Which suggests that 6.1 is "more behind" than if the
changes were less significant, of course.
Quibbling over what exactly a change of four minor points actually
"means" is entirely beside the point anyways. Really, it suffices that
6.1 is merely no longer the most current version for my point to be
made; if 6.5's only change from 6.1 had been to fix a single typo in a
three-levels-deep dialog box label somewhere in the NB GUI, it would
STILL suffice to make the statement "Your IDE is up to date!", when
still emitted by NB 6.1, an erroneous one.
That you're still trying to find excuses for 6.1's error, even in the
face of such overwhelming evidence that it has no excuse, is a sign that
you are arguing from emotion rather than reason.
secret decoder ring
> It doesn't do any good to address comments to me, "secret decoder ring",
> on account of I've already plonked you.
I don't know what you mean here, but I have the distinct impression that
it is a) unfriendly and b) utterly unrelated to NetBeans.
Please keep your opinions on unrelated topics to yourself, especially if
you don't have anything nice to say.
> Besides, this is a public forum, not just a conversation between two
> people.
This is a newsgroup, and furthermore it is a newsgroup with a specific
topic, that of Java programming. Moreover, this particular thread also
has a specific topic, NetBeans. Your remarks here do not seem to be
related to either.
> Note, "secret decoder ring", that despite your attempt to impose an
> idiosyncratic so-called "standard" on NetBeans, that they aren't doing
> it your way.
My stating a desire that it not produce messages like "Your IDE is up to
date!" when such a message, interpreted according to the nominal English
meaning of the phrase, would be in error, constitutes /imposing an
idiosyncratic so-called "standard"/? How interesting. But I doubt that
most people would agree.
Arne Vajhøj
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
> I have little interest in continuing to debate anything with a sore
> loser such as yourself.
So you will stop posting in this thread ??
:-)
>> Absolutely no point in discussing NetBeans updates with you. Their
>> system clearly caused you lots of difficulties.
>
> Their system makes at-best-misleading statements to the user through the
> software's own user-interface. That much I have proven beyond a
> reasonable doubt. The error lies clearly at their doorstep, not mine.
It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you do have not
understood NetBeans versioning and updating. And worse - that you do
not seem interested in understanding it when we explain it to you.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> But it isn't! 6.5 is up to date. 6.1 is now four minor version number
>>> points behind the times. This should be immediately apparent from
>>> visiting the NB Web site, Lew. I don't see how any reasonable person
>>> can argue in the face of such clear evidence.
>>
>> 6.1 is most definitely not 4 minor version number points behind the times
>
> Yet quite clearly it is, since their Web site announces proudly the
> release of a shiny new version, and that version is 6.5.
>
> Five minus one is four, as almost any child with passable grades in
> arithmetic will be willing to confirm for you.
>
> Whether there were actually three intermediate versions or not is
> immaterial, since I said it is four minor version number POINTS, rather
> than four VERSIONS, behind.
That is being stupid by being clever.
There are indeed 0.4 in difference between NB 6.1 and NB 6.5, but that
is not particular relevant for anything.
There is 3.6 between Java 1.4 and Java 5. And 4.0 between MSO 2003
and MSO 2007.
Arved just made the big mistake of assuming that you posted something
relevant.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> Nigel Wade wrote:
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>> I don't get this. Why are you verbally attacking someone I've never
>>> heard of in the middle of a discussion about NetBeans? It looks
>>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Perhaps because you are posting from his machine?
>
> I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
> prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
> to someone else, whereas Paul is usually very sloppy in his attempts to
> disguise himself.
Paul is sometimes trying harder to disguise himself.
But the "I am always correct" attitude even when pointed to
evidence showing otherwise is very characteristic.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
You seem to be assuming that he is actually interested in learning
and understanding what and why.
That is not the case.
And never has been.
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/carleton.general/browse_frm/thread/107c44a6274df3a6
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
Arne Vajhøj
> Lew wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>>> It doesn't say "6.1 is the latest version". It says, "Your 6.1
>>>> version is up to date".
>>
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>> Those statements are synonymous.
>>
>> Except for meaning different things.
>
> But they do not. Look up "synonymous" in the dictionary, Lew. It means
> they mean the same thing!
Yes.
"6.1 is the latest version" means that 6.5 does not exist.
"Your 6.1 version is up to date" means that NB 6.1 module is at
version 1.1.1 and all other modules are at their latest version.
That is two completely different things.
Arne
Jerry Gerrone
<haroldphill...@live.invalid> wrote:
> Surely, only Paul Derbyshire could be so [multiple insults deleted]
Out of curiosity, I did a Google search of cljp for every mention of
Paul to see if there were any other places where you people were
badmouthing him, besides threads where I'd posted.
Imagine my surprise when I found two apparently-ongoing threads where
people are badmouthing Paul without even mentioning me by either my
real name or the name Twisted?
This is exceptionally bad behavior, "curly". There was nothing uncivil
in the post by "secret decoder ring" that you followed up to and there
was nothing at all about Paul. Or about me, for that matter.
