Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Whoop.Whoop.Posted Aug 6, 2003 18:45 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165)Parent article: Sun pragmatic about open-source software (News.com) By that time, Java itself will be irrelevant, never mind Sun's implementations. Arguably they're already irrelevant: in a Free Software world, what good is a virtual machine? Use a real compiler, and compile to raw machine code to run on the naked silicon. We don't need no steenkin' binary portability. We have source.
(Log in to post comments)
Whoop. Posted Aug 6, 2003 19:36 UTC (Wed) by fx (guest, #12077) [Link] In a Free Software world, a virtual machine makes little sense. However, the real world runs mostly on proprietary software.Linux has been around for almost 12 years now and OSS for much longer than that. Tell me, how big a chunk of the desktop market have you got by now? Sorry to burst the bubble...
Whoop. Posted Aug 6, 2003 19:52 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Who's taking market share from whom?
Whoop. Posted Aug 6, 2003 20:01 UTC (Wed) by ksmathers (subscriber, #2353) [Link] However, the real world runs mostly on proprietary software.To be precise the real world runs mostly on Microsoft's proprietary software. How is Java useful in a monoculture. Conversely, if Sun ever does start shipping more boxes than Microsoft, then it will probably be because open source has overtaken the real world. In either case the VM is only of modest relevance. At least that is how I interpreted the original comment.
Whoop. Posted Aug 6, 2003 20:03 UTC (Wed) by MathFox (subscriber, #6104) [Link] How important is market share for an Open Source operating system... You need to have enough developers to keep the train running. And it looks that the FLOSS developerbase is large enough to outpace Microsoft!Linux is usable for server operation for about 10 years now; Aren't we at 20% there? Linux on the office desktop has only been a viable option for the last 2-3 years with Gnome2, KDE3 and Open Office 1.0. I am not surprised at all that market share is only a few percent, (rogue installations not counted), but growing. Are we at 20 percent in five years?
Whoop. Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:46 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Sorry to interrup,... but if you only have 20% in 5 years, you'l be dead.Because by that time M$ is already full steam ahead in locking everything under DRM(.N(O)T/Paladium/NGSCB ). That is why SUN is changing to Open-Source,... is better to lose 50% of provit margin and 50% of costumers to others, cutting in the process 50% in R&D and gaining in services, than losing 100% to M$. I think of MASSIVE hardware support, what is missing in Linux/FLOSS.
Whoop. Posted Aug 7, 2003 16:44 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Tell me, how big a chunk of the desktop market have you got by now? Sorry to burst the bubble...You didn't. Your statement is based on the assumption that Linux deployment on the desktop is linear; this is obviously not the case. It's probably exponential, or at least quadratic. Things do look pretty flat for a long time, but there's a point on the curve where the obstacles to deploying Linux on the desktop nearly vanish, probably over a relatively short period of time. There are two broad classes of obstacles to be overcome: market obstacles, and legal obstacles. If we were talking about commercial software, the first would be a major concern, since we may run out of resources before we overcome market obstacles. This isn't a problem for Linux, since it can survive without any financial resources at all (although this would slow its development), and we can keep pushing against market obstacles for an indefinite period of time. The second class of obstacles -- legal -- could be more of a problem, and I believe the primary reason that we see more legal attacks on Linux than in the past. People have finally figured out that they can't compete with Linux on a level playing field (FUD is a bad long-term strategy), so they have resorted to trying to tilt the field in their favor using the US and UE legal systems.
Whoop. Posted Aug 6, 2003 20:16 UTC (Wed) by jonabbey (subscriber, #2736) [Link] I think you underestimate Java. Yes, it is a difficult matter to attempt to construct a comprehensive, pervasive VM programming environment, and yes, it isn't politic for Sun not to open their stuff, but the two are linked. A Java world in which every person is free to alter the very definition of Java is a Java world in which portable abstract code is all but impossible.Sun has contributed a very great thing to the world with Java.. like it or not for technical or political grounds, it has certainly advanced the popular state of the art in programming systems. Mono and .NET are witness to this, even though they both try to dodge Java in the implementation.
Whoop. Posted Aug 7, 2003 10:50 UTC (Thu) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] If you run a non certified VM, you can expect incompatibilities.That doesn't mean that the licence should preclude the ability of people to modify their VM. Java will die if it doesn't become open source, Mono will eat its lunch.
Whoop. Posted Aug 7, 2003 16:57 UTC (Thu) by jonabbey (subscriber, #2736) [Link] Perhaps, but Mono has a long way to go, still.
Whoop. Posted Aug 8, 2003 1:08 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] yes, and after pressure from HP and Intel, Ximian changed the license to X style (noncopyleft).So any company can take the Mono classes/librarys, extend them and not give their improvements back to the community. Anyone who doesn't share is at an advantage. All code from the Mono crew can be taken away and there's nothing to require others to contribute back. I can't understand this move at all. The LGPL allows for proprietary linking, why not use it? Ciaran O'Riordan
Whoop. Posted Aug 7, 2003 0:06 UTC (Thu) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] Yes, because of course there are no portability issues between different free OSs or even the same free OS running on different chips. (This is sarcasm, for those of you who haven't actually tried this.)I suspect you're also against working on Perl/Python's VM? Or Parrot?
Whoop. Posted Aug 7, 2003 9:48 UTC (Thu) by stuart2048 (subscriber, #6241) [Link] >We don't need no steenkin' binary portability. We have source.Well, I'm no fanatic about any one language in general, but Java is much more than binary portability. The write-once-run-
|
|||||||||||