Discussions

News: No More Java 7?

  1. No More Java 7? (51 messages)

    Stephen Colebourne argues that there will be no Java 7 because of the ongoing disagreements between the Apache Software Foundation, Sun, and the JCP regarding Apache Harmony, the independent, open source, compatible Java SDK. Stephen argues that Harmony's success motivated Sun to return to a proprietary Java development model and is blocking Harmony from getting the JDK compatibility kits it needs for validating that its Java implementation is up to snuff.
    Apache's implementation of the Java SE 5 JSR specification is Apache Harmony. However, when Apache came to obtain the testing kit for the specification a whole political game started. Instead of Sun offering the testing kit as normal for each of the other 25 JSRs, they offered a testing kit where the results of the tested code would not be Open Source Obviously, Apache couldn't accept this limitation, which is against the legal agreement signed between Sun and Apache. Apache complained 2 years ago, but has yet to receive an acceptable response. And no, there is no way a charity not-for-profit like Apache is going to sue a multi-national corporation - who do you think would get the better lawyers? The key point is that Sun's tactics here were quite deliberate. They knew exactly what they were doing by offering a testing kit with a restrictive license. They wanted to ensure that Apache Harmony couldn't be certified as complete. Sun was going out of its way to ensure that there was no competition to its own JDK. In the meantime, Sun played the OpenJDK card. It announced the release of the JDK under the GPL license [...] I think this shows a gross lack of perspective - the code may now be GPL open source, but the specification is now no longer open. Which is more important?
    Thus, the next release will be JDK 7, not Java 7. This means that there won't be an open Java 7 specification. This would mean that what makes it into Java is what Sun choses to release in OpenJDK, not what's agreed in the JSRs. This returns control of Java back to Sun and prevents its standardization. Stephen made a second posting where he documents the ongoing discussions between the Apache Harmony and Sun regarding the Java 7 specifications, using the JCP Executive Committee meeting minutes to support his argument. An interesting read, to say the least, and a potential threat to having an open Java specification.

    Threaded Messages (51)

  2. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    I don't see any issues with this. Java is very mature now and I don't think we need many new features. IBM will buy Sun soon, and as is their tradition, they will come up with an ingenious solution for all ills afflicting Java and the Java community. May be it's time for a new language.
  3. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    IBM will buy Sun soon, and as is their tradition, they will come up with an ingenious solution for all ills afflicting Java and the Java community.
    Hilarious
  4. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    IBM will buy Sun soon, and as is their tradition, they will come up with an ingenious solution for all ills afflicting Java and the Java community.


    Hilarious
    Laugh hard now, because you will have to stop soon - once for all!
  5. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    IBM will buy Sun soon, and as is their tradition, they will come up with an ingenious solution for all ills afflicting Java and the Java community.


    Hilarious


    Laugh hard now, because you will have to stop soon - once for all!
    Wait a minute. Were you actually serious?
  6. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    IBM will buy Sun soon, and as is their tradition, they will come up with an ingenious solution for all ills afflicting Java and the Java community.


    Hilarious


    Laugh hard now, because you will have to stop soon - once for all!


    Wait a minute. Were you actually serious?
    Well, in part serious and in part sarcastic. But, you took the whole thing as funny. Even the last comment I left was a mix of both :-)
  7. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    I don't see any issues with this. Java is very mature now and I don't think we need many new features.

    IBM will buy Sun soon, and as is their tradition, they will come up with an ingenious solution for all ills afflicting Java and the Java community. May be it's time for a new language.
    I believe that an IBM acquisition of Sun would bring the death of Java, or at least its slide into irrelevance. Every hot software technology that IBM has ever acquired has suffered that fate (remember Lotus Notes?). Stephen's comments play into this scenario in that having a closed, controlled specification will increase the value of Java for a potential buyer, and eventually give them more control over the direction that the language takes. If the EJB specs and other JCP projects where IBM has been a large influence are any indication, an IBM acquisition would be really bad for the Java ecosystem if there aren't open specs. There can be only so many Spring-like revivals. Cheers, E
  8. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Every hot software technology that IBM has ever acquired has suffered that fate (remember Lotus Notes?
    No. Peace, Cameron Purdy Oracle Coherence: Data Grid for Java, .NET and C++
  9. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    +1
  10. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Every hot software technology that IBM has ever acquired has suffered that fate (remember Lotus Notes?)