I now need to decide on my policy for what to do when people randomly
insult Paul out of context.
Since they tend to really be intending to insult me, and getting my
identity confused with someone else's, and since Paul is not
apparently present to defend himself, I suppose I need to do
something.
So:
* I am not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
* I don't know whether the insults about Paul are true, but I
very much doubt that he'd appreciate you insulting him behind
his back.
Jerry Gerrone
> I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
> prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
As explained previously, I find it necessary to assume that all
insults aimed at "Paul" here are actually intended for me, and respond
in both of our defense. To set the record straight:
* I am not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that you have said or implied are
true of me.
* I don't know whether the insults are true of Paul, but I
very much doubt that he'd appreciate you insulting him behind
his back.
> "Secret decoder ring", if you are, indeed, not Paul Derbyshire, you must
> understand that there is a [insult deleted] by that name who posts here
> under a dozen different aliases
That, quite clearly, IS intended to refer to me.
You are incorrect.
* My name is not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> I'm afraid that he has this entire group rather on edge -- not that
> we're seriously bothered about him, but when someone keeps jumping
> into technical conversations yelling, "I don't exist, and you can't
> prove that I do!" or says that he is personally insulted because
> someone quoted Christopher Marlowe, it gets [insult deleted]
No-one has done those things that I have seen. If anyone has, it did
not occur in this thread, so bringing it up here is clearly not only
irrelevancy but flame-baiting and trolling.
> So we get nervous around strangers.
Welcome to Usenet. Strangers surround you. Get used to it, or log off.
Jerry Gerrone
> John W Kennedy wrote:
> > I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
> > prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
>
> They do share a propensity to [insults deleted]
Jerry Gerrone
> > prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
>
> Paul is sometimes trying harder [various implied insults deleted]
As explained previously, I find it necessary to assume that all
insults aimed at "Paul" here are actually intended for me, and respond
in both of our defense. To set the record straight:
* I am not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that either of you have said or
implied are true of me.
* I don't know whether the insults are true of Paul, but I
very much doubt that he'd appreciate either of you
Arne Vajhøj
> Lew wrote:
>> It doesn't say "6.1 is the latest version". It says, "Your 6.1
>> version is up to date".
>
>
> And 6.1 version is not up to date, is it?
Most likely it is.
But you can easily check it - your NB 6.1 module should be
version 1.1.1 to be uptodate.
> Elsewhere I have highlighted an explicitly contradictory pair of
> statements, one uttered by the "check for updates" menu item of NB 6.1
> when activated and one on the NB Web site.
>
> It seems clear that both statements cannot simultaneously be true, and
> that the one on the Web site is true.
>
> It follows that the updater has a bug that causes it to make incorrect
> statements to the user from time to time.
No. You have just misunderstood what the updater does.
> No, I do not. I simply need to report the problem, not investigate it
> laboriously like I was going to be fixing it myself. That's not my
> responsibility. It is the development team's responsibility.
There is nothing to to fix in the code.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>>>> Lew wrote:
>>>>>>> In other words, it said there is no NetBeans 6.5.
>>>>>> It said no such thing. What it actually said was that your NB 6.1
>>>>>> is up to date.
>>>>> Which implies that there is no NetBeans 6.5, or any other number
>>>>> higher than 6.1.
>>>>
>>>> Admirable logic. A shame that
>>>> http://www.netbeans.org/downloads/index.html contradicts this by
>>>> offering to download NetBeans 6.5.
>>>
>>> That would merely indicate that NB 6.1's claim to be the most
>>> up-to-date version was incorrect. NB 6.1 did indeed indicate that
>>> there was no NB 6.5, as I said; it just was inaccurate in making that
>>> indication.
>>>
>>> An interesting question would be "why?".
>>
>> NB is correct
>
> Apparently not. I have now confirmed that the Web site has an NB 6.5
> available.
It is.
>> NB is not a module at version 6.1. NB 6.1 is a module at a given
>> version (I believe version 1.1.1 is current).
>
> This does not make sense.
It is the fact.
And easily verifiable by anyone with NB 6.1 and the skills to use the
menus.
>> There are good reasons not to allow an IDE to upgrade itself
>> to a new major version.
>
> I don't necessarily agree. Moreover, this is irrelevant -- it should not
> claim to be up to date when it is not.
It is very relevant, because it implies what uptodate means.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> Lew wrote:
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>> 6.5 seems more like the equivalent of a service pack upgrade to me.
>>
>> Maybe it seems that way to you, but what counts is
>
> I am getting rather tired of your arrogance, Lew. You do not decide
> whether what I say "counts" or not. WE ARE ALL EQUALS HERE. GET THAT
> THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, PLEASE, BEFORE YOU DRIVE BOTH OF US BATTY!
You are free to claim that 2+2 is 5. But that does not make
it true.
Your assumptions about NB version numbers are wrong.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> For a minor-version increase, the above goes double.
>>
>> Thing is, when you see a x.y or x.y.z version numbering scheme, you
>> can't assume that x=major, y=minor, and z=maintenance
>
> Actually, I can, and I do, since that IS the standard.
