Rich Green, former VP of developer platforms and Java advocate has quit Sun. During the US Microsoft antitrust trial, Green was one of Sun's key witnesses, arguing that Microsoft tried to undermine Java by shipping an incompatible version of the JVM. Green's exit is said to be just one of several that have come as a result of the Microsoft deal.
Read more in Sun's Java prince refuses Redmond relocationGreen Resigns from SunSun names new software chief
A true Java advocate. Will be missed.
CNet News puts the story
quite differently from The Register. According to the article (emphasis mine):
Green will be leaving to join another software venture, according to Sun. Green tendered his resignation several weeks ago but waited until the Microsoft agreement was settled before announcing his departure, a Sun representative said Monday. The changes were announced internally on Friday.
Well, that's quite different from The Register's spin:
... quitting Sun in "disgust," ...
Not sure who's being quoted for "disgust". Was it Green or someone telling The Register the story?
Forgot to mention that, but it seems from the CNet article that the main reason for Green's resignation was to join another venture company, and he had to wait at Sun's request until the agreement was signed.
Can't tell who's telling the truth.
Heh. Well considering The Register is basically a tabloid magazine and CNet at least makes an effort to establish the image of credibility I'd go with CNet. Really, putting a word in quotes and not being clear who's being quoted is just dirty. More than likely The Register is flat out lying.
The way I understand it, it's a long standing tradition in European journalism (some would say, the only REAL journalism) to quote anonymous sources. What does that mean? It means someone spoke to a reporter "off the cuff". It means if their anonymity was not protected, they would not say anything. Obviously we would then find out a whole lot less information. So, I hear you say, how can we guarantee credibility? That's what reputation is for. I think The Reg has a pretty good reputation. Most of their rumors turn out to be true in my experience and they are pretty much on the spot most of the time. That's why they are so popular.
So, if The Reg just lied and/or flat out invented quotes, their credibility would plummet and no one would read The Reg. This is not at all in the interests of The Reg. It is in their best interests to post anonymous quotes when needed that come to be vindicated later. If they do this enough times and develop a good reputation doing it, then people will listen to them. This is what journalism is about.
I don't know about you, but, personally, I do want the ability to read anonymous quotes. Personally, I would be hurt if some regulation or standard mandated that all quotes be strictly attributed. That's just my opinion on the matter. I find the ability of anonymous speak to be advantageous and to be a critical part of the free speech. Without anonymous speech I don't think we could have truly free speech. You are free not to trust anonymous sources, but there is a strong case why we need them and why they can indeed be trusted and why they should not be dismissed.
I think the issue here isn't about using anonymous quotes. Both American and European journalists use them. But if you're going to use anonymous quotes, you need to attribute them. You need to indicate whether the word "disgust" came from Green himself or from some source that preferred not to be identified.
Leaving the quote hanging like this might give the false impression that Green might have said "I quit in disgust", rather than some third party.
Anyway, I think if he actually resigned in protest or "disgust", then he made the wrong dicision. If he really cared about Java and its future under the new relationship with Microsoft, then he should have stayed with Sun because chances are he will have more influence at his position to protect Java. Quiting for that reason means either he doesn't really care about Java or he's just an easy quitter. He would've handed Microsoft a big win if his resgination was actually in "disgust".
He would've handed Microsoft a big win if his resgination was actually in "disgust".
:))) Do you mean he is the one who actually get those billions from MS ? Get real ! People who sold java to MS did not ask his opinion, neither care about it. So his staying or not staying with Sun does not make any difference in this case.
What if it was Mr. Green himself who said so? Then in order to protect his anonymity and not lie by saying it was someone else, they'd have to say nothing and leave it vague. :) Anyway, I don't want to split hairs here. I just think it's bogus when people dismiss The Reg by calling them names as opposed to presenting a good argument.
Like I said, The Reg can make mistakes, but they do not set out to lie and misinform. They report things others are affraid to report. CNET's reporting ability is practically non-existing. They haven't broken a story in ages, and so I don't even bother reading them anymore. Who wants stale news? It took CNET many years to realize there was such a thing as Linux. What kind of reporting is that? In my eyes, CNET is trash. The way I see it, they just parrot what the vendors want them to say; it's a "rah, rah, me too, me too" rag. Same thing goes for pretty much any Ziff Davis publication in my opinion. Who has the guts these days to go against the mainstream if it will hurt profits? How can I develop trust in a publication that is sustained by advertisement from the same vendors it purports to critique and report on?
Not saying The Reg is an angel or anything, but CNET is not clearly better then The Reg. At least, I don't see it.
he could have known about the deal weeks ago and then tendered his resignation.
just cause we didn't know about it till yesterday doesn't mean that he didn't.
It seems that The Register is apologizing
for quoting the word "disgust". From the article:
Another Sun insider said Green was even a little "embarrassed" by our comments. And for this we apologize.
Take it from the horse's mouth. This shows that The Register were lying their ass off:http://programming.newsforge.com/programming/04/04/13/2023217.shtml?tid=105&tid=54