    No.
    +1
  11. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Every hot software technology that IBM has ever acquired has suffered that fate (remember Lotus Notes?).
    Lotus Notes was never good.
  12. I find it hilarious when people come out with Lotus Notes as an example. Once, some time back, it was a crap email client, but an okay groupware platform. Now it's a pretty good email client, an excellent platform, and works on your iPhone.
    Every hot software technology that IBM has ever acquired has suffered that fate (remember Lotus Notes?).


    Lotus Notes was never good.
  13. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    If the EJB specs and other JCP projects where IBM has been a large influence are any indication, an IBM acquisition would be really bad for the Java ecosystem if there aren't open specs. There can be only so many Spring-like revivals.
    Like Hibernate & TopLink were rolled into the widely adopted JPA standard, the same has been happening with Spring DI/WebFlow, Seam and Guice. Java EE 6 with EJB 3.1, Java Contexts & Dependency Injection and JPA 2.0 will make Spring and Hibernate the next Struts 1. Either that, or the most common way to use them on new projects will be through the standardized APIs. If the EJB 3.1, JCDI 1.0 and JPA 2.0 specs are an indication of how the JCP (including IBM) can evolve the platform then we are in good hands.
  14. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Hi, with all due respect for IBM guys, seems to me that we are not in good hands. First, for the IT landscape grow in plurality and innovation there would be need for more competitors subjects... Secondly, the IBM move is only a marketing trick and this is witnessed from the fact that, for every SUN's technology that will be eventually acquired by IBM, exists yet a Big Blue counterpart...apart from Java6, but this is a gap easily bridged if there's the will to (there would be no need to acquire Sun for about 10 Billions), and I think that IBM won't endorse any or least of these technologies developed by SUN. The truth is BigBlue is kicking the very best competitor that is in it's way. Third this would be a wound to Open Source movement that could be not so easily recovered... Daniele out....
  15. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    I believe that an IBM acquisition of Sun would bring the death of Java, or at least its slide into irrelevance.
    Would you believe the world is flat? Or is it just the the sky is falling?
  16. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    I could see IBM closing Java so that WebSphere could capture the enterprise market. Java may continue in some form but the JCP or any notion of open participation in spec development may not have long to live.
  17. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    I don't see any issues with this. Java is very mature now and I don't think we need many new features.

    IBM will buy Sun soon, and as is their tradition, they will come up with an ingenious solution for all ills afflicting Java and the Java community. May be it's time for a new language.
    I believe that an IBM acquisition of Sun would bring the death of Java, or at least its slide into irrelevance. Every hot software technology that IBM has ever acquired has suffered that fate (remember Lotus Notes?).

    Stephen's comments play into this scenario in that having a closed, controlled specification will increase the value of Java for a potential buyer, and eventually give them more control over the direction that the language takes. If the EJB specs and other JCP projects where IBM has been a large influence are any indication, an IBM acquisition would be really bad for the Java ecosystem if there aren't open specs. There can be only so many Spring-like revivals.

    Cheers,

    E
    Yes, IBM has sent many of the software products they acquired into oblivion, but Java is different. IBM is a major user of Java, has a major business around Java, and has nothing that can challenge MS .NET. So, killing Java will be suicidal for IBM and they are not that dumb. IBM has an army of people, have access to capital, and I'm certain they will do wonders. There may not be much activity in open source space, they may all actually die, but Java will continue its domination. Java has penetrated a lot more than Mainframes did and I don't see it getting shunned anytime soon. Your comparison to Lotus Notes is not valid. It's apples to oranges comparison.
  18. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Yes, IBM has sent many of the software products they acquired into oblivion, but Java is different. IBM is a major user of Java, has a major business around Java, and has nothing that can challenge MS .NET. So, killing Java will be suicidal for IBM and they are not that dumb.

    IBM has an army of people, have access to capital, and I'm certain they will do wonders. There may not be much activity in open source space, they may all actually die, but Java will continue its domination.

    Java has penetrated a lot more than Mainframes did and I don't see it getting shunned anytime soon.

