Hi Berin!
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> "Kevin A. Burton" wrote:
> > I hate this!
> >
> > "Sun called on consumers "to demand that Microsoft include the Java platform in
> > their XP operating system." Sun also said consumers should demand "PC vendors
> > like Dell, Compaq, Gateway, IBM and HP (Hewlett-Packard) include the Java
> > platform in their applications."
>
> I don't have a problem with this at all. It means that I can have clients install
> my software without having to download anything first. Sure it helps SUN, but it
> also helps me. Kind of a win/win situation if you will.
It's hard to believe. What are you selling? Applets? Kind of a support
nightmare for you then. Otherwise, you run what you need on the server
and don't care about client JVMs.
> Another benefit will be a larger number of people complaining to SUN about certain
> defects or performance drops with every new release of the Java language (1.3 is
> slower than 1.2 which is slower than 1.1.x on several IO routines). I realize that
> JDK 1.4 is supposed to seriously address these issues, but there are other issues
> with JDK 1.4.
Again, hard to believe. Users won't ever complain about performance
issues; they will just use something else. As a web surfer, you learn
certain rules quick: avoid anything Flashy, stop the browser when
consoles open, go away whenever the Java VM is starting. You do not
complain; you just move away.
> > Why would we want yet ANOTHER proprietary application shipped as a standard on
> > an OS? It would be a different story if the JVM were OSS but guess what? It
> > isn't. Why would I want to help SUN increase their stranglehold over the
> > computer industry?
>
> It truly is a convenience. If a user is buying a PC with JRE preinstalled, they
> will use it--or explore using programs that use it. It opens up a
> lot of potential clients for our OSS projects. Let's face it, we chose to build
> a lot of projects on a proprietary "standard".
That's right. And that's why we should be pushing to make Java a true
standard. In fact, Sun should be pushing this way too, if they would
just realize that only open standards have ever been successful against
monopolistic practices. Anybody using NetBEUI (or whatever) out there?
> > It seems to me that as soon as they OSS Java, all their problems will go away:
>
> I disagree, see below.
Ok, let's see below.
> > - - No more competition from .NET/C#. (why would anyone want to support an MS
> > proprietary language?)
>
> You might think that, but there are a number of MS shops out there who implement
> things on MS technology because it was MS. Case and point, I worked on a project
> for a couple state law enforcement agencies, and my employer insisted on an all
> MS technology. When we tried to drum up more business, the remaining states were
> clamoring for Oracle and Unix--so the division folded up with two successful
> projects under it's belt. The example shows both the danger of dependency on
> MS technology, and the cycle of dependancy it forces you in.
Thanks for the example. Let's push so public shops are not swallowed
into propietary sub-standard technologies.
> > - - If it were GPL/LGPL MS couldn't embrace and extend?
>
> They would find a way--or they would step up the FUD campaign. With SUN controlling
> Java, there is little that MS can do to belittle it. SUN has proven itself in
> the marketplace, and serves as that single point to blame if something goes wrong.
> That accountability keeps SUN honest in regards to Java.
Try this:
http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon/
The FUD campaign against GPL is at full throttle right now.
Now, as to Sun: you seem to imply that we may trust Sun or we may move
somewhere else. This is simply not true. Nobody can own a language --
you can develop a free alternative if you wish to, and then call it
something else. Sun will sue you so you do not display the Java logo in
the box -- big deal.
> > - - All the bugs that have been sitting in the JVM for *years* will finally get
> > fixed.
>
> I would have to agree to this point. SUN does need to explore methods of accepting
> patches from the general community--but they still need to be in control. The
> truth is some of those patches will inevitably break something else in another system
> altogether. Java is HUGE, and no one user will be able to test *every* use of a
> core object. Of course, they could test to spec--in which case all other areas that
> break have to be fixed.
This point is moot. Tomorrow I'll send Linus a patch so the next Linux
kernel is fully SMP capable with 1024 CPUs -- I'm sure he'll happily
apply it.
> Allowing just anyone to commit a patch without full testing could cause some high
> paying customers alot of headache.
Now, this second part is amusing. When IBM notices my patch has broken
Big Blue's successor, they will have lots of headaches and complain.
> > - - They don't have to spend the millions of dollars they spend on maintaining the
> > JVM.
>
> They can explore a number of options with maintaining the JVM that could potentially
> lower the amount that they spend. Basically the cost of maintaining the JVM won't
> change (it might even increase), but it will be spread accross many companies that
> maintain it.
Companies do not maintain open standards. A standard body issues the
standard, then companies choose to comply or not. IBM maintains their
own JDK, and it doesn't cost Sun anything. I think Blackdown does the
same, and the FSF is developing a free JVM clone. The landscape would
not change that much, you see.
> > - - Universal industry acceptance of Java.
>
> Ok, you now have bitten the "OSS is the god of the software world" bug. OSSing Java
> would actually alienate a number of large IT firms. I know personally a couple
> customers of my company that would not allow it on their servers simply because it
> is open source. (They don't allow Apache HTTPD on their servers for that reason,
> even if it has been proven time and again).
Yeah, big deal. I know personally a couple customers of my company who
can't tell OSS from UML if their lives are at stake. So what?
> > - - Tons of cool stuff! :)
>
> That's pretty specific. ;P
>
> -- Loss of millions of marketing dollars and industry buzz
>
> Let's face it, SUN promotes Java well. By making them lose control of the platform,
> what incentive will they have? SUN will pull a MS and put together another competing
> standard.
Why? They have a 6-year headstart over MS .NET. Why start all over again?
Somebody said that an operating system needs 5 years to be usable. This
has proven true once and again: Windows, MacOS X, and now Java (which is
more like an OS than a language). Even if you're Microsoft. So, their
.NET "platform" may be usable in 2006. Who cares?
> What I would like to see is something *better* than the JCP. I believe in open
>research.
> OSS fits a great many needs, but there are some key points in Free Software
>(GPL/LGPL) that
> I don't necessarily agree with.
Nobody asks you to. At work I prefer the Apache license just because I
can rip off code, but I hardly do anyway; I just put .jar's in the
classpath. What would change if Apache used GPL?
Un saludo,
Alex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
