What's the point?

java-programmer, What's the point? Here's some thoughts from a Java guy at JavaOne:

http://beust.com/weblog/archives/000388.html

As JavaOne 2006 opens its doors today, the age-old question is bound
to be asked again and again: will Sun open source Java?

I have a fairly straightforward answer: I don't care.

And I suppose that most of the Java developers out there don't care
either.

What exactly is not open source in the Java we use today? I had to
think hard to answer this question because, frankly, everything I need
on a daily
basis is already available in source form, with one exception: the
Java Virtual Machine.

Sun's JVM (and others) is admittedly very good and I'm sure a lot of
developers would be interested in knowing how it works, but let's face
it: the inner workings of a Java Virtual Machine are completely
irrelevant to
most Java developers and not having access to this resource will
probably
never get in the way of writing Java code.

With that in mind, why is the question of open sourcing coming back so
often?

One word: zealotry.

*Posted from the Opera Mini Java browser on my Nokia 9300.

java-programmer >> What's the point?
"asj" <email***@***.com>

> Here's some thoughts from a Java guy at JavaOne:
>
> http://beust.com/weblog/archives/000388.html
>
> As JavaOne 2006 opens its doors today, the age-old question is bound
> to be asked again and again: will Sun open source Java?
>
> I have a fairly straightforward answer: I don't care.

You may think harder.
The Harmony-project, an effort to create an open-source JVM, has Intel and
IBM on board. Many other projects have joined Harmony, especially projects
from universities and open groups. That's something that never happened
under Sun's (excuse me!) "semi-totalitarist reignship" over Java (TM).

Do you want to have companies like IBM, Intel, BEA, Redhat etc. develop a
JVM? Or do you want to see only Sun and only Sun-developers doing that? Well
I think seeing only Sun-developers "doing the thing" is a little bit like
incest, isn't it?

So do you want to have IBM, Intel, BEA, Redhat, Novell <add many others>
cooperating (with Sun?) to develop a JVM. Yes or no? Sun's JRE/JVM is
proprietary and you can't expect from those companies or other projects to
cooperate on proprietary software.

Open-sourcing means "cooperation and sharing developers, money and
resources. Did you look at Sun's shareholder-value after first day of
JavaOne. It has fallen again.

And why the heck are guys like you, Roedy or Jeroen so attached to Sun
Microsystems? Did you forget that Java is a community-thing? Do companies
like IBM, Redhat not count for you. I simply don't understand that
attachment to Sun as if Sun Microsystems would be the only important company
on planet earth.

You remind me the Microsoft-zealots sometimes. For those zealots there is
nothing else then Microsoft, Microsoft and Microsoft.... for you and other
Java developers there is nothing else then Sun, Sun and Sun...

Don't be idiots, folks.

java-programmer >> What's the point? __/ [ Free Java (TM) ] on Wednesday 17 May 2006 09:38 \__

> "asj" <email***@***.com>
>
>> Here's some thoughts from a Java guy at JavaOne:
>>
>> http://beust.com/weblog/archives/000388.html
>>
>> As JavaOne 2006 opens its doors today, the age-old question is bound
>> to be asked again and again: will Sun open source Java?
>>
>> I have a fairly straightforward answer: I don't care.
>
> You may think harder.
> The Harmony-project, an effort to create an open-source JVM, has Intel and
> IBM on board. Many other projects have joined Harmony, especially projects
> from universities and open groups. That's something that never happened
> under Sun's (excuse me!) "semi-totalitarist reignship" over Java (TM).

That's a very strong statement. Java's code was not locked in a safe, unlike
for example, some other (very popular) codebases which spring to mind.

> Do you want to have companies like IBM, Intel, BEA, Redhat etc. develop a
> JVM? Or do you want to see only Sun and only Sun-developers doing that?
> Well I think seeing only Sun-developers "doing the thing" is a little bit
> like incest, isn't it?
>
> So do you want to have IBM, Intel, BEA, Redhat, Novell <add many others>
> cooperating (with Sun?) to develop a JVM. Yes or no? Sun's JRE/JVM is
> proprietary and you can't expect from those companies or other projects to
> cooperate on proprietary software.

Good point. Many would be out there to benefit (at the expense of Sun MS
perhaps). Overall, I belive that many end users (developers alike) would
benefit, corporations aside.