There are no standard for version numbers.
Some use n, some use n.n, some use n.n.n, some use n.n.n.n,
some use yyyy, some use n.n-n and so on.
> You don't get to decide what I do or do not assume, or what is or is not
> standard, shocking though this may be for you to hear.
But we will obviously point out when your wrong assumptions lead you
to wrong conclusions.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
> http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html says otherwise.
No - it does not.
> Such a definition would be extremely counterintuitive anyway,
Only to people that does not bother to learn about things
before complaining.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> Lew wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> updates are updates to the modules/plugins
>>
>
> No, nothing misled me. Something apparently has a bug. "Misled" implies
> a deliberate intent to deceive.
Well if you don't think the you were mislead, then we will just conclude
that the terms NB use are perfect and you are too stupid to understand
them.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> Failure to stay informed is not excused by blaming NetBeans when they
>>> are so forthcoming with opportunities to stay abreast.
>>
>> I completely agree.
>
> But as I explained to Lew, I have failed at nothing. Invoking "check for
> updates" (by menu item or just by using the software long enough, as it
> periodically checks in the background) should suffice as due diligence.
> It's hardly MY fault if "check for updates" makes glaring omissions from
> time to time -- this occurrence was my first indication that it might do
> so.
You have failed to understand what update does.
Arne
AL
> AL wrote:
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> Lew wrote:
>>>> I completely agree.
I get that - got it way back up the thread. But I also get the futility
of anyone other than the NB folks trying to explain or justify the
versioning of the software to this bonehead. If anyone on this group
feels compelled to respond to this troll it should be to demand he
direct his rant at the NB folks - anything else just feeds the troll.
AL
Arved Sandstrom
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> Old enough and educated enough to realize the futility of reasoning
>> with you. [rest deleted]
>
> Your personal insults and general rudeness are uncalled-for. We had been
> having a perfectly civil debate about NetBeans versioning. Then when I
> managed to produce incontrovertible proof in support of my side of our
> argument, you began to make snide remarks. When I called you on that,
> you responded with this ... trash-talking nonsense.
"Incontrovertible proof"? You've been operating all along with the idea
that NetBeans x.y versioning adheres to a so-called standard numeric
versioning system which doesn't even exist - every project has its own
versioning system. The numbering of NetBeans versions clearly
demonstrates that that project doesn't use x.y versioning in the way that
you assume is standard.
And yet you prop up all of your arguments on the basis of this so-called
standard.
I'm a bit dubious about people who claim to have "incontrovertible" proof
of anything, and especially when it's so clearly wrong.
> I think we're through here.
>
> I have little interest in continuing to debate anything with a sore
> loser such as yourself.
Sore _loser_? :-) I beg to differ. Exactly how did I lose?
>> Absolutely no point in discussing NetBeans updates with you. Their
>> system clearly caused you lots of difficulties.
>
> Their system makes at-best-misleading statements to the user through the
> software's own user-interface. That much I have proven beyond a
> reasonable doubt. The error lies clearly at their doorstep, not mine. So
> this is just another fairly transparent attempt to make things personal
> when you find yourself on the losing end of an argument, and facts come
> to light that support the other side.
>
> Shame on you.
Well, you have managed to blame NetBeans for their versioning system,
pretty much because it's at odds with your idea of what the "standard"
is. You have managed to prove nothing but that their system confused
_you_.
As for personal, if you think anything I've said in this thread has been
trash-talking or particularly personal, you sure haven't ever been
through a serious code review. And clearly you haven't been on Usenet
much. You are taking criticisms of your ideas as criticism of yourself.
Yes, I did get a bit snippy. Hard not to - your refusal to accept reality
is exasperating.
AHS
secret decoder ring
>>> NB is correct
>>
>> Apparently not. I have now confirmed that the Web site has an NB 6.5
>> available.
>
> It is.
So NB is not correct, then.
>>> NB is not a module at version 6.1. NB 6.1 is a module at a given
>>> version (I believe version 1.1.1 is current).
>>
>> This does not make sense.
>
> It is the fact.
I am not talking about your "modules". Indeed, I couldn't care less
about the implementation details and their attendant terminology. I am
pointing out that a message in the user interface, "Your IDE is up to
date!", is clearly erroneous.
Clearly, that is, unless you twist its meaning by using an
unconventional definition of "your", "IDE", "is", or "up to date".
But then, it *has* been clearly demonstrated in the thread that you do
need help understanding how spelling and grammar work in the English
language. Most recently by your mangled phrase "It is the fact." above.
So perhaps you are using an unconventional definition of one or more of
those words and phrases.
But the majority of the user base will not be, so that makes you wrong,
not right.
> And easily verifiable by anyone with NB 6.1 and the skills to use the
> menus.
This looks like a gratuitous potshot to me.
I have tried to be civil with you, but you have been nothing but rude to
me, and often *quite* rude. Even to the point of essentially calling me
a liar when I said, in another thread, that my name was Kevin.
