Very True.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Meyers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mike Ajemian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: another possibility wrt the press-release.
> Mike Ajemian wrote:
> > My opinions are based on years of working in the industry and being
> > involved in discussions involving brand representation and issues of
> > brand dilution. To me, Inprise had no incentive to involve blackdown
> > in their release, so they didn't involve blackdown. If my opinions
> > are wrong, I'm more than happy to admit it and learn from my
> > mistake(s).
>
> Well, there doesn't seem to be any dispute that Inprise contacted
> Blackdown repeatedly and was ignored. And, last I checked, Java is not
> an Inprise brand. Why would Inprise even care? When you've got a truly
> unique contribution, like TowerJ's Java execution environment, branding
> matters. But, calling on your years of branding experience, please tell
> me why the hell anyone (especially a company that doesn't sell hardware,
> for which it might actually matter) would want to brand a JDK port.
>
> I'm sorry you object to the term "conspiracy theory", but one of my
> criteria for using the term is when I see motives being assigned that
> make absolutely no sense. What's the sense of branding a JDK port? If
> Inprise wants to offer real support to its customers, it can do so just
> as well with code written by "hobbyists" - companies like Red Hat and
> LinuxCare have built thriving businesses on that model.
>
> Let me suggest a motive that makes sense. Inprise makes IDEs. IDEs
> include debuggers. The Inprise debugger, like most JDK1.2 debuggers,
> requires the Java Platform Debugging Architecture (JPDA). Blackdown has
> never delivered JPDA... even the pending Blackdown JDK1.2.2 doesn't have
> it. Connect the dots.
>
> Nathan
>
>
> >
> > Don't believe I mentioned the word conspiracy or even tried to
> > represent any argument as such. Amazed at how the responses have
> > represented the "crackpot" perspective so quickly. I don't believe
> > Sun and Inprise conspired to block blackdown out. I think Inprise
> > wants it's own presence for its own jdk. Period. They made a
> > business decision to "roll their own" rather than pursue a
> > collaborative relationship with the individuals who had written the
> > code that Inprise was basing their jdk upon. Not Inprise-blackdown,
> > but Inprise. Simply that Inprise doesn't want to dilute their brand,
> > especially with the market, which might view an association with
> > blackdown as a liability (being composed of, as you stated in an
> > earlier posting, "volunteers".)
> >
> > To strengthen this argument, look at the perception of the public to a
> > little company named RedHat. They went from giving away software, to
> > charging for free software. The public went from skeptical when the
> > software was free, to supportive/enthusiastic/euphoric when the
> > software cost money and they offered a plan to support the software.
> > Blackdown gives away software and is viewed as a collective of
> > hobbyists. That's bad from the financial and business perspective
> > where the question invariably is raised as to "who will support the
> > software when we need a fix and the person that wrote the code is one
> > of the hobbyists". I don't think Inprise wanted to ever have to field
> > that question. I could be wrong, but if I am, I'd like to know why.
> >
> > My opinions are based on years of working in the industry and being
> > involved in discussions involving brand representation and issues of
> > brand dilution. To me, Inprise had no incentive to involve blackdown
> > in their release, so they didn't involve blackdown. If my opinions
> > are wrong, I'm more than happy to admit it and learn from my
> > mistake(s). Just somebody point out the facts so I can understand.
> > But calling my arguments or the arguments of others "conspiracy
> > theory" does nothing to further discussion on the matters at hand.
> >
> > > The thing that is funny for me is that you, and other people on this
> > > list, refer to who works in Inprise or other companies like we are not
> > > part of the Linux community.
> >
> > Never said you weren't part of the linux community. My raising issue
> > with you means that you're a peer in this community. If I felt
> > otherwise I would let you know directly.
> >
> > Would appreciate it if you would consider addressing my main point,
> > which is that fracturing the development efforts is divisive and in
> > the long run potentially more harmful to the future of java on Linux.
> > You have an opinion on that, I'd like to hear it. To me, the prospect
> > of collaboration was worth more than a couple of phone calls.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Mike
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