> Open-sourcing means "cooperation and sharing developers, money and
> resources. Did you look at Sun's shareholder-value after first day of
> JavaOne. It has fallen again.
>
> And why the heck are guys like you, Roedy or Jeroen so attached to Sun
> Microsystems? Did you forget that Java is a community-thing? Do companies
> like IBM, Redhat not count for you. I simply don't understand that
> attachment to Sun as if Sun Microsystems would be the only important
> company on planet earth.

It's a matter of possessiveness. It's also a promise to shareholders.

> You remind me the Microsoft-zealots sometimes. For those zealots there is
> nothing else then Microsoft, Microsoft and Microsoft.... for you and other
> Java developers there is nothing else then Sun, Sun and Sun...

What about 'Macheads'? Any exception there? Of course not. There are Linux
zealots, as well.

> Don't be idiots, folks.

Tone it down, man. *smile*

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Hasta la Vista, MS Vista.
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ? PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
11:30am up 19 days 18:27, 8 users, load average: 0.79, 0.57, 0.41
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

java-programmer >> What's the point?
"Free Java (TM)" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:e4endm$6ma$01$email***@***.com...
>
> "asj" <email***@***.com>
>
>> Here's some thoughts from a Java guy at JavaOne:
>>
>> http://beust.com/weblog/archives/000388.html
>>
>> As JavaOne 2006 opens its doors today, the age-old question is bound
>> to be asked again and again: will Sun open source Java?
>>
>> I have a fairly straightforward answer: I don't care.
>
> You may think harder.
> The Harmony-project, an effort to create an open-source JVM, has Intel and
> IBM on board. Many other projects have joined Harmony, especially projects
> from universities and open groups. That's something that never happened
> under Sun's (excuse me!) "semi-totalitarist reignship" over Java (TM).

Your "arguments" here seem to be supporting the "don't care" conclusion.
If IBM, Intel and others, actually do make an open source JVM, then who
cares what Sun does? We'll just dump Sun and use harmony instead, right?
What Sun actually does or does not do is irrelevant at that point.

>
> Do you want to have companies like IBM, Intel, BEA, Redhat etc. develop a
> JVM? Or do you want to see only Sun and only Sun-developers doing that?
> Well
> I think seeing only Sun-developers "doing the thing" is a little bit like
> incest, isn't it?

The fact that the JVM is closed source does not in any way imply that
incest is occuring. You should probably formulate your arguments more
clearly.

>
> So do you want to have IBM, Intel, BEA, Redhat, Novell <add many others>
> cooperating (with Sun?) to develop a JVM. Yes or no? Sun's JRE/JVM is
> proprietary and you can't expect from those companies or other projects to
> cooperate on proprietary software.

I don't particularly care whether IBM, Intel, BEA, Redhat, Novel and
many others cooperate with Sun, or if they compete with Sun, or if they just
ignore Sun altogether.

I personally don't see a need for an open source JVM, so *I* don't
nescessarily want Sun to open source their JVM. Perhaps other people DO see
a need for an open source JVM. These people have two choices: Whine and beg
Sun to open source their JVM, or just implement one themselves.

[...]
>
> And why the heck are guys like you, Roedy or Jeroen so attached to Sun
> Microsystems? Did you forget that Java is a community-thing? Do companies
> like IBM, Redhat not count for you. I simply don't understand that
> attachment to Sun as if Sun Microsystems would be the only important
> company
> on planet earth.

I have not seen evidence of any attachment in the people you've named
(though admitedly I haven't seen many of Jeroen's postings).

- Oliver

java-programmer >> What's the point? "Oliver Wong" <email***@***.com>

> I have not seen evidence of any attachment in the people you've named
> (though admitedly I haven't seen many of Jeroen's postings).

But I've seen it. There is a common thinking that Sun and only Sun
represents Java (TM). And only Sun should be responsible for the JVM.

There is something called "the Java-community-process".
Java is a technology supported by a broad and big community of companies and
organizations. So the "brain" or the "core" of Java say the JVM MUST be
developed and financed by the whole JCP say by all companies representing
the Java-community.

And why?
Because the big and broad Java-community has much more resources and
developers to offer then Sun has. That's the whole point. What's wrong with
that opinion?

Do you think that Sun and only Sun should be resonsible developing the JVM
and only Sun decides about Java EE?. That's exactly what happens. All new
technologies representing Dolphin are Sun-only technologies. Sun doesn't
even care to ask other companies what they want to have . Sun ignores all
technological progresses i.e. made by eclipse.org.