This is especially ridiculous given that you have no possible way of
disproving what I say my name is, so it's ludicrous for you to dispute
it. Any normal person would simply take my word for it.
In fact, any normal person wouldn't have even brought it up; it was
irrelevant.
So it has been clearly demonstrated in the thread that you do need help
understanding how to be normal in the human species.
>> I don't necessarily agree. Moreover, this is irrelevant -- it should
>> not claim to be up to date when it is not.
>
> It is very relevant, because it implies what uptodate means.
Up to date means up to date. It means there's no more recent version. It
means the user is using the most cutting edge released version of his
tools, that there is nothing newer. It means this to 99.99999% of the
English-speaking population of the world.
Apparently it means something else to you. But that is, or at least
should be, no skin off my nose.
secret decoder ring
> John W Kennedy wrote:
>> Nigel Wade wrote:
>>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>>> I don't get this. Why are you verbally attacking someone I've never
>>>> heard of in the middle of a discussion about NetBeans? It looks
>>>> irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Perhaps because you are posting from his machine?
>>
>> I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
>> prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence
>> points to someone else, whereas Paul is usually very sloppy in his
>> attempts to disguise himself.
>
> Paul is sometimes trying harder to disguise himself.
I wouldn't know.
> But the "I am always correct" attitude even when pointed to
> evidence showing otherwise is very characteristic.
Is it? Then I guess you are Paul. After all, I have proven that NB's
statement is erroneous, beyond a reasonable doubt, and still you argue
with me.
Perhaps Joshua is also Paul, since he said a Java class could have two
methods with the same name and parameter types and different return
types, I said it couldn't and quoted from the JLS to prove my point, and
he continued to argue with me.
Perhaps everyone is Paul, and Paul is everywhere. Ph33r!
Or perhaps you're a paranoid schizophrenic.
Only your psychiatrist can be sure.
secret decoder ring
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>>> ... the jump from NB 6.1 to NB
>>>> 6.5 seems more like the equivalent of a service pack upgrade to me.
>>>
>>> Maybe it seems that way to you, but what counts is
>>
>> I am getting rather tired of your arrogance, Lew. You do not decide
>> whether what I say "counts" or not. WE ARE ALL EQUALS HERE. GET THAT
>> THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, PLEASE, BEFORE YOU DRIVE BOTH OF US BATTY!
>
> You are free to claim that 2+2 is 5. But that does not make
> it true.
How fortunate then that I have never made that claim.
> Your assumptions about NB version numbers are wrong.
Your assumptions about polite behavior in public are wrong.
I have no assumptions about NB version numbers. The exact "size" of the
jump from 6.1 to 6.5 is immaterial to my point. It suffices that it's a
positive number for the statement "Your IDE is up to date!" to be proven
false.
secret decoder ring
> AL wrote:
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> Lew wrote:
>>>>> Failure to stay informed is not excused by blaming NetBeans when
>>>>> they are so forthcoming with opportunities to stay abreast.
>>>>
>>>> I completely agree.
>>>
>>> But as I explained to Lew, I have failed at nothing. Invoking "check
>>> for updates" (by menu item or just by using the software long enough,
>>> as it periodically checks in the background) should suffice as due
>>> diligence. It's hardly MY fault if "check for updates" makes glaring
>>> omissions from time to time -- this occurrence was my first
>>> indication that it might do so.
>>
>> I couldn't help noticing how busy you were posting to this subject so
>> I did a quick read of your material. I may have missed it, but what
>> response did you receive from the NB folks about this "omission"?
>> Seeing how you claim to exercise due diligence and have failed at
>> nothing, you surely have addressed this problem with the people who
>> might actually resolve the matter. So, what *was* their response? IMWTK.
>
> You seem to be assuming that he is actually interested in learning
> and understanding what and why.
I have nothing to learn or understand here. The meanings of phrases like
"your IDE is up to date", "check for updates", and "no updates found"
are evident and unambiguous to anyone who has completed the fifth grade,
as I believe I mentioned previously a time or two.
> See:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/carleton.general/browse_frm/thread/107c44a6274df3a6
This appears to be 100% off-topic and irrelevant to a discussion of
NetBeans, or indeed to the topic of Java programming in general.
I know you have a hard-on for this guy Paul, but really, you should
learn to post different topics in their appropriate places.
Comp.lang.java.programmer is not a singles newsgroup. Move along.
secret decoder ring
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> You seem to be assuming that he is actually interested in learning
>> and understanding what and why.
>>
>> That is not the case.
And that is a lie.
> I get that - got it way back up the thread.
If you really do believe that, then you should stop replying.
> But I also get the futility
> of anyone other than the NB folks trying to explain or justify the
> versioning of the software to this bonehead.
No, you're the bonehead.
The versioning is 100% irrelevant to the matter at issue, which is that
it claimed my IDE was up to date when quite clearly that was not the
case. The mere existence of a more recent version, regardless of the
exact system of numbering they choose to use, sufficed to disprove the
claim that my IDE was up to date.
