Rick Ross has asked the question, "Will Sun be using a significant portion of the settlement proceeds to benefit Java developers and strengthen independent, standards-based efforts to advance Java?" He discusses his hopes and fears for Java based on the recent news.

Introduction

I can neither endorse nor denounce the Sun/Microsoft settlement at this point. Those of us on the outside have no access to the particulars of the settlement and have no way to know whether Sun has sold us out. In truth, precious little of the corporate messaging has specifically referenced Java. It would be nice to paint a positive picture, but experience has proven that we shouldn't be too quick to believe what corporations convey in their highly managed dog-and-pony shows. They made a similar set of happy announcements when Microsoft originally signed on as a Java licensee. Look how many years it took before we got to see the bad faith that finally surfaced in the courtroom evidence. We should be smart enough to learn from history that things may not ultimately be as happy as the spin doctors want us to believe they are.

Sun-Microsoft: "Where Is Java In This Settlement?"

Java just dont die if Sun is gone. No doubt Sun owns java. They can makeit or break it. I hope they dont break it. I think its time to move on.

Every body knows that Microsoft have some customers that need java on windows but this cannot cost 2 billion dollar +access to some key parts of windows. Perhaps they are trying to have .net inside of j2ee or j2ee inside of .net (I don’t know).
Sun and Microsoft are only companies that don’t like Linux (or open source) so much. So it’s better to be unified.
Just images what can happen if IBM bought sun before this deal. They will be owner of java, Solaris, biggest fan of Linux, Aix.
Just they are fool.

"Sun and Microsoft are only companies that don’t like Linux (or open source) so much. So it’s better to be unified."

Sun is the second largest contributor of source code to open source, behind UC Berkeley. That makes Sun the largest corporate donor of source code to open source. Visit http://www.sunsource.net.

Sun resells multiple Linux distributions and has a desktop based on Linux, the Sun Java Desktop System. The Sun Java Enterprise System runs on Linux.

John Clingan
Sun Microsystems

It's always nice to cite history and track record. But those things are not guaranteed indicators of future performance. That's one of the standard investment disclaimers for a good reason.

Developers worldwide make an intellectual investment when they commit to mastering the Java platform (as opposed to just learning the basics). We are worried about our investment. So far, there has been no solid, formal reassurance that Java will not be .NET-ified into oblivion and killed. There has been no solid, formal assurance that Java will remain a first-class citizen on Linux and Mac OS X.

If we discount [the meager amount of] PR spin coming from Sun, this tremendously huge news has been followed up with a deafening wall of silence. And so, in the absence of information there is a massive ammount of rumors and speculations going around, and none of them are kind to Sun. It's in Sun's best interests to spill the beans on this deal and come completely open.

What are the exact terms? You may selfishly think it's none of our business to know this, but you are wrong. We are mindshare investors into Java. Without us, Java is nothing. As mindshare investors, we deserve to know real, truthful, authoritative, certain information. So far all we have is silence and rumors.

People think that perhaps Sun is going to port Java to .NET CLR, then kill the Sun JVM, and then help port Microsoft .NET CLR to Solaris, thus making Java a first class citizen only on Solaris and Windows and ditching everything else. That's a scary thought. A really big reason why I like Java is because Java embraces platform diversity. Java is not perfect in this, mind you, but it has been "good enough" for many. If Sun's JVM/Java ditches all platforms except Windows and Solaris, then it will become "not good enough" for a lot of people. Another fear is that Sun may pay lip service to embracing Linux, but really start producing a sutbly inferior product for Linux/Mac OS X, a la Microsoft. And there are a million other scary thoughts. Sun has done nothing, so far, to put these fears to rest.

We are worried about our investment. So far, there has been no solid, formal reassurance that Java will not be .NET-ified into oblivion and killed. There has been no solid, formal assurance that Java will remain a first-class citizen on Linux and Mac OS X.