Do you think BEA, Redhat, Novell, IBM, Intel, SAP, Nokia and all the other
companies have no qualified and talented software-departments? Tell me one
reason why the development of the JVM should be a Sun-only thing.

And what happens when Sun goes out of business? That never happens?
Shit happens and SCO happened.

What happens when <insert-other-company> buys Sun's JVM?
Keep in mind that Sun's JVM is proprietary. I don't want to risk that so
there must be a free and independent Open-Source JVM financed,
developed and controlled by the whole Java-community.

Sun posts one quarterly loss after the other. According to some analysts Sun
Microsystems should be restructurized what means that at least 8000
Sun-employess will be laied off. I guess it is a very bad idea to trust Sun.

btw I didn't intend to be offensive. The term "Idiots" that I used in my
former posting is offensive. So I apologize for using a wrong term. What I
intended to say was "think harder" so it was a (very bad) rhetorical phrase.

java-programmer >> What's the point? "Free Java (TM)" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:e4h598$4ug$02$email***@***.com...
>
> There is a common thinking that Sun and only Sun
> represents Java (TM).

Depending on your definition of "represents", this common thinking is
mandated by law. Java is a trademarked term, as you've noted, and Sun owns
the trademark.

> And only Sun should be responsible for the JVM.

This seems to imply that there is only one JVM. There's more than one
JVM, so the premise of the statement doesn't hold.

>
> There is something called "the Java-community-process".
> Java is a technology supported by a broad and big community of companies
> and
> organizations. So the "brain" or the "core" of Java say the JVM MUST be
> developed and financed by the whole JCP say by all companies representing
> the Java-community.

I don't understand this paragraph. Who or what is the "brain" or "core"
of Java which is saying the JVM must be financed in such a matter? Is this a
reference to Sun? Do you have a citation for the core making these demands?

>
> And why?
> Because the big and broad Java-community has much more resources and
> developers to offer then Sun has. That's the whole point. What's wrong
> with
> that opinion?

I won't address "what's wrong" with an opinion I don't understand. =)
When you clarify, I might say more on this.

>
> Do you think that Sun and only Sun should be resonsible developing the JVM
> and only Sun decides about Java EE?.

What *should* or *should not* happen is known in meta-ethics and
philosophy as the "Is-Ought" problem. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-Ought_Problem

In short, it's meaningless in this context to say what Sun *should* be
doing. If instead one wishes to look at what Sun has the rights (legally,
morally, ethically, or in any other sense you wish), I think it's fully
within Sun's right to maintain ownership of the JVM and Java EE, should they
wish to do so. It's also fully within their right to release it to the
public domain. Or anything in between. They own the technologies. They've
developped them from scratch. They didn't acquire those technology
maliciously or through subterfuge. They can do whatever they want with it.

> That's exactly what happens. All new
> technologies representing Dolphin are Sun-only technologies. Sun doesn't
> even care to ask other companies what they want to have . Sun ignores all
> technological progresses i.e. made by eclipse.org.

I strongly doubt that Sun "ignores" the work of the Eclipse development
team. But I guess at this point, it's just your word against mine.

>
> Do you think BEA, Redhat, Novell, IBM, Intel, SAP, Nokia and all the other
> companies have no qualified and talented software-departments?

I never made that claim. And no, I don't think that the above people
have no qualified or talented software departments.

> Tell me one
> reason why the development of the JVM should be a Sun-only thing.

I'm not going to. Instead, I'd like to point out to you that the
development of JVMs (plural) is NOT a Sun-only thing. The Sable group, for
example, is not affiliated with Sun, and they've developped a JVM called
SableVM. See http://sablevm.org/

>
> And what happens when Sun goes out of business? That never happens?
> Shit happens and SCO happened.

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect 50 years or so after Sun goes out of
business (might be 70, might be 150, I don't know), all the intellectual
property that wasn't sold off to other companies becomes public domain and
you can do whatever you want with it.

>
> What happens when <insert-other-company> buys Sun's JVM?

Then they get to do whatever they want with it. But that doesn't mean
they get to do whatever they want with, for example, SableVM, which they
haven't bought in the above theoretical situation.

> Keep in mind that Sun's JVM is proprietary. I don't want to risk that so
> there must be a free and independent Open-Source JVM financed,
> developed and controlled by the whole Java-community.

And there IS an open source JVM. In fact, there are several.

