How is increasing the general argument for any would-be programmer to learn java in any way or form "a free ride"?
If you follow lambda-dev and friends it becomes rather obvious that the amount of resources oracle pours into freely available java stuff is quite modest. What, exactly, is google "stealing" from oracle here? Java-the- language? That was some random silly syntax slapped together by Gosling and friends back in the day as an afterthought. It's not novel, genius, or a big deal. Java as a platform has been successful because of everything but the language, but those are exactly the things google has NOT taken: They have NOT taken the standard library (they took harmony). They've NOT taken the novel, genius, serious investment JVM which its amazing ability to run code quickly. They developed all that themselves. Sure, google is grandstanding. But at the end of the day, they owe Sun or Oracle bupkis. On Sep 7, 7:01 am, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 7, 2:31 am, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > In the end i am more disappointed in Google than Oracle. I know I got a > > good > > > deal and lot of gifts from Sun and I did not help contribute my bit to > > keep > > > their guardianship of Java going by sponsoring or contributing back to > > their > > > business. I suppose I am one of the many millions of "parasites" who is > > now > > > complaining because some worry the "free" ride may be over. > > > Ah but then you can be happy that now you can contribute back by > > buying very expensive Oracle database licences. Sun's failure to > > capitalize is not necessarily tied to Java being open source. Are > > there really any software shops who would not be willing to pay for > > state-of-the-art tools, good documentation etc., I doubt it. In any > > even, Sun maintained that the Java side was profitable. > > Dont confuse my argument, i just find Google's stance hypocritical. When > they said its an attack on open source, they really meant its an attack on > their ability to get a free ride... > > > >If Google really > > > loved Open Source why didnt they do the benevolent thing and just buy and > > > sponsor Java development into the future, when they had the opportunity. > > > That's what many of us hoped, primarily because Google seems to have > > the drive and the money to move the art forward. > > > > Truth be told they tried to be smart playing legal with lots of laywers > > and > > > know its come back to bite them. > > > Lots of lawyers? Could you explain? > > Google have always been careful with their labelling and marketting of > Android. It is quite obvious that this approach had a lot of legal > consultation and advice from business types who wished to follow this path > rather than just buying Sun. As mentioned in the podcast, they knew that a > questioning of this would occur sometime in the future, it was just a > question of when. In the end, they decided to get fancy and we have the > outcome that we are all witnessing today. > > > > > > > > They tried to be cheap and avoid > > > contributing back to the community by coughing up the one thing the > > > community or Sun really needed - the cash. Its not as if Google dont have > > > the money, they always seem to have money and millions of it to buy some > > > advertising related company, aka Double click. > > > I don't think Google owes Sun, they may piggyback of the language > > syntax but 1) Oracle has nothing in their portfolio that rivals > > Android and 2) for many years Google have indeed contributed back by > > means of JSR's and experts like Bloch, Gafter etc. You insinuate they > > tried to be cheap, albeit by all accounts the design behind Android > > was primarily driven by technical and economical considerations. It's > > possible we don't know the full story, Fabrizio Giudici among others > > have hinted at that. Hopefully we will know soon. > > Josh, Neal etc are all brilliant, but one cannot compare $7B to whatever > contributions and efforts they extend. > > > If Java was truly open, > > we would not even be talking about this parenting thing, we would be > > talking about our brothers and sisters in the community. > > Maybe so, thats another argument for another day, but my original reply was > to the label "this is an attach on open source". > > It Oracle did not buy Sun, and nobody bought it in the end, what else could > be said of those who made billions using Java, its community and yet in its > time of need did not want to be benevolent ? Open Source is about people, > companies giving and taking, sometimes we give a library, or patch here and > there. Bigger entities gain considerably more from open source by > definition, because they benefit from libraries and make more incoming. The > same argument can be said of taxation responsibilities, we all share the > benefits of government and services, we might not like it but dodgying tax > does not help the entire ecosystem, sometimes its the responsibility of > those with more money to put some money back into the system. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
