There's yet another element/interpretation of "open". Where Java has always been "readable", and the last couple of years truly "open" in the classic sense; evidently Java is NOT open to re-implementations, neither fully nor partially. This is in contrast to Microsoft's C#, which is an open standard, and has an open academic implementation (Rotor) as well as several true open source implementations (DotGNU and Mono) but where the language evolution and reference implementation itself is closed.
Given the sluggishness of the JCP and non-ambitiousness of Coin, I prefer the latter approach of closed leadership with an eventual open standard, than open chaos with an immediate closed standard. Let the experts do their thing, as long as we get great tools and an ability to choose between different implementation. It has to be said, that Microsoft and Google seems to share this pragmatic mentality of being their own steward in order to move the art forward. On Nov 9, 9:43 am, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/11/9 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Miroslav Pokorny < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> The community are reactive or watchers rather than actively participating > >> inthe entire creative, design and coding process from start to end. > > > I don't really think this kind of approach is realistic. Compare Android > > and Limo... > > > -- > > I realise that the average person out there, does not have the time, or > opportunity to contribute any significant amount in the grand scheme of > things, but like so many things perception is important. If G wants to say > Android is "open" then one needs to understand what "open" means to most > people. Well Linux seems to have grown and takes advantage of significant > engineers being paid for by large corporations with a more open approach. > The community sees a lot more of what and how the development evolution > process continues. > > Every argument for G's closeness such as "why" Tor(coud be wrong) they delay > dumps can be equally balanced by a counterargument. The "Open" in "Open > Source" is not only about the source code being available, because as we > kknow theres a lot more to writing "stuff" than just files, its about people > communicating, expression ideas, solving problems, gaining consensus on what > should happen, and then writing some code. For me some of these items arent > as "open" as they could be. If one forgets about source the same values i > previously mentioned about my kind of "open" are also not true of Apple and > IOS. Nobody really nows what Apple is working on next for IOS for pretty > much the same reasons. The only advantage w/ Android is we can grab the > source if we really want to. -- 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.