    Your comparison to Lotus Notes is not valid. It's apples to oranges comparison.
    +1
  19. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    It was stupid for IBM to kill Lotus Notes, and yet they did. Exchange and LookOut were nowhere close in functionality, ease of use, integration, or tooling. The IBM/Lotus merger stagnated development and gave an opportunity to LookOut to become ubiquitous. From a personal, anecdotal point of view, I see IBM as a bad, bad option as Java's new champion. Having worked for them, and having used them as vendors, I shudder at the thought of having them drive the Java specifications forward. If people think the JCP is political and arbitrary now in its decisions, wait until IBM becomes the biggest stakeholder. We'll have shitty Websphere $STUFF for everything - not something I'm looking forward to. Cheers, E
  20. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    One good thing came out of IBM/LOTUS merger - Ray Ozzie bacame Microsoft's CTO! Notes will still be alive and kicking if creators would have decoupled Notes UI with its backend. Creating a universal language is a dream akin to solving world hunger. Mergers do not create synergy, but eliminates competion.
  21. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    It was stupid for IBM to kill Lotus Notes, and yet they did. Exchange and LookOut were nowhere close in functionality, ease of use, integration, or tooling. The IBM/Lotus merger stagnated development and gave an opportunity to LookOut to become ubiquitous.

    From a personal, anecdotal point of view, I see IBM as a bad, bad option as Java's new champion. Having worked for them, and having used them as vendors, I shudder at the thought of having them drive the Java specifications forward. If people think the JCP is political and arbitrary now in its decisions, wait until IBM becomes the biggest stakeholder. We'll have shitty Websphere $STUFF for everything - not something I'm looking forward to.

    Cheers,

    E
    I think you are being paranoid here. IBM did not have a single product that used Lotus technology, before they acquired it. The acquisition was aimed at further broadening their revenue base, where as Java is being widely used by IBM and is wagering on a business around it. Now, why would they work to the detriment of their well being and abandon a widely used platform? IBM might capsize the JCP boat, and plot an ambitious future for Websphere, but imagine what would happen if Sun were to go bust? Sun must be saved and Java revived and unfortunately there is no better suitor than IBM or if there was one, we won't be arguing about it here.
  22. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    ...IBM has an army of people, have access to capital, and I'm certain they will do wonders. ...
    Very funny! Microsoft too has army of people and capital, but produces....well, the MS things
  23. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    ...IBM has an army of people, have access to capital, and I'm certain they will do wonders. ...
    Very funny! Microsoft too has army of people and capital, but produces....well, the MS things
  24. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    ...IBM has an army of people, have access to capital, and I'm certain they will do wonders. ...


    Very funny!
    Microsoft too has army of people and capital, but produces....well, the MS things
    Well, MS is not the suitor to buy Sun. We are talking about what would happen if Sun were allowed to continue fumbling. They badly need a savior. IBM is the only one who has volunteered.
  25. Partly agree, but so what?[ Go to top ]

    I wouldn't be surprised if you are right. However, you might argue that a GPLed implementation is a pretty damn good replacement for any formal specification (especially since until recently all reasonably complete implementations were closed source). One huge problem with standardization driven development is that it is slow and bureaucratic. It's a shame of course that the test suite is not released under the same license though and this will definitely pose problems for Apache Harmony. On the other hand, they are free to provide their own test suite, look at the GPL source code of the reference implementation, and not call it Java. Technically they could even create a test that calls method foo in Harmony and then in OpenJDK and compares the result. The license allows that. What better way to prove you are compatible then by showing it is doing the exact same things? I don't know if it is practical but it sure is a legal. There are many successful opensource projects with only one implementation. I don't think that is necessarily a problem, provided the community is open enough. In cases where this isn't so, forking can be an effective tool (e.g. x.org). We've already seen external pressure from e.g. Red Hat leading to real change in the OpenJDK. As for Harmony, this was always IBMs little pet project. It exists because of SUN and IBM not being to friendly. IBM can afford to license the toolkit if needed, after all they make billions of Java (unlike Sun). I don't buy the argument of Apache being poor volunteers who can't afford the licensing cost: most of their projects (including Harmony) have serious industrial backing (in many cases IBM). The main argument for Harmony (control aside) is the Apache 2.0 license which allows bundling with closed source components (unlike the GPL). In other words, Harmonies biggest fans are amongst those companies actually interested in specifically this feature. Such as for example Google who are depending on Harmony in Android. So I think you are only telling half the story and if I were Stallman I might be leaning towards a full GPLed (GPL 3, no less) version of Java rather than a Apache 2.0 licensed one favoured by closed source proponents. In any case, the same political bickering that is frustrating progress here has also crippled the JCP especially JEE5 has been somewhat of a disappointment and quite many are looking to Spring rather than to Sun for new goodies. Same with IBM and OSGI. It remains to be seen how much owning the Java trademark will mean in the long run (especially if IBM buys them). Fundamentally, if IBM and Sun don't get along, they won't agree on much inside the JCP either.
  26. Re: Partly agree, but so what?[ Go to top ]

