Matt Welsh wrote:
>
> I usually can't stand flame bait like this but I wanted to point out one
> thing.
It seemed likely to stirr up discussion but I don't think it was
inflammatory either.
> Sun has clearly recognized some of the advantages of the Open Source model,
> which is the entire reason why they have adopted the 'Sun Community Source
> License' for a large number of their products -- including the JDK.
What Sun has clearly recognised is the potential for them to increase
their profits by adopting the words, but NOT the actions of the Open
Source model. But no one is blaming them for this - after all there
role is to make profits for the shareholders. However what I am
critising them for is not _understanding_ the way OSS works. Teh way
they (and others mind you) have structured thier license is designed to
try through buzz-words & marketing hype to entice developers into
helping them for free in exchange for as little as Sun can get away
with!
> This link is the paper 'Sun Community Source License Principles' which does
> a fair job at explaining the motivation behind the license:
> http://www.sun.com/981208/scsl/principles.html
> It would behoove one to familiarize oneself with this before ranting on
> about everything Sun is doing wrong -- there is a lot they're doing right,
> too.
Yes and what gems are we to find in the SCSL that you think have been
overlooked ?
Agreed Sun is not as bad as some other corporations in the way they are
doing things, but compare with M$: a new platform is evolved rapidly so
that the API's are in a constant change of flux. Once they are
stabilised, the API is exploded. The goal of this might not have been
to hinder others from implmenting (NOT licensing!) the java platform,
but guess what ?, they have done this just as effectively as M$ and
windows did! Now again I'm NOT saying that Sun has done the same thing
with Java as M$ did with windows, but there are similarities - Sun is
not doing as many things right as you might think.
> Sun is very concerned with the potential 'splintering' of Java
> standarization efforts. The idea is that if many offshoots of Java are
> propagated, this seriously weakens the overall adaptation of Java technology
> and would become a weak spot in Sun's desire to make Java a universal
> standard -- thereby allowing stronger market forces (such as Microsoft) to
> essentially destroy Java once and for all. I think we can all agree that
> this would be a Bad Thing.
This I'm afraid makes no sense to me. How does one splinter java by
standardising it ?
Well to answer my own question, I guess they way you do it is to have an
orgs body standardise it differently to the way Sun wants it, surprise,
surprise!
> So, there is a clear tension between the desire to make Java truly Open
> Source and the desire to prevent it from fragmenting to the point where its
> market penetration is weakened. Clearly, as supporters of Java, we should be
> supportive of both goals. Otherwise it will be all too easy for someone else
> to come along with a "Java killer" which ends up dominating the market in
> its place.
Yes there is tension, but no one (at least not me) is going to persucute
Sun for not OS's java - its thier product, its their choice, it's that
simple! However if they have pretensions to it being an open-standard
then they must realise that there has got to be an _indpendently_
controlled spec that everyone implements - after all isn't that what
open-standards means? As supporters of Java what we should be
supporting is a standard, not a product! I have faith in C/C++/POSIX
for exactly this reason, you have a spec which everyone is free to
implment and which no one company controls. You tell me you have the
same in Sun+Java.
As for a "java killer", I don't see one coming along, but then again I'm
sure most people didn't see Java coming. But really I don't see how our
lack of support for Sun will bring this about anymore then our support
will prevent it. As I said before I use java because I LIKE IT.
Something pretty spectacular would have to come along to make me "jump
ship".
> So, give Sun a little slack. They are making an honest effort to do the
> right thing. It is far more constructive to work within the framework which
> they are trying to build, and to provide useful feedback on that framework,
> than simply "jumping ship" on Sun altogether. That approach can't do anything
> good for Java in the long run.
>
> mdw
I think we have given Sun slack. I have personally waited patiently for
2 years. My slack to Sun goes as far as my respect for them for being
the one to come up with java and releasing it to the net. I appreciate
they Sun is trying to build a "framework" for us, but to me the people
at Sun building it do not have an understanding of OSS what it means to
do it. I would rather they not bother, then continuing on to build
something that to me looks like a prison! You arguement for working
within it is like saying lets work with the jailors to make things
better, rather then working on a tunnel to get out.
I'm sorry if thats sounds abit harsh, but I think most people are
missing teh point, I don't want to jump of the Java ship, I just don't
want Sun at the helm. And all of this is not Suns fault, (to throw in
another anaolgy) it's just that its very hard to be the umpire when
you're the captain on one of the teams!
In my eyes Java's long term future rests with it's widest possible
adoption and I don't see that happening while Sun keeps total control of
it.
Maksim.
--
Remember Darwin; building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter
mice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