> If anyone on this group feels compelled to respond to this troll
Another insulting mischaracterization!
It seems that this group spares no love for people who point out errors
in the software they regularly use, or question any aspects of the
design or behavior of same.
How illogical, insipid, and stupid. Not to mention disappointing.
secret decoder ring
I have not. You have failed to understand the English language, as you
demonstrate with your every post. Mangled syntax, clear inability to
understand what the English-language phrase "Your IDE is up to date!"
means, awful spelling ... need I go on?
secret decoder ring
So, either way I'm stupid, is that it?
No, sorry, but I don't think I am. It's pretty clear to anyone sane and
over the age of about ten what "Your IDE is up to date!" means, and
therefore that that statement was false. Only an idiot would continue to
argue otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence. So I have to ask,
Arne: are you an idiot?
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> updates are updates to the modules/plugins
>>
>> http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html says
>> otherwise.
>
> No - it does not.
It does to someone with a somewhat firmer grasp of the English language
than yours.
>> Such a definition would be extremely counterintuitive anyway,
>
> Only to people that does not bother to learn about things
> before complaining.
The only thing you have to learn to know what "Your IDE is up to date!"
means is a) the English language and b) what is meant by the initialism
"IDE".
My guess is that the one you haven't learned fully is a), Arne.
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> I think we're through here.
>>
>> I have little interest in continuing to debate anything with a sore
>> loser such as yourself.
>
>
> :-)
After you.
;-)
>>> Absolutely no point in discussing NetBeans updates with you. Their
>>> system clearly caused you lots of difficulties.
>>
>> Their system makes at-best-misleading statements to the user through
>> the software's own user-interface. That much I have proven beyond a
>> reasonable doubt. The error lies clearly at their doorstep, not mine.
>
> It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you do have not
> understood NetBeans versioning and updating.
Obviously I understand it better than you do, since you still don't seem
to see how it is ridiculous for version 6.1 of the IDE to claim "your
IDE is up to date" when version 6.5 is sitting there on the web site,
freshly posted there and awaiting download.
> And worse - that you do not seem interested in understanding it when
> we explain it to you.
You still don't seem to understand. You are not "explaining it to me",
you are making excuses for the software's patently incorrect message,
apparently by trying to redefine the English phrase "up to date" in a
quirky way that no English professor is ever going to agree with.
I am making clear that those excuses hold no water with me. The software
uttered an incorrect statement. Accept it. Accept that NB 6.1 is not
perfect. Indeed, if it were, why create NB 6.5?
This argument is passing the point of being merely ridiculous and
becoming frankly ludicrous. All of the facts are squarely on my side,
yet you will not yield, apparently because you feel your honor has been
impugned. Who are you, anyway, Paul Derbyshire?
secret decoder ring
>> Your personal insults and general rudeness are uncalled-for. We had been
>> having a perfectly civil debate about NetBeans versioning. Then when I
>> managed to produce incontrovertible proof in support of my side of our
>> argument, you began to make snide remarks. When I called you on that,
>> you responded with this ... trash-talking nonsense.
>
> "Incontrovertible proof"? You've been operating all along with the idea
> that NetBeans x.y versioning adheres to a so-called standard numeric
>
> And yet you prop up all of your arguments on the basis of this so-called
> standard.
No. Nothing about the details of the versioning is needed to prop up my
argument.
NB 6.5 exists.
NB 6.5 is more recent than NB 6.1.
Ergo, NB 6.1 is no longer the most up to date version of NB.
This would be just as true if it were
Foobar 3.0 exists.
Foobar 3.0 is more recent than Foobar 2000.
Ergo, Foobar 2000 is no longer the most up to date version of Foobar.
It's a simple, irrefutable syllogism, regardless of what the numbers
are. You'll note that I chose the made-up example so that the numerical
order was reversed -- 2000 is far, far larger than 3.0 obviously -- so
as to make it clear that the way the numbering system is applied by the
makers is completely irrelevant to the question of up-to-dateness.
The ONLY relevant fact is that there exists a more recently released
version.
As long as you keep ignoring this, you will keep missing the point, Arved.
I think you are missing it deliberately, because where it actually
matters all of the facts are on my side. So rather than face defeat you
continue to fight a diversionary battle.
The real brain-burner here, of course, being why fight at all? Why not
just accept as proven that NB 6.1's user interface uttered an incorrect
statement, and thus NB 6.1 contains a bug?
Indeed, if you honestly believed that NB 6.1 was perfect, you'd have a
hard time explaining the very existence of NB 6.5.
> I'm a bit dubious about people who claim to have "incontrovertible" proof
> of anything, and especially when it's so clearly wrong.
But it is not wrong. See above.
>> I think we're through here.
>>
>> I have little interest in continuing to debate anything with a sore
>> loser such as yourself.
>
> Sore _loser_? :-) I beg to differ. Exactly how did I lose?
By backing the wrong horse, of course.
You said that NB 6.1's "up to date" message was not erroneous. I
conclusively demonstrated otherwise. So now you nitpick an irrelevant
detail in something I said in order to avoid facing facts.
