Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> >>>>> "CA" == Chris Abbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> CA> Sun positioned Java as a language not bound to any realworld
> CA> platform; and hence as being multiplatform capable.
>
> In the case of Java looking at the technical specs is going to be
> restrictive. Sun, positioned Java, from a technical and marketing
> point of view, as *the* multiplatform language. Now, the original plan
> of letting third parties do the port might have been ok initially but
> after about three years it's clear that there is something slowing
> down the porting of the JDK. This is, IMHO, because the JDK is not
> Open Source. Look at Perl, in the DOS days there where at least three
> ports and there are versions of Perl for virtually any platform.
>
> >> The reality is that they develop only two versions.
>
> CA> They produce two _reference_implementations_, one on their own
> CA> platform,
>
> Thank you for rephrasing so nicely what I said ;).
>
> >> That's not covering two of the most used platforms in the PC
> >> arena: Linux and Macintosh.
>
> CA> umm... ok... sure... what-ever you say... time to pass the
> CA> pipe friend, you've had too much for tonight... :)
>
> Let me say it with simpler words: Sun does not provide the JDK for
> Linux or for the Macintosh. To this date there is no, for what I know,
> a port of JDK 1.2 for the Macintosh. Before the JDK 1.2 was released
> officially there have been several pre-releases for Windows and
> Solaris. Six months after the official release we still have to have a
> final release of the JDK 1.2 for Linux. Clear now ?
>
> >> 2) In November Sun publicly announced support for Linux. The
> >> announcement has not been followed, for what I can see, by
> >> facts.
>
> CA> We have seen at least indirect evidence of three things:
> CA> 1. Sun provided blackdown with the JCK. 2. Sun provided
> CA> blackdown with two engineers whom they could ask questions of,
> CA> and who have worked with the porting team to debug problems,
> CA> and who provide a mechanism for the port to get back into the
> CA> "master" source tree at Javasoft. 3. Sun provided Steve with
> CA> a license which is (I believe) unique. All three of these
> CA> amazed me to no end at the time, and to some extent still do
> CA> to this day.
>
> They amazed me at that time but sadly the reality is that Sun is not
> providing us with enough information. This thread was started because
> of the uncomfortable silence aroung the JDK 1.2. I have no problems
> working with the current version. I think it's pretty good. The
> problem exposed by the original poster and I is that we didn't get any
> news for a long time and this makes it hard to make any plan on
> development on Linux+Java.
>
> >> People are investing time and money based on what Sun says.
>
> CA> People are putting their money on something they have no
> CA> control over then. When I grew up that was called
> CA> gambling... today its called investing.
>
> Disagree completely. Gambling is when you put money on a number at the
> roulette or betting on a running horse or dog. Investing is done on
> completeley different ground and that's exactly why it's so hard to
> get money from a venture capital firm.
>
> >> Now, if you look at the BTS on the JDC you'll see that there
> >> thousands of requests for Linux JDK. If Sun judges the need to
> >> port the JDK to platform based on the number of users that want
> >> it then the Linux community showed some real numbers.
>
> CA> nice logic, but I think anyone who's been around here will
> CA> recognise it as the logic that _isn't_ prevailing at Sun.
>
> Well, it seems to me that the constant pounding the Linux drum
> actually brought some good results, see the licencing and support you
> mentioned before. It may not be the logic of Sun but things can change
> and that's exactly why I keep writing in this forum. It's not like I
> have a lot of time to spend online :)
>
> CA> http://java.sun.com/cgi-bin/java-ports.cgi?other=true
>
> CA> OK, so it's not in great big graphics screaming out to the
> CA> world... but it's been there since, at least, December.
>
> That's exactly what I mean. If you want to download the Solaris or
> Windows JDK you just need two clicks. To get the the Linux version you
> have to search a lot. That would be ok if the Linux JDK was not
> supported by Sun but, as the November annoucement says, this version
> of the JDk is officially supported. That is the reason of my comment.
>
> >> lack of support *from Sun* is seriously joepardizing any
> CA> ^^^^^^^^ Why does it have to be
> CA> Sun?
>
> Again, because they announced it.
>
> It's not like they're developing Java in a total vaccuumm
> CA> (how do you spell that word anyway?
>
> Vacuum
>
> CA> Which is always a good thing... but how many Sun managers do
> CA> you think read this list?
>
> How don't know how many but I know there are people from Sun reading
> this list. Again, I have limited time, if I write here is because I
> hope Sun will receive the message. See, I'm investing time based on
> known facts ;)
>
> --Paolo
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