Java can not be .NET-ified in any time soon. Sun can never justify wiping away the BILLIONS of dollars invested by large corporations into J2EE and remain a credible company. If you have invested in Linux and Mac OS X, then you worries are your own problem since you have decided to go after 5% of the market. Sun is not responsible for keeping Linux and OS X alive, although Sun has been making more investments into Linux lately.

Another fear is that Sun may pay lip service to embracing Linux, but really start producing a sutbly inferior product for Linux/Mac OS X, a la Microsoft.

Why does this even concern you as you are not forced to buy that potentially "inferior" product?

Without us, Java is nothing.

Without Sun, there wouldn't have been Java. Without Sun (and perhaps IBM), there wouldn't have been the Proprietary App Server to J2EE converion that have created millions of Java related jobs in the past few years. Without "you" (open-source & linux zealots), Sun wouldn't have had to waste resources explaining their open-source position time and time again.

Sun has stucked to that Java vision for 9+ years, please give them some credit!

Awaiting for the honor: J2EE

Telemus: "Sun can never justify wiping away the BILLIONS of dollars invested by large corporations into J2EE and remain a credible company"

Exactly. So when will the J2EE Bubble take its rightful place in history?
IMO along with,

The Tulip-Bulb Craze
The South Sea Bubble
The Florida Real Estate Craze
The Great Depression (1929)
The Crash of 1987
The Asian Crash
The Dot-Com Crash

Regards
Rolf Tollerud

We are worried about our investment. So far, there has been no solid, formal reassurance that Java will not be .NET-ified into oblivion and killed. There has been no solid, formal assurance that Java will remain a first-class citizen on Linux and Mac OS X.

Java can not be .NET-ified in any time soon. Sun can never justify wiping away the BILLIONS of dollars invested by large corporations into J2EE and remain a credible company. If you have invested in Linux and Mac OS X, then you worries are your own problem since you have decided to go after 5% of the market.

Indeed! I'm not whining for Sun to give me a product or to support me. All I'm asking is for Sun to tell us the truth about the deal and about their commitments, so that I can structure my own commitments accordingly. My risks are my own, and that's fine. I just want good info to base my decisions on. I don't think Sun has been giving us good info lately. That's fine too, because lack of good info is information in itself. I can handle it.

 Sun is not responsible for keeping Linux and OS X alive, although Sun has been making more investments into Linux lately.

Absolutely. Good bless Sun, more power to them. They can go their merry way and I'll go my merry way. Sun, just tell me where you are going so I can decide whether or not to go along. That's all I'm asking, and I think that's what a lot of people in Java community want. :) I'm not a telepath, so I could be wrong about this.

Another fear is that Sun may pay lip service to embracing Linux, but really start producing a sutbly inferior product for Linux/Mac OS X, a la Microsoft.

Why does this even concern you as you are not forced to buy that potentially "inferior" product?

It concerns me because it may take long time to realize that this is what's actually happening. I have no problem with Sun crippling Java on Linux, as long as they tell everyone in advance they will not support it as well and/or cripple it. The problem is one of "lying by omission" or deception. If it's obvious from the start that the product is inferior, then there is no issue. There is only an issue if JVM on Linux is ever so slightly crippled over time. This has been a Microsoft way of dealing with competitors in the past. This is not subject to debate either. It is a well documented and well understood practice.

Without us, Java is nothing.

Without Sun, there wouldn't have been Java. Without Sun (and perhaps IBM), there wouldn't have been the Proprietary App Server to J2EE converion that have created millions of Java related jobs in the past few years.

I repeat. Without us, Java is nothing. :) We're both right. It takes all of us to make it what it is. Without McDonald's there would be no Big Mac, but without people eating the Big Mac, there would be no McDonald's as we know McDonald's today, etc. We all depend on each other. Nothing exists in a void. All things are interdependent. Things have contexts and histories. Every product must have a consumer. :) For example, look at Itanium. Intel has been pushing it like crazy, but there are no consumers who really want it. And where is Itanium today? See? On the other hand AMD is being shunned by some very influential decision makers, but there is a huge market of willing (but less influential) consumers for their chips, and so, AMD is still here with us, despite every attempt Intel has made to squash them. We vote with our dollars and decide what goes and what stays. But even more fundamentally, we vote with our mindshare and time.