    As for Harmony, this was always IBMs little pet project. It exists because of SUN and IBM not being to friendly. IBM can afford to license the toolkit if needed, after all they make billions of Java (unlike Sun). I don't buy the argument of Apache being poor volunteers who can't afford the licensing cost: most of their projects (including Harmony) have serious industrial backing (in many cases IBM). The main argument for Harmony (control aside) is the Apache 2.0 license which allows bundling with closed source components (unlike the GPL). In other words, Harmonies biggest fans are amongst those companies actually interested in specifically this feature. Such as for example Google who are depending on Harmony in Android.
    This is ENTIRELY what this is about. The JDK was OSS via GPL for a reason, note that it wasn't release dual licensed ala CDDL and GPL (like pretty much everything else Sun has release, save for OpenSolaris). This was done specifically to protect Suns Java revenue stream, a revenue stream that a Apache 2.0 licensed JVM can have great impact upon. Androids VM that almost but doesn't quite implement "that which we can not name" is there for a resaon. Google didn't want to pay Sun to base Android on Java. Also, Java wasn't "OSS" enough to work for the Google phone (being that it's only GPL). Having a TCK passing, "Java(tm) approved" Apache 2.0 licensed implementation has a wide reaching affect on Suns place in the Java world, and how it monetizes Java. Which it why they're at impasse now. This whole controversy over "Java" vs "JDK" gives credence that, effectively, "Apache is right", so Sun is routing around the problem by moving forward on their own tangent outside the JCP, thus not under their guidelines. If/when "JDK 7" comes out, it will be as "authentic" a "Java" as Android's is. Of course, it'll come from Sun which gives it credibility and viability.
  27. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Sun should let Java go to the community and focus with IBM on a new Language. So, Yes we need a new language! As a BRMS specialist, I can certainly say that Java must be improved in a completely new way. The rules engines philosophy should be included as part of a common language. Sun and IBM are pioneers in Java and they should be together to bring us a better result in the future. Sam Guembour http://brmsnews.com
  28. We Don't need a new language[ Go to top ]

    We really don't need a new programming language to multiply the integration steps/procedures needed to make software work together. The JVM should be an evolving standard for all future languages. We need to focus on all aspects of compatibility to finally be able to solve the real problems of the world instead of rewriting age old software in new languages, over and over and over...
  29. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Sun should let Java go to the community and focus with IBM on a new Language.

    So, Yes we need a new language!

    As a BRMS specialist, I can certainly say that Java must be improved in a completely new way. The rules engines philosophy should be included as part of a common language.

    Sun and IBM are pioneers in Java and they should be together to bring us a better result in the future.


    Sam Guembour
    http://brmsnews.com
    I'm going to completely disagree on this. Java shouldn't be improved to handle BRMS use cases or even business rules. Since I've been using JESS and doing business rules since 2000, my bias perspective is that's just non-sense. It's better to create a business rule language for the application, which makes authoring rules as "painless" as possible for the business user. Java language and java syntax is a horrible fit for logic programming and declarative programming. It's great for imperative programming, but lets not over simplify a complex problem by saying Java language needs to become a rule language. That's just misguided. Many people have already tried that and learned the hard way it's doomed to fail. peter
  30. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Post Sun acquisition compromise: Apache engages IBM consultants to run the JDK compatibility kits. If Harmony fails any test, IBM nails Apache with change orders until they do pass. I'm looking forward to the resurgence of CORBA.
  31. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    I'm looking forward to the resurgence of CORBA.
    Don't worry, CORBA never went away - there's an ORB in every Java EE compliant app server (part of passing the current SDK), not to mention JNDI = CORBA naming service, RMI/IIOP = CORBA format & protocol, JTA includes OTS, and SAAS includes CORBA security (CSI_V2 was, like OTS/JTS for EJBs, developed at OMG together with JSR folks).
  32. There's an ORB in every Java EE[ Go to top ]

    Don't worry, CORBA never went away - there's an ORB in every Java EE compliant app server
    So that explains the complexity and bloating :-P, just (half) kidding.
  33. Don't worry, CORBA never went away - there's an ORB in every Java EE compliant app server