As for it being developed and controlled by the whole Java-community,
that'll never happen. Why? Because there will always be someone, somewhere,
who is part of the Java-community, and who isn't developing that JVM. Think
1st year university students who are just learning how to write "Hello
World" in Java. They're part of this community, and they're not helping with
the development of this JVM.

>
> Sun posts one quarterly loss after the other. According to some analysts
> Sun
> Microsystems should be restructurized what means that at least 8000
> Sun-employess will be laied off. I guess it is a very bad idea to trust
> Sun.

I don't see how the first few sentences lead to the last sentence. I
don't see how the last sentence has anything to do with the rest of this
post. Why do you need to trust Sun?

- Oliver

java-programmer >> What's the point? "Free Java $TM$" <email***@***.com> writes:

> But I've seen it. There is a common thinking that Sun and only Sun
> represents Java (TM). And only Sun should be responsible for the JVM.

Java (TM) is Sun yes - it's their trademark, like Linux is the
trademark of Linux Mark Institute.

> Keep in mind that Sun's JVM is proprietary.

Do a search on "Sun Community Source License". Anyone can get a look
at Sun's source. How do you define proprietary? Sun do not have
exclusive legal rights to it, they have a license that let others use
it. And it sure isn't profit-making, what with beeing given away free
(as in beer).

> I don't want to risk that so there must be a free and independent
> Open-Source JVM financed, developed and controlled by the whole
> Java-community.

And there are multiple attempts, mostly failing because users are
comfortable with the VMs from Sun, IBM etc.

> Sun posts one quarterly loss after the other. According to some
> analysts Sun Microsystems should be restructurized what means that
> at least 8000 Sun-employess will be laied off. I guess it is a very
> bad idea to trust Sun.

Why? I mean for every open-source project X, do you make sure you know
the financial health of the maintainer(s) before using it? If Sun goes
down, there are alternatives even though you do not know of them.

java-programmer >> What's the point? On Thu, 18 May 2006 08:47:06 +0200, "Free Java $TM$" <email***@***.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>Tell me one
>reason why the development of the JVM should be a Sun-only thing.

The smaller the team the better the quality of the code and the faster
the development. You better off to use a small crack team.

You want community input on priorities where the JVM should go next
but not to implement it.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

java-programmer >> What's the point?
Free Java (TM) wrote:
> Do you want to have companies like IBM, Intel, BEA, Redhat etc. develop a
> JVM?

Dude, so long as my apps run the same way in their JVM, I don't
actually care who owns the JVM.

>
> So do you want to have IBM, Intel, BEA, Redhat, Novell <add many others>
> cooperating (with Sun?) to develop a JVM. Yes or no?

isn't this a case of "waste of time"? Why not use your energy to
contribute to enriching the current JVM rather than creating competing
ones? - and btw, IBM's J9 VM is pretty widely-used.

> Open-sourcing means "cooperation and sharing developers, money and
> resources. Did you look at Sun's shareholder-value after first day of
> JavaOne. It has fallen again.

Did you look at the shares of other companies? Dude, the entire STOCK
MARKET fell 200+ points in 1 day!

>
> And why the heck are guys like you, Roedy or Jeroen so attached to Sun
> Microsystems? Did you forget that Java is a community-thing?

I'm grateful to Sun for introducing Java, but other than that I'm not
anymore Sun-centric than IBM-centric.

> You remind me the Microsoft-zealots sometimes. For those zealots there is
> nothing else then Microsoft, Microsoft and Microsoft.... for you and other
> Java developers there is nothing else then Sun, Sun and Sun...

Uh, ok.

>
> Don't be idiots, folks.

Thanks. I'll try. Try harder.

java-programmer >> What's the point?
Free Java (TM) wrote:
> But I've seen it. There is a common thinking that Sun and only Sun
> represents Java (TM). And only Sun should be responsible for the JVM.

Big Foot. UFOs. Sun's JVM.

>
> There is something called "the Java-community-process".
> Java is a technology supported by a broad and big community of companies and
> organizations. So the "brain" or the "core" of Java say the JVM MUST be
> developed and financed by the whole JCP say by all companies representing
> the Java-community.

Well, IBM spends more on Java research than Sun does. Is that what
you're looking for?

>
> Do you think that Sun and only Sun should be resonsible developing the JVM
> and only Sun decides about Java EE?. That's exactly what happens. All new
> technologies representing Dolphin are Sun-only technologies. Sun doesn't
> even care to ask other companies what they want to have . Sun ignores all
> technological progresses i.e. made by eclipse.org.