 Without "you" (open-source & linux zealots),

Is that a personal insult? You, sir, should check yourself. I have purchased Visual C++ V6.0 back in the day, $500+ dollar investment, for my own use (and not stolen from someone or a "gift" from a company). I have a fully paid licensed Windows 2000 on my PC. I have thousands of dollars of other software. You really have no clue about me, do you? I like Linux. I think it's great. But I'm not a zealot. Just because I believe in something or have some principles does not make me a zealot. I use Java happily (for now). I don't have to use it. I could be pushing so many other things, both proprietary and open source. But I like Java, as long as Sun stays open about its plans for the platform, especially in light of this new deal with Microsoft.

I'm not whining for a handout. I just want Sun to come clean with this deal and to stop sending out mixed signals.

 Sun wouldn't have had to waste resources explaining their open-source position time and time again.Sun has stucked to that Java vision for 9+ years, please give them some credit!

Hey, let me throw your own logic back at you, can I? Sun doesn't have to spend a single cent convincing anyone about anything. If they spend so much energy earning open source developers' mindshare, then it must be either a mistake or a valuable investment for Sun. Either way, it is not because some "zealots" trick Sun into explaining everything to them. Either way it is not my responsibility. Sun is not a child, and they take full responsibility for how their spend their resources. I feel no pity or remorse neither for Sun nor for open source community.

My personal suggestion to you -- perhaps open source community is more powerful and more influential than you give it credit? If so, is it the zealotry that makes it powerful, or is it something else? Is there some pragmatic value to it? Perhaps? Just something to think about.

Without "you" (open-source & linux zealots)

Is that a personal insult?

I am surprised that you took that as an insult. I was using "open-source & linux zealots" merely as a reference to their relentless demands for open sourcing Java and greater linux support. From the content and tone of your message, I was under the impression that you are part of that group or at least shared that view. In any case, please accept my apologies if I had offended.

perhaps open source community is more powerful and more influential than you give it credit?

Except for their usual demands for open sourcing Java and greater linux support, I think the open source "community" is irrelevant to this topic.

I'm not whining for a handout. I just want Sun to come clean with this deal and to stop sending out mixed signals.

True and accurate information is always good, so I agree that would that more information from Sun with benefit everyone. But to put this into perspective, the settlement was just announced very recently and negotiations only started to make significant progress last month. Perhaps it is best for everyone that Sun is taking more time to plan and create a long term strategy for Java.

Besides, even if Sun decides to give some sort of promise on Java or other matters, how important is that promise to you? How important is this promise to Sun when sh*t hits the fan? Businesses operate on profits, not promises. Sun have definitely profited from Java and Java related products so far, especially so after this settlement.

In the event that Java somehow dies, as an engineer I believe I will be extremely interested in the Next Big Thing and in fact is looking forward to that day. In the meantime, it's business as usual.

If there was a high quality (read: production ready) open source Java JVM available, I would be interested. I don't demand it. In fact, who does?

Everyone is free to ask, right? Or, maybe you think it's wrong to ask this, like, maybe it's impolite or something? ESR asked Sun to consider open sourcing Java. Many people think there are good pragmatic reasons to open source Sun's JVM or to have Sun support some other high quality open source JVM. I really have not seen anyone demanding it though.

Personally, I feel it is not my place to demand anything from Sun, other than some basic ethics, like honest and open communication, sane business practices and so on. Personally, again, I would feel "safer" if there was a production quality open source JVM. So, from my perspective, it is a "nice to have" thing for Java, but I do not (and realistically cannot) demand it.

I like free software and open source software. I'm not ashamed of it. And I'm not a zealot.

