Thanks for the answers. ( you guys seem much better informed than the dzone crowd ;) )
Yes, I think you're all right, it could only lead to politicking, and it's a bit early in the Oracle tenure to call 'mutiny'. @Augusto, I think I'm asking a slightly different question. I see Apache Harmony as an alternative implementation of the existing JVM spec. It's a really important project, but I'm talking about a potential fork which could diverge from the JVM specs. It's a bit of a hypothetical question. If you wanted to do it, could you, and could it be managed in a more open, distributed way, like Linux, etc? I'm interested to understand the legal possibilities of such a fork, or even to understand what alternatives Oracle could themselves devise to 'freshen up' the JCP. @Frederico: that Markus Eisele article is a really good read, thanks. Well, I've just seen the description of today's JP podcast, I think I'll enjoy it .. cheers On Oct 5, 8:54 pm, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed. > > It's very easy for anonymous dzone developers to vote the post up and say > "yeah, great idea" but maybe they should pause and ponder this: > > "Imagine you're the CTO of your company. Six months from now, Lava releases > v1.0 of their new language. Do you convert your entire company to use it or > stick with Java?". > > -- > Cédric > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Fabrizio Giudici < > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > 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]<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > .com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- > Cédric -- 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.