I call shenanigans, and assert that I suspect you of being the famous
Paul Derbyshire.
>> Their system makes at-best-misleading statements to the user through the
>> software's own user-interface. That much I have proven beyond a
>> reasonable doubt. The error lies clearly at their doorstep, not mine. So
>> this is just another fairly transparent attempt to make things personal
>> when you find yourself on the losing end of an argument, and facts come
>> to light that support the other side.
>>
>> Shame on you.
>
> Well, you have managed to blame NetBeans for their versioning system,
No, I have pointed out a bug that causes the software bearing that name,
or at least one particular version of it, to make erroneous statements
to the user. That is not the same thing.
> You have managed to prove nothing but that their system confused
> _you_.
Oh, I found the message "Your IDE is up to date!" crystal clear.
Factually incorrect, but crystal clear in its meaning.
> As for personal, if you think anything I've said in this thread has been
> trash-talking or particularly personal
You have repeatedly insinuated that I was lying or incompetent in some
way. On top of that, we have such explicit gems as:
> I expect that you get corrected a lot*
> It's been explained to you that
> Nobody else actually is hair-splitting, boss.*
> Everyone else managed to adjust*
> And as others pointed out
> Old enough and educated enough to realize the futility of reasoning with
> you.*
> you cannot assume that
> Try Googling
> Absolutely no point in discussing anything with you.*
> Most of us have have no issues.*
> you assume
> you prop up all of your arguments on the basis of this so-called*
> so clearly wrong.
> you have managed to blame NetBeans
> their system confused _you_.*
> you sure haven't ever been through a serious code review.*
> your refusal to accept reality*
> clearly you haven't been on Usenet much.*
All of these are at least somewhat rude, and several of them are quite
unambiguous and explicit personal attacks (I've marked those with an
asterisk above).
The only one that's even remotely true is that I have not, in fact, been
on Usenet much, but I deny that there's anything wrong, evil, or stupid
with that.
And then you admit it:
> Yes, I did get a bit snippy.
Point, set, match. You lose.
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> "secret decoder ring" <sdr...@foomail.bar.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ggrotu$ok3$1...@aioe.org...
>>>> For a minor-version increase, the above goes double.
>>>
>>> Thing is, when you see a x.y or x.y.z version numbering scheme, you
>>> can't assume that x=major, y=minor, and z=maintenance
>>
>> Actually, I can, and I do, since that IS the standard.
>
> There are no standard for version numbers.
That's where you're wrong. There's a defacto standard established my
majority rule. There does, indeed, not seem to be an
officially-written-down standard, mind you.
> Some use n, some use n.n, some use n.n.n, some use n.n.n.n,
> some use yyyy, some use n.n-n and so on.
It remains generally true that, after removing any punctuation and
reading the number as a normal number*, the higher numbers indicate the
more recent versions, and bigger increases indicate bigger changes. In
particular, one digit increasing indicates a newer version and digits
further to the left indicate larger magnitudes of change.
* With the caveat that versions with a multi-digit number inside them,
like 2.10.3, need to be treated as if the "10" were a single digit in a
bigger base than decimal.
>> You don't get to decide what I do or do not assume, or what is or is
>> not standard, shocking though this may be for you to hear.
>
> But we will obviously point out when your wrong assumptions lead you
> to wrong conclusions.
No, nothing about me is "wrong".
My conclusion, in particular, is clearly correct: NB 6.1 is NOT the most
up-to-date version of NB anymore.
I can't believe you're still arguing otherwise.
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>> number points behind the times. This should be immediately apparent
>>>> from visiting the NB Web site, Lew. I don't see how any reasonable
>>>> person can argue in the face of such clear evidence.
>>>
>>> 6.1 is most definitely not 4 minor version number points behind the
>>> times
>>
>> Yet quite clearly it is, since their Web site announces proudly the
>> release of a shiny new version, and that version is 6.5.
>>
>> Five minus one is four, as almost any child with passable grades in
>> arithmetic will be willing to confirm for you.
>>
>> Whether there were actually three intermediate versions or not is
>> immaterial, since I said it is four minor version number POINTS,
>> rather than four VERSIONS, behind.
>
> That is being stupid by being clever.
No, it is not.
Say, you wrote at least 15 posts just to growl at me in less than two
hours. You must have quite a hard-on for me!
> There are indeed 0.4 in difference between NB 6.1 and NB 6.5, but that
> is not particular relevant for anything.
It is relevant for the question of how large a magnitude the change is
implied to me.
It is, however, indeed irrelevant to whether "Your IDE is up to date!"
is a true statement or a false one. But that is Arved's error, not mine.
> Arved just made the big mistake of assuming that you posted something
> relevant.
No, the only mistake he made was in completely missing the point, which
is that "Your IDE is up to date!" coming from NB 6.1 is (as of a week or
two ago, anyway) patently false.
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>>> Lew wrote:
>>>>> It doesn't say "6.1 is the latest version". It says, "Your 6.1
>>>>> version is up to date".