I see everything as connected to everything else. I do not see software engineering as existing in a void. I see it as being part of life and I see how our software engineering practices and values influence our life and vice versa, how our life values and practices influence software engineering. Passion is part of life. Pretending that passion bears no impact on engineering is simply idealism (wishful thinking) -- the kind of idealism that you seem to denounce. What I stated just now, I think is a well justified opinion. I do not think it is zealotry. Zealots do not care for cogent reasoning, but I do. I don't want to get too philosophical on you, but let's just say, not only have I considered these issues, but that I always consider them and I am always willing to change my mind if new information indicates I should do so.

What I am trying to tell you is that a person can disagree with you, and even a person can agree with a band of zealots, but yet not be a zealot themselves. It's possible that zealots are right for reasons they do not themselves understand. Zealotry is blind belief. If you think I exhibit blind belief, please do open my eyes. I welcome it.

Businesses operate on profits, not promises.

That's an oversimplification and the one I am tired of hearing. If I may return a favor and throw some stereotypes your way, it smacks of market fundamentalism. There is no profit without trust. Business is based on transactions. Transactions are based on trust. Always. It's impossible to 100% nail everything down and verify and double check everything. Business is based on trust and on reputation. Trust implies a promise.

But looking more deeply, business is simply another way humans interact, and as such, it is subject to ethics and morals. So, a company is not exempt from standard person-to-person ethics via a silly disclaimer like "oh, it's just business -- nothing personal". I call BS! It's a lie. It is all personal, sorry. Because it is personal, let's play nice. This is one thing that is so very very hard for a company like Microsoft to understand. Microsoft refuses to understand that there are real live human beings on the other end of the table. All those companies Microsoft has run into the ground via unethical business practices are not just statistics. Real live people have suffered in real ways as a result.

It would be nice if we could all be impersonal, I suppose. Then no one would need to feel regret, remorse, or joy, or accomplishment, or any of those things. No one would be generous, but no one would be greedy. No one would have any goals. It is not real though. It is idealism that will never materialize in real life.

Leo: "Personally, I feel it is not my place to demand anything from Sun"

Why not? Why is it not time to ask Sun a little about how much money they make on Java that after all it is mostly developed by the international community?

Personally I think that Sun has been more detrimental to Java than otherwise, (Petshop, EJB, $500 000 Technology Compatibility Kits, Sun One, etc etc). So with the latest 2B I think Sun have made quite a bundle on their incompetence.

http://www.cnn.com/1999/TECH/computing/12/10/sun.apology.idg/

Regards
Rolf Tollerud

I do not know, but my guess is, a small percentage. I'd say we'd be lucky to have 50 full time developers working on Java for 8 years.

Haha, you must be joking right? The huge and talented "open source community" can not duplicate Java 1.2 that was released over 6 years ago.

As I have said before: "Sun can never justify wiping away the BILLIONS of dollars invested by large corporations into J2EE and remain a credible company."
It seems like we both agree that trust plays some part in business decisions so why can't you give Sun a little credit and believe that the company is runned by mostly reasonable people?

I do not know, but my guess is, a small percentage. I'd say we'd be lucky to have 50 full time developers working on Java for 8 years.

Haha, you must be joking right? The huge and talented "open source community" can not duplicate Java 1.2 that was released over 6 years ago.As I have said before: "Sun can never justify wiping away the BILLIONS of dollars invested by large corporations into J2EE and remain a credible company."It seems like we both agree that trust plays some part in business decisions so why can't you give Sun a little credit and believe that the company is runned by mostly reasonable people?

Microsoft did it - VB [Classic]/VC to .Net. Made quite a few mad (I could go look up quotes). But that didn't stop them. I would say that large corps have billions invested in COM based apps too.

Rick Ross has asked the question, "Will Sun be using a significant portion of the settlement proceeds to benefit Java developers and strengthen independent, standards-based efforts to advance Java?" He discusses his hopes and fears for Java based on the recent news.Introduction

I can neither endorse nor denounce the Sun/Microsoft settlement at this point. .

Sun-Microsoft: "Where Is Java In This Settlement?"

