I have to agree with Nathan. Until recently ("recently" being defined as
within the last two or three months), I never got any response from the
Blackdown team to my offers of assistance with porting -- and I'm from
Sun.
Now, don't get me wrong here -- the Blackdown team are volunteers and
don't necessarily have the time to jump everytime someone knocks. They
have personal lives, day jobs, families. They have to take time for
themselves, just like the rest of us do.
I wasn't involved in the Inprise deal, and I don't buy the argument that
Inprise wanted "brand recognition" on the JVM for Linux. Why don't I buy
that argument? Because Sun owns the trademark and copyright on the Java
"brand". No one else can "brand" Java. Does Inprise have their own
"brand" of C? No, they have a compiler set that perform exceptionally
well on Windows/DOS. Does Inprise have their own "brand" of Java?
Absolutely not. Java is Java is Java. That's the point of the JCK, the
specification, the required core libraries.
I tend to believe what Paolo Ciccone has posted regarding the why and
how of the Sun JDK for Linux release: Inprise had a business need and a
hard deadline (businesses tend to set unchangeable deadlines).
I've been seeing alot of anti-Sun sentiment since the release. Some of
it may be deserved (I was horrified that whoever wrote the release left
out acknowledgement of Blackdown -- and I was very vocal about that
internally), but most of what I've been seeing has amounted to "Sun has
no right to put out a JVM/JDK for Linux, because that belongs to
Blackdown."
I want to make something very clear here: just because Sun has released
a JDK for Linux, that does not mean that Blackdown can't. They licensed
the code, they can do their port. When all the JCK tests are being
passed (currently held up by the sunwjit on Linux, which I'm working on
fixing), then they can call their port an FCS. Even if we continue to
release more ports of Java for Linux, it doesn't change anything.
Blackdown can continue to do ports of Java to Linux as long as they are
licensees and willing to give up most of their spare time and not get
any gratitude for it.
Someone suggested that Sun is trying to "fracture" the Linux Java
community. How does that make any sense? Do you really think Sun cares
in the least whose VM you're using? All Sun cares about is that *all*
implementations of Java conform to the spec - otherwise compatibility is
compromised and you lose the cross-platform nature of Java. That's one
of the best things about Java - it doesn't matter which vendor's VM you
run on as long as that VM implementation has been shown to be fully
compatible.
Just my two cents.
--Jeff
Nathan Meyers wrote:
>
> Mike Ajemian wrote:
> > > Let me suggest a motive that makes sense. Inprise makes IDEs. IDEs
> > > include debuggers...Connect the dots.
> >
> > This was the point, Einstein. Inprise relies on its brand. I didn't
> > think I had to spell this out to the nth degree (I mean, who in this
> > discussion doesn't know about ownership of Java and the JDK?).
>
> Yes, Inprise relies on branding an IDE. Just like Red Hat (to use your
> earlier example) relies on branding a distribution, some tools, and user
> support. But Red Hat doesn't brand the kernel or anything else about
> Linux. Inprise's JBuilder is a cross-platform product that runs on any
> Java platform; why would they want to dilute their brand by going into
> the Linux JDK business? Where's the motive? What's the payoff? If JDKs
> are a business they want to own, why don't they have one for a big
> market like Windows?
>
> Looking back on the notes that have comprised this conversation, you've
> described some motives that have me scratching my head: that Inprise
> wants to be in the Linux JDK business, that a "decision was made pretty
> high up" (your words) to deliberately piss off the Blackdown community,
> that the "poor communications" argument is spin-doctoring. All pretty
> serious stuff, but I still haven't seen any evidence. Why would
> companies that depend on a) spending money wisely, b) maintaining user
> good will, and c) supporting their core brands make such decisions? Are
> they run by lunatics?
>
> I'm sorry to keep hammering on the communications thing, but there is a
> lot of experience in this group to support it. When I tried to contact
> Blackdown about including the Blackdown JDK with my book (a simple
> enough question), it took me many attempts to get an answer. My other
> book-related queries were ignored completely. A look through past mail
> turns up many similar experiences: developers willing to sign the SCSL
> but unable to participate, questions about schedule and availability
> that were never answered, and so on. How about that JDK1.2.2... did you
> know it was coming? As far as I can tell, nobody else outside of
> Blackdown did (and, BTW, JBuilder3 requires 1.2.2).
>
> To quote Einstein (where did I see his name recently? :-), "Things
> should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." I've
> presented a simple explanation supported by facts and experience. I'm
> ready to hear your simple explanation.
>
> Nathan
--
Jeff Galyan
http://www.anamorphic.com
http://www.sun.com
jeffrey dot galyan at sun dot com
talisman at anamorphic dot com
Sun Certified Java(TM) Programmer
======================================================================
Linus Torvalds on Microsoft and software development:
"... if it's a hobby for me and a job for you, why are you doing such a
shoddy job of it?"
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.
Sun Microsystems, Inc., has no connection to my involvement with the
Mozilla Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