>>>
>>>> Those statements are synonymous.
>>>
>>> Except for meaning different things.
>>
>> But they do not. Look up "synonymous" in the dictionary, Lew. It means
>> they mean the same thing!
>
> Yes.
Well, at least that is now settled.
> "6.1 is the latest version" means that 6.5 does not exist.
>
> "Your 6.1 version is up to date" means that NB 6.1 module is at
> version 1.1.1 and all other modules are at their latest version.
What are you babbling about now? What is this "modules" stuff? The
message "Your IDE is up to date!" says nothing about "modules".
It says that whatever version you're using is the latest, at least aside
from betas and the like.
> That is two completely different things.
Because you contrived it so. But what you wrote has nothing whatsoever
to do with the meaning of the simple and short English phrase "Your IDE
is up to date!".
secret decoder ring
> secret decoder ring wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> It doesn't say "6.1 is the latest version". It says, "Your 6.1
>>> version is up to date".
>>
>> Those statements are synonymous.
>>
>> And 6.1 version is not up to date, is it?
>
> Most likely it is.
Clearly not, since 6.5 clearly does exist and clearly is a more recent
version than 6.1.
> But you can easily check it - your NB 6.1 module should be
> version 1.1.1
Quit changing the subject. We are not discussing your pet "module"
thingy. We are discussing the IDE as a whole, as in "Your IDE is up to
date!".
>> Elsewhere I have highlighted an explicitly contradictory pair of
>> statements, one uttered by the "check for updates" menu item of NB 6.1
>> when activated and one on the NB Web site.
>>
>> It seems clear that both statements cannot simultaneously be true, and
>> that the one on the Web site is true.
>>
>> It follows that the updater has a bug that causes it to make incorrect
>> statements to the user from time to time.
>
> No.
Yes.
> You have just misunderstood what the updater does.
If I have done so, it is only because the updater's self-descriptions
are factually incorrect.
However, the job of the updater clearly includes telling the user
whether new versions of anything relevant exist. Surely new versions of
NB itself are relevant.
>> No, I do not. I simply need to report the problem, not investigate it
>> laboriously like I was going to be fixing it myself. That's not my
>> responsibility. It is the development team's responsibility.
>
> There is nothing to to fix in the code.
That is clearly not correct, since the code (of 6.1; perhaps this is
already fixed in 6.5) makes erroneous and misleading statements to the
user, behavior that cannot reasonably be considered to be correct.
Arved Sandstrom
[ SNIP ]
Your model of software development does not accurately describe software
like NetBeans, Eclipse, Apache httpd, Tomcat, most any operating system
out there, most DBMS's, most IDEs I have used, programming
languages...well, actually, tens of thousands of programs.
How do you describe the situation when Windows XP had its SP3 _after_
Vista had its SP1? Going by dates, up until right about now you'd have
had to say that XP SP3 was the most recent version of Windows, hence the
most up to date. Now it's going to be Vista SP2, but not many XP users
are going to think that any variant of Vista is actually an upgrade.
For Eclipse users who have reasons for sticking with Europa, or NetBeans
users who have reasons for sticking with NB 6.1, or Apache httpd users
who have reasons for sticking with 1.3.x, or SQL Server users who don't
need (or want) SQL Server 2008, or Java programmers who are still using
JDK 1.5.x, not very many of them get confused about the difference
between updating the software they have now, and installing what is
essentially a new program.
Your model of software development falls apart when considering
simultaneous development and maintenance branches, or even parallel
development.
You're absolutely correct - NetBeans 6.5 came out after NetBeans 6.1.
It's a later version just like Visual C# Express 2008 is, compared to
Visual C# Express 2005. And an update to Visual C# Express 2005 or 2008
is called a service pack, not installing the next major version. Same
thing for NetBeans or tens of thousands of other applications.
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
[ SNIP ]
>> It is very relevant, because it implies what uptodate means.
>
> Up to date means up to date. It means there's no more recent version. It
> means the user is using the most cutting edge released version of his
> tools, that there is nothing newer. It means this to 99.99999% of the
> English-speaking population of the world.
>
> Apparently it means something else to you. But that is, or at least
> should be, no skin off my nose.
Up-to-date doesn't mean the most recently released version, it has never
meant that, and it's not going to mean that in the future. Not as a
general observation.
Consider a common software development situation. The first production
release of an application comes out: 1.0. Two years later 2.0
arrives...most likely it is crammed with new _features_. However, in the
meantime there have been ongoing patches to the 1.0 maintenance branch,
and even some feature additions from especially promising/requested work
that happened on the development branch.
In this picture release 2.0 is _not_ an update of 1.0, and I don't know
any professional developers, possibly excluding yourself, who would
consider 2.0 to be an update of 1.0 (*). Indeed, 1.12.3.4, which comes
out a week after 2.0, is the latest and most up-to-date version of 1.0.
Release 2.0 is a _new_ and _different_ application. At a given date it
may happen that 2.0.3 is more recent than 1.12.4, but guess what...2.0.3
is the most up-to-date version of 2.0, and 1.12.4 is the most up-to-date
version of 1.0.
