On 10/5/10 21:13 , Jan Goyvaerts™ wrote:
Would the "forkers" be allowed to modify the language and VM, and
still call it "Java" ?
Not, of course, hence the subject. BTW, there are a bit of more posts
about the same topic.
http://blog.eisele.net/2010/10/free-java-jcpnext-here-are-options.html
I'm pretty negative about that - it seems just bad timing. There are a
few individuals that are declaring the big failure of Oracle's
stewardship, and the past J1, and I'd first like to learn how they are
representative. I must also say that while I'm not satisfied by some
things that Oracle is doing (more precisely, things that it is not
doing), I don't understand how this comes after J1, where some light has
been shed upon strategies (Java 7 and 8) that have been very badly
managed by Sun, not Oracle, in the past two years (see e.g. Mario
Fusco's comments about the unfeasability of the Java 7 plans that were
made public one month ago). Now we have a roadmap till 2012. BTW, the
whole community is not representative, in the sense that there is no
formal democratic delegation model; in any case, I suppose JUGs are more
representative than individuals and I'd first like what are the feelings
in JUGs. For what I can say, and of course I'm _not_ representative too,
some JUGs and JUG leaders are more on the wait.
There is a positive note in one of the posts (can't remember the author,
the one who said "si vis pace para bellum"), that is the realistic
acknowledgement that the community alone can't sustain a fork of the JDK
(OpenOffice, but also GlassFish, NetBeans or other stuff are a totally
different thing - I think that people should really sit down and realize
first what's inside the VM). I was saying about that realistic
acknowledgment, in fact the guy proposes an alliance of the community
with the other vendors such as IBM, HP and so on for the forking and
creation of a foundation to manage the fork.
Now, you should only know how much this stinks of rotten italian
politics, where parties spend 90% of their time in moving on the
chessboard to gain an advantage point, and possibly damage the opposite
sides, and a mere 10% remains to govern the country. The results are not
pleasing: we just go nowhere. I've got a strong feeling that a
foundation managing Java, instead of being a neutral body supported by
the corporates, would be their hostage for their politics, with the
community playing the useful idiot - let's not forget that any corporate
plays the community friend when it needs and the (more or less)
benevolent dictator when it can. I think that the Oracle attitude change
from 2007 to 2010 explains this very well.
I'm usually very in favour of the "si vis pace para bellum" strategy,
generically speaking, but for preparing the war you need to create a
sustainable and reliable alliance of partners, which I don't see as
feasible. The only net result would be to upset Oracle and create a
break with the community, favouring the internal Oracle faction that is
opposing the community, and jeopardizing what could be achievable with
more patience. Not to say an explosion in cross-lawsuits, as if we there
weren't enough of them right now.
I think it makes more sense to closely follow Oracle as they pursue the
Java 7 milestone.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
[email protected]
--
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.
