On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:53, Alex Fern�ndez wrote:
> > 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.
Sure they have - ever heard of a little OS called Windows .. apparently it
has a fair bit of marketshare.
> 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.
umm ... they have a few JVMs but theres a significant proportion that is Sun
owned/licensed.
> I think Blackdown does the same,
No they just port Suns JVM
> and the FSF is developing a free JVM clone.
Initially there was about 7 JVMs. Currently there is only 3 remaining (kaffe,
japhar and gcj). All of them are incompatible, more resource intensive and
slower than any vaguely modern JVM. Most are about 3 years behind. Nothing
even in the same vacinity as IBMs JVM.
> > 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?
Most buisnesses and homeusers?
> > 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?
errr ... you likely couldn't place the jars in classpath (without GPLing your
works).
--
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
* "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, *
* and proving that there is no need to do so - almost *
* everyone gets busy on the proof." *
* - John Kenneth Galbraith *
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