As I mentioned in a previous post, tens or hundreds of thousands of
applications follow this model.
AHS
* It's certainly possible that it could be, if 1.0 was basically
crippleware, and you don't really start getting a complete decent app
until 4.0. In this case 2.0 and 3.0 really never should have been
considered full production releases anyway. But I'm positing a situation
where each production release is something that implements all of the
current requirements (or a large majority of them)...IOW, 2.0
incorporates _new_ requirements.
Arved Sandstrom
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> secret decoder ring wrote:
[ SNIP ]
>> "Your 6.1 version is up to date" means that NB 6.1 module is at version
>> 1.1.1 and all other modules are at their latest version.
>
> What are you babbling about now? What is this "modules" stuff? The
> message "Your IDE is up to date!" says nothing about "modules".
>
> It says that whatever version you're using is the latest, at least aside
> from betas and the like.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd think that a software developer would really
be aware of what exactly it means for an application to report itself "up-
to-date". Because tens or hundreds of thousands of applications follow
the NetBeans model.
>> That is two completely different things.
>
> Because you contrived it so. But what you wrote has nothing whatsoever
> to do with the meaning of the simple and short English phrase "Your IDE
> is up to date!".
And you're playing with the English language. There is a world of
difference between saying "my Windows is fully updated" and "I have the
latest version of Windows". When I (and most every developer I know) says
that their Eclipse or IntelliJ or NetBeans is updated, they mean the
major version they have. They don't mean they are sporting the absolute
latest release of the IDE. The list goes on and on and on.
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
I seem to recall that you're mighty sensitive to personal attacks. I
guess that's a one-way street, eh? In any case, I'd say a person is
losing the argument when they resort to attacking the other person's
English language skills...what happened? Did the technical merits of your
case evaporate even in your eyes?
Incidentally, when your final defence is based on the supposed precision
of a human language you may as well hang it up.
See, here's the thing. It doesn't even matter that the NetBeans team use
"update" to describe the progression from NB 6.1 to NB 6.5 (by a new
installation procedure), and also use it to describe incremental updates
to each major version. Regardless of the fact that they use the same
word, anyone who actually uses the IDE knows (or should) that updating
through the IDE will not magically get you to the next major release.
Considering the ambiguity of the English language, 99.9% of users out
there nevertheless seem to have figured out what's going on...
Most of my recent contracts have seen me and all of my colleagues using
Eclipse. I can't remember a single occasion where someone got confused
about the difference between updating 3.2/3.3/3.4 and going from say 3.3
to 3.4. And, yes, one might casually say "I'm updating my Eclipse to
3.4", and it's understood that you don't get there by updating 3.3.
AHS
AL
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>> There are no standard for version numbers.
>
> That's where you're wrong. There's a defacto standard established my
> majority rule.
What majority? The majority of the voices in your head?
Lew
> Incidentally, when your final defence is based on the supposed precision
> of a human language you may as well hang it up.
Those reading this thread capable of being convinced by your arguments have
been, or didn't need to be in the first place. Those not capable of being
convinced by your logic and evidence (and for the record I will posit that
Paul Derbyshire is capable of logic and reason, including being able to modify
his opinion based on such*) will never be so.
--
Lew
* Based on his earlier posts, we'll go along with the assertion that this has
nothing to do with "secret decoder ring".
Jerry Gerrone
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > John W Kennedy wrote:
> >> I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
> >> prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence
> > Paul is [implied insult deleted]
> > But [implied insults deleted]
As explained previously, I find it necessary to assume that all
insults aimed at "Paul" here are actually intended for me, and respond
in both of our defense. To set the record straight:
* I am not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that any of you have said or implied
are true of me.
* I don't know whether the insults are true of Paul, but I
very much doubt that he'd appreciate any of you insulting him
behind his back.
> Is it? Then I guess you are Paul. After all, I have proven that NB's
> statement is erroneous, beyond a reasonable doubt, and still you argue
> with me.
>
> Perhaps Joshua is also Paul, since he said a Java class could have two
> methods with the same name and parameter types and different return
> types, I said it couldn't and quoted from the JLS to prove my point, and
> he continued to argue with me.
>
> Perhaps everyone is Paul, and Paul is everywhere. Ph33r!
This is very interesting. Perhaps Arne's constantly claiming that
other people are Paul is to disguise the fact that *he* is Paul? Given
the reports that Paul has an embarrassing past of some sort, he might
have motive to behave in such a fashion.
On the other hand, the first person to apparently start "accusing"
people of being Paul was one Hunter Gratzner.
On the gripping hand, that's obviously an alias (and points to the
user being a fan of Pitch Black, and maybe of Vin Diesel -- ph33r
indeed!) so that net account could have been a sock puppet of Arne's.
> Or perhaps you're a paranoid schizophrenic.
This, however, seems to me to be the most likely explanation for
Arne's behavior in this thread and others.
> Only your psychiatrist can be sure.
And he'll never tell, so I guess we'll never know for sure.