An editorial piece By Rick Ross founder of Java Lobby argues that Java developers should make Java vendors work for our affection. He says that "The highly polarized "Sun versus Microsoft" equation with "good versus evil" has blinded too many Java developers from seeing the subtle advantages of more vigorous and open competition in the Java economy"
- Posted by: Ed Saikali
- Posted on: March 09 2001 17:40 EST
Read Editorial Here
What do you guys think? Do you agree with Ross or Disagree?
- Don't Give It Up Too Easily, Make Them Earn Your Affection by koksing khongks on March 09 2001 23:10 EST
- Don't Give It Up Too Easily, Make Them Earn Your Affection by Patrick Martin on March 10 2001 12:52 EST
- Don't Give It Up Too Easily, Make Them Earn Your Affection by rich client on March 12 2001 11:32 EST
- Don't Give It Up Too Easily, Make Them Earn Your Affection by Joshua Hoover on March 13 2001 09:55 EST
I DO believe that SUN caters to it's developers. Look at
all of the free support offered by SUN ranging from the
Developer Connection to JavaWorld magazine. Look at www.netbeans.org. Developing a product of this magnitude and offering it for free is a huge investment in the developer community IMHO.
Deep down, SUN must realize that we'll all jump ship and switch to a better technology tomorrow should a superior technology arise. They don't really need our affection, they simply need to keep convincing us that Java makes our lives easier than competing technologies.
The SUN/Microsoft battle isn't good versus evil. It's corporation versus corporation plain and simple. Sun's overall philosophy is more in line with my own thinking but who's to say who's right. Alot of smart people that I respect feel equally strongly about Microsoft's position.
Microsoft deserves alot of what it gets, however, I've heard Scott McNealey speak and he really has it out for Microsoft. Hearing him speak didn't win sympathy for the SUN camp, rather I walked away thinking "That guy's like Captain Ahab with Microsoft as his Moby Dick". His speech was full of low blows to Microsoft that I found to be unprofessional.
i agree. we don't have to look to far back at IBM and what they tried to do .. and Bill Gates had the nerve to stand up to IBM and the rest is history. It is a well known fact that Windows will always be a CLOSED system and that Java cannot survive in the Microsoft world. Sun has done a great job with Java but Sun's shareholder interests will always be a controlling factor in the equation.
I agree with the article. But, I think the really big point that the author missed is the fact that Java really IS Sun's technology! The reason this is the case is because Sun owns Java. Java is not an open standard. Java was going to be turned over to a committee to put it in the same ranks as C, C++, etc., but Sun pulled out on the deal at the last minute. Why? Because Sun owns Java. At least Microsoft turned C# over to a standards committee. The main reason turning a programming language over to a standards committee is so important is because the language does not suffer the politics that a language like Java has.
Having Java controlled by one company (Sun) is a scary proposition. I think we all know that Sun has always had plans to use Java to further it's own domination of the computer industry. The only reason people fail to see this (in my opinion) is because Sun has been horrific in executing their plans with Java and, thus, have failed to dominate in the way they wish they were (think Microsoft).
In the end, neither Sun or Microsoft or any other one company is going to be good for developers. What is good for developers is interop - interop that doesn't care whether you use one company's product to develop with or another's. I believe that the only way that true interop happens is when developers wake up and start to push for it. They no longer fight for one company's standard over another's; they simply fight to make sure that when companies create things like J2EE, SOAP, .NET, ONE, etc. that these technologies are able to easily work with other competing technologies and do not tie a developer into one company's vision of the future.