    So that explains the complexity and bloating :-P, just (half) kidding.
    Seldom the problem is not the technology but its (mis)use. This can be caused by several reason, mainly ignorance or reuse in context/architectures which it was not was thought for. I still remember some geological era ago when IBM gave the possibility to access CORBA objects thru a servlet using a factory pattern. To get an instance of an IDL object XX you had to reference somthing called XXHome. Does it ring any bell ? I think that CORBA is still a decent solution for DOC, if you don't want to go with ICE, and in terms of complexity it cannot be compared to SOAP/WebServices. Any real-world service specification is perfectly clear in IDL but the corresponding WSDL is absolutely unreadable. Any standard-based CORBA client or server can be ported on different runtime without re-generating stub/skeleton. Think for a while what J2EE would be if based on a XML protocol :-)) Guido
  34. April 21, no longer april fool[ Go to top ]

    Both IBM and Sun have messed up the deal...and now Oracle has taken over Sun! This also highlights the failure of Java! In spite of the number one Technology in use, Java failed to give revenue to Sun... mainly due to the huge mistakes by the vendor....Oracle on the other hand, is a world leader in making money even when they did not have the best products... Now with Sun and WEblogic in their net, and with no effective comptetition in the database market, Oracle will dominate the world IT.... Unless some company comes up with a better product than Oracle db and make it a commercial success !
  35. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    *SIGH* Sheesh, it didn't seem when I read it that it would be yet still more fodder for the anti-IBM bigots. Sun is acting like a petulant child wanting to take their ball and go home.
  36. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    *SIGH*

    Sheesh, it didn't seem when I read it that it would be yet still more fodder for the anti-IBM bigots.

    Sun is acting like a petulant child wanting to take their ball and go home.
    Having dealt with IBM's JVM and products, I don't think one has to be bigoted to be extremely pessimistic about IBM's impact on both Java and open source.
  37. This means that there won't be an open Java 7 specification. This would mean that what makes it into Java is what Sun choses to release in OpenJDK, not what's agreed in the JSRs. This returns control of Java back to Sun and prevents its standardization.
    I never understood Sun's reluctance to remove its field of use restriction for apache. Its not like Harmony will go anywhere or ever be anything special. The Apache bureaucracy would end up smothering a project of this size anyways.
  38. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Obviously, it is a political war between Apache and SUN , exactly between IBM and SUN. If IBM bought SUN , I think this war will end quickly. But as a developer, I hope it do not become true. Apparently IBM is a opensource company, but they do not open any parts of their core product, like rational series, websphere, lotus and db2. At the same time, Sun open most of their product, include hardware design. I think IBM bought SUN is a good thing for Java community.
  39. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    I think IBM bought SUN is a good thing for Java community.
    I am sorry, there is a fault. It is not a good thing.
  40. IBM will buy Sun Java ????[ Go to top ]

    SOMEBODY PLEASE SAVE JAVA.................. IBM SHOULD KILL JAVA AND JAVA DEVELOPERS AS WELL AS NATURE OF JAVA ALSO. IBM IN ANY WAY VERY VERY SHREWD.
  41. Re: IBM will buy Sun Java ????[ Go to top ]

    SOMEBODY PLEASE SAVE JAVA..................
    IBM SHOULD KILL JAVA AND JAVA DEVELOPERS AS WELL AS NATURE OF JAVA ALSO. IBM IN ANY WAY VERY VERY SHREWD.
    First, I agree that if IBM buys SUN it is likely we would need a 32GB machine just to run java -v. But I don't understand why if IBM kills java (eventually) there would be no more java dev. I think that several systems have been built with any ancient or modern java release. (I bet that there a lot of systems running with jdk 1.3 around the world). So what ? Keep a copy of your favourite JDK and goon. Obviously, things are a little different, but it seems that without Java 7 no serious system implementation can be realized. Guido
  42. First, I agree that if IBM buys SUN it is likely we would need a 32GB machine just to run java -v.
    I appreciate the most of you in this forum seem to have a suboptimal experience with WebSphere, but not all WebSphere products require 32GB to boot :)
    But I don't understand why if IBM kills java (eventually) there would be no more java dev.
    I think that several systems have been built with any ancient or modern java release.
    (I bet that there a lot of systems running with jdk 1.3 around the world).
    So what ? Keep a copy of your favourite JDK and goon.
    Obviously, things are a little different, but it seems that without Java 7 no serious system implementation can be realized.