In General I agree with Rick and it is understandable that the Comments
are mixed. I tend to be HopeFull that this is the End of the Java Wars.
I think the Market Wants Java and Microsofts Battle was Stupid.
The Two Big Databases Oracle and DB2 are 100 percent Java, And Most Applications too. This is a Win for Wintel, But Not a Loss to Lintel.
Less Hope that The Linux-UNIX War also ends Soon.
Microsoft did everything Possible to kill The Network Computer Model.
As Steve Balmer said Publicly in Tel-Aviv some years ago: "I am sorry
but it is dead..." in an Answer to a Question.
I still Believe that that Model is Best for Large Organisations Including
Education. Do you remember Java Stations?

This settlement is all about Java. Quotes are from this article: http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-5183848.html?tag=nefd_lede

"Microsoft, the software company will pay Sun $700 million to resolve antitrust issues" : This is for trying to take over Java. The Sun vs Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit has to be finished someday and the earlier the better for both companies.

"$900 million to resolve patent issues" : A big percentage is probably for patent issues between the CLR and JVM. This is basically free money for Sun. Without this settlement, Sun would probably have to sue for years and years before they can see any $$$. This is also good for Microsoft because they "borrowed" ideas from Java to do the CLR from the very start and they probably expected to have to shell out some cash one day, which is ok for them from a business standpoint, since they still got a huge net gain.

"The companies will pay royalties to use each other's technology; Microsoft is paying $350 million now" : Looks like the $900mil was for past violations and this $350mil is for current/future usage. Again, all Java.

"Technical collaboration", "Communications protocols", "Java support", "Certification" : Again, all Java and Java Desktop System related.

$1 Billion is enough to pay for 10,000 developer years (at $100,000 per developer), or 1000+ developers for 8 years. So ~$2 Billion is probably enough to cover all past engineering cost, or maybe even all cost, for Java. Of course, Sun has recieved other income from Java too (J2ME, J2EE). This is direct prove that Java was not a bad business for Sun. The promotion of Jonathan Schwartz to COO is more evidence that Sun will continue to invest in Java and the Java Desktop System.

Here is my speculation what the settlement means for Sun's future:
Sun will continue to develop high-end servers with the Sparc and Solaris platform. (Or maybe sell the unit to Fujitsu)
Sun will phase out that mid-end, low-end Sparc servers in favor of their new Opteron server systems. This is where they need Microsoft collaboration and Windows certification. They will allow the customer to choose either Solaris, Linux, or Windows for these servers. Java will be their most favored development platform on these servers.
Sun will continue to push the Java Desktop System as the client/thin client to their servers. It might not "deserve" Java in it's name right now but this offering is Sun's vision for their future client. They will continue to build that system to be more and more platform (hardware) independent so that one day, a desktop system will just install the Java Desktop System like we install the JRE today and be able to enjoy all the network services that the Sun servers will provide.

$1 Billion is enough to pay for 10,000 developer years (at $100,000 per developer), or 1000+ developers for 8 years. So ~$2 Billion is probably enough to cover all past engineering cost, or maybe even all cost, for Java.

This assumes near 100% operational efficiency, which is impossible. Sun owns/rents/leases (guessing a little bit, but you get the idea) properties, electricity, network services, secretarial staff, mail room, food court, campus garden with gardeners, legal staff, upper management, middle management, company events and holidays, water coolers with water, air conditioning, business class air flights, paid vacations and sabbaticals, current depts, etc., etc., etc.

So, how much of that money can really be earmarked for pure development? I do not know, but my guess is, a small percentage. I'd say we'd be lucky to have 50 full time developers working on Java for 8 years. This is assuming Sun starts listening to what the market really wants (as opposed to what Sun would like to sell) and stays in business that long.

I think the real reason behind this settlement is to prevent ibm have java on linux.
Microsoft has windows+dotnet. And the only comptetitor to this sweet pair is linux+java.
After recent ibm proposal to sun open java, MS realized that it would be to dangerous to allow it. So they immediately approached Sun with their offer. The rest (crosslisensing, lawsuit settlement etc) is a bullshit to cover obvious.