It seems that IBM has been pretty forthcoming with respect to support
for opensource people. All of the source to Jikes, and I believe their
JDK can be found on their website. IBM is very interested in using Java
as a middleware to their databases, and building web enabled data
warehouses. This is a perfect place for Java and they know it. That's
why they've been working on their own JDK and compiler. They're
treating Java and their JDK as a tool to help them really clean up in
the database market. As such, they are being very open about their Java
plans. It sounds like IBM is more than willing to put the time and
money into developing their own version of the JDK because they're
banking on the Linux community to code middleware and embrace their
databases, if given the tools they need. And since Linux is almost
synonimous with Open Source, they're also willing to Open Source their
compilers and JDK, for two reasons. One, it is almost the defacto
standard on which most Linux software is based, they want to keep Linux
users happy. And two, they realize the potential of the Linux community
to give valuable input and increase production of what will be some very
valuable glue to them.
Right now they're in a crunch to get JDK ported to their AIX machines
(duh), and then a Linux port will be made. They're also working on
including this JDK 1.2 port in their upcoming version of VisualAge for
Linux.
It's not clear how this would help Blackdown, whether it would be better
for IBM to help Blackdown, or for Blackdown to help with the IBM linux
port. It's pretty clear that IBM will release a JDK 1.2.2 port for
Linux sooner or later. This will probably be an Open Source JDK which
follows the Java 1.2.2 spec, it probably will not be a port of the Sun
JDK.
So we're left with a few questions. Should the existing devolopers of
Java porting projects aid an IBM JDK? IBM having greater resources to
throw at this, knowing that their work would go to speed up the
production of a product owned by a corporation, that intends to use it
as glue in one of their products. Or continue to spend time on a
product that would be more or less owned by the Linux Java Community,
but that could then be used just the same by IBM?
I myself would favor the first option. I think I'd like to see a high
quality Open product produced by a high power corporation. If Sun
doesn't have the resources or interest in porting their JDK to Linux,
then I'm all for IBM doing it. If this helps IBM in other markets,
great, they deserve some payback. We've seen good examples of very big
Open Source products run by the Linux community, Gnome, KDE, Gimp, and a
zillion others are good examples. But I think that in this case
everyone involved would be better off, and have a better product,
faster, if some effort shifted from the Blackdown port, which in my
opinion is just crawling along, to the IBM JDK.
I think that as long as IBM keeps their current position and keeps
things Open Source, that everyone, Linux community and IBM will be
happy.
-Jim
> I'm just curious. Why is no one talking about the possible experience to be
> gained from IBM? Because the legal problems are too great, therefore stalling
> the relationship? Or is IBM unwilling to help (since it sounds they have much
> more to loose in the relationship)? Or is that it's relative new and no one has
> stepped up to the bar?
>
> It just feels like they are in the pocket and could lend a BIG helping hand (if
> not code). It seems like they have made some strong repairs and their advise
> could prevent some wasting of resources (which it appears java-linux/Blackdown
> team is short on).
>
> Does anyone know about an official IBM contact person? (such as Calvin Austin
> (As of last week I am covering as the Sun/Java/linux contact person so you can
> email me if you need to)).
>
> Cheers Tod Matola....
> OCLC
> http://purl.oclc.org/net/tod
>
> Michael Sinz wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:09:51 -0400, Tod Matola wrote:
> >
> > >Here's a question, Has IBM (and/or Blackdown) interacted at all?
> >
> > Yes, but there are some big issues - IBM has their own GC/Heap management
> > system and their own JIT (and it is a very good one) IBM also uses this
> > code base on many other systems (not just Linux or Unix) and has some
> > intelectual property issues with engineers in their core technology touching
> > GPL or other open source code in the same field of technology as it could
> > "infect" their core technology and cause them to loose it.
> >
> > Now, there is nothing wrong with them listening to what issues we
> > ran into and what we did to work around/past/through them. And the
> > same goes the other way around.
> >
> > BTW - This is all due to legal issues and I am not a lawyer so the exact
> > representation of the problem is most likely more complex than what I
> > just outlined.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Sinz -- Director of Research & Development, NextBus Inc.
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------- http://www.nextbus.com
> > My place on the web ---> http://www.users.fast.net/~michael_sinz
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