    Guido
    I personally think that IBM has no strategic interest in killing Java. Java enablement is already pervasive in their offering, ranging from WebSphere MQ and Message Broker to DB2 and the loved/hated WebSphere Application Server, Process Server, Portal Server etc. - in other words, they invested already a lot of money on it. Java still is the only possible alternative to .NET in the enterprise field (no, RoR is not, if you ask me) and unless they want to support Mono or revive Smalltalk, they do not have many other choices; even if they had, making it as pervasive as Java is in their products will require a lot of time and a solid business case (which does not exist today). My question is instead if we still need another version of Java. I agree with you that the most of us do not. I instead would like to see revised JVM specs and a trimmed down runtime library.
  43. Seems like Java isn't a big part in Sun's revenue. Although Sun invented, developed, maintained Java and JCP. They have shown strength of open standards build using JCP model. There is almost no such good support for technology compatibility and standardization (W3C? but it's comparatively small). So, why don't say thanks to Sun? Especially when it is in charge.
  44. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Why should SUN give every Java related asset (or all it's software) and their rights to others totally free and do not keep some benefit for itself? I do not consider my self a beautiful attractive lady that people like to give her things for free. Do you? If java opensource every software it owns, I will will be assured that they are crazy and they do not know 0 about business. Now look what's happening to MySQL! Everyone is starting a port of it and very soon. Perhaps if SUN had not spend that much o0n opensource and had not given everything for free it would have a better financial situation.
  45. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Why should SUN give every Java related asset (or all it's software) and their rights to others totally free and do not keep some benefit for itself?
    Agreed! Creating the TCK and supporting those using it (answering questions, amending tests, etc), is clearly a hugely expensive endeavor which Sun has invested in over many years. The only reason for Harmony to exist at this point (as opposed to just having various experimental branches of OpenJDK) is the Apache 2 license. The entire point of this license vs. GPL is to allow one to create commercial, closed-source derivative works. I love that aspect of the Apache license, but why should Sun give away their TCK investment for free so that others can create commercial derivative works courtesy of this give away? Sun's finances aren't Microsoft's -- they can't afford to give away everything.
  46. Re: No More Java 7?[ Go to top ]

    Sun's finances aren't Microsoft's -- they can't afford to give away everything.
    Since when has Microsoft given away anything for free?
  47. Finances[ Go to top ]

    Sun's finances aren't Microsoft's -- they can't afford to give away everything.


    Since when has Microsoft given away anything for free?
    .NET , SQlExpress , VS Express , Enterprise Library , WCF , WPF , IE , Windows Media Player , Outlook express ,Word/xps viewers , Direct X , Windows Workflow , IIS ,MSMQ , all those illegal licences of MS products which they know about and could stop easily. .... Ok you need an MS OS for some of these products but you cant expect MS to write free software for a competitors language/platform. If you have a startup company you can get all their products almost free.
  48. Re: Finances[ Go to top ]

    Sun's finances aren't Microsoft's -- they can't afford to give away everything.


    Since when has Microsoft given away anything for free?


    .NET , SQlExpress , VS Express , Enterprise Library , WCF , WPF , IE , Windows Media Player , Outlook express ,Word/xps viewers , Direct X , Windows Workflow , IIS ,MSMQ , all those illegal licences of MS products which they know about and could stop easily. ....

    Ok you need an MS OS for some of these products but you cant expect MS to write free software for a competitors language/platform.

    If you have a startup company you can get all their products almost free.
    It's all good for educational purposes and for small applications/sites for SMB's, but a serious enterprise needs more, and they are going to need more that requires them to pay money. We will never know when MS will arbitrarily change the license to its advantage. Don't get me wrong. If the tools are good, I have no problems paying them for it. MS Visual Studio is a terrific IDE and I have no problems paying for it. In the Java world, you get more goodies for free, but then there is a high barrier to entry. You got to be reasonably good and I would say its a good thing.
  49. Free Microsoft stuff[ Go to top ]

    Since when has Microsoft given away anything for free?
    .NET Framework is free, so is Visual Studio Express, SQL Server Express, Robotics Studio, XNA Game Studio. C# is an ISO standard, F# is open source, ...
  50. Sun has made simple but vital mistakes on Java... Whereas giving JDK free was a huge positive move, not giving a proper development environment (to start with from 1.x onwards) was a huge mistake. JDK still doesn't have a simple editor (not even)... One is frustrated to see most sites using (mis-using without proper license) products like TextPad and other xyz editors.... Sun should have positioned Netbeans better.. and made money too... Having said that, it will be an illusion that an IBM takeover will be better for Java... IBM is still struggling to make Websphere a success against compteting products in the market place.
  51. IBM is still struggling to make Websphere a success against compteting products in the market place.
    Nice April fool.
  52. The big laugh[ Go to top ]

    The big laugh came from Oracle when they came from nowhere and ran away with Sun!