Personally, I use Netbeans because their new mobility pack rocks (drag
and drop midlets, baby!). But I think Eclipse is great too, since it
attracts a lot of non-Java developers to the fold.

>
> Do you think BEA, Redhat, Novell, IBM, Intel, SAP, Nokia and all the other
> companies have no qualified and talented software-departments? Tell me one
> reason why the development of the JVM should be a Sun-only thing.

It's called the capitalist system. Sun decided to go the middle route -
not as closed and proprietary as Microsoft, but at the same time not as
free as, say, linux.

I think this may be cause Sun learned its lesson when UNIX broke into
factions...they don't want that happening to Java.

Then again, Sun seems to indicate in JavaOne that the JVM will be open
sourced soon, when they can figure out how to make sure it doesn't
create competing factions. That make you happy?

>
> And what happens when Sun goes out of business? That never happens?

IBM will take it over. But then again, I don't expect Sun to go this
route - I expect it'll merge to form a larger conglomerate company that
is not so exposed to the commoditization of severs.

> What happens when <insert-other-company> buys Sun's JVM?

What? What happens?

> Keep in mind that Sun's JVM is proprietary. I don't want to risk that so
> there must be a free and independent Open-Source JVM financed,
> developed and controlled by the whole Java-community.

hey, if there was one, I'd support it....but honestly, most developers
don't care so long as they can run their apps.

>
> Sun posts one quarterly loss after the other. According to some analysts Sun
> Microsystems should be restructurized what means that at least 8000
> Sun-employess will be laied off. I guess it is a very bad idea to trust Sun.

Why? They've resisted the urgings of Wall Street to lay off large
numbers of people for years now - in my book, that's stupid, but you
gotta admire their persistence anyways.

> btw I didn't intend to be offensive. The term "Idiots" that I used in my
> former posting is offensive. So I apologize for using a wrong term. What I
> intended to say was "think harder" so it was a (very bad) rhetorical phrase.

So, what's your plan? There's no one stopping you or anyone else from
writing your own JVM.

java-programmer >> What's the point? "asj" <email***@***.com> wrote in news:1148015253.310154.252890@
38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>> Open-sourcing means "cooperation and sharing developers, money and
>> resources. Did you look at Sun's shareholder-value after first day of
>> JavaOne. It has fallen again.
>
>
> Did you look at the shares of other companies? Dude, the entire STOCK
> MARKET fell 200+ points in 1 day!
>
>
>

Obviously this just shows how costly Sun's failure to go OpenSource(tm) has
been.

I now threatens the entire US economy! Possibly the WORLD.

Help RMS. Your our only hope.

OB

"That's a joke son, a joke"

java-programmer >> What's the point? "asj" <email***@***.com>

>> btw I didn't intend to be offensive. The term "Idiots" that I used in my
>> former posting is offensive. So I apologize for using a wrong term. What
>> I
>> intended to say was "think harder" so it was a (very bad) rhetorical
>> phrase.
>
>
> So, what's your plan? There's no one stopping you or anyone else from
> writing your own JVM.

[ Sorry I was absent the last 4 days ]

Sun's JVM is developed by let's say 50 developers. (I don't know it)

What's about a JVM being developed by:

50 developers from Sun
+ another 50 developers from IBM
+ another 50 developers from Intel
+ another 30 developers from Redhat and Novell
+ another 30 developers from universities
+ <insert more>

Currently we have only the "let's say" 50 developers from Sun.
That's all, folks. I do not advocate world-communism.

Btw Jonathan Schwatz just announced "we will open-source Java".
I hope he will announce " we try to cooperate with IBM, Intel, Redhat and so
on and we will host JVM-development on apache.org "

java-programmer >> What's the point?
"Free Java (TM)" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:e4rj5v$7vi$02$email***@***.com...
> "asj" <email***@***.com>
>>
>> So, what's your plan? There's no one stopping you or anyone else from
>> writing your own JVM.
>
> [ Sorry I was absent the last 4 days ]
>
> Sun's JVM is developed by let's say 50 developers. (I don't know it)
>
> What's about a JVM being developed by:
>
> 50 developers from Sun
> + another 50 developers from IBM
> + another 50 developers from Intel
> + another 30 developers from Redhat and Novell
> + another 30 developers from universities
> + <insert more>

Interesting plan. How are you gonna get Sun to commit 50 of their
developers to your JVM project?

- Oliver