Sun pragmatic about open-source software (News.com)
'When we out-ship Windows in desktop volume, we will look very seriously at open-sourcing Java on the desktop,' he said."
Posted Aug 6, 2003 17:54 UTC (Wed)
by mattdm (subscriber, #18)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Aug 6, 2003 19:26 UTC (Wed)
by fx (guest, #12077)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:32 UTC (Wed)
by proski (subscriber, #104)
[Link]
Posted Aug 6, 2003 19:43 UTC (Wed)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (3 responses)
Also, not true. What difference would it make?
Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:07 UTC (Wed)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link] (2 responses)
We might expect a result to follow from a prerequisite, but in this case, the stated prerequisite (more desktops) would follow from the stated result (open sourcing java). This reversal is, in fact, ironic. It only doesn't fit the top definition of irony, of course, wherein words are used to express a meaning different from or opposite to their literal meaning. But you certainly knew that. I am amused that the word "irony", whose primary definition is the use of words to express something different from what they literally mean, is used more often than other words to express something different from what it literally means. Of course, I suppose it might be expected.
Posted Aug 6, 2003 22:13 UTC (Wed)
by jonth (guest, #4008)
[Link] (1 responses)
J
Posted Aug 7, 2003 18:19 UTC (Thu)
by jdthood (guest, #4157)
[Link]
Ironic, eh?
Posted Aug 6, 2003 18:45 UTC (Wed)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (13 responses)
We don't need no steenkin' binary portability.
We have source.
Posted Aug 6, 2003 19:36 UTC (Wed)
by fx (guest, #12077)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Aug 6, 2003 19:52 UTC (Wed)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link]
Posted Aug 6, 2003 20:01 UTC (Wed)
by ksmathers (guest, #2353)
[Link]
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.
Posted Aug 6, 2003 20:03 UTC (Wed)
by MathFox (guest, #6104)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:46 UTC (Wed)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link]
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.
Posted Aug 7, 2003 16:44 UTC (Thu)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link]
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.
Posted Aug 6, 2003 20:16 UTC (Wed)
by jonabbey (guest, #2736)
[Link] (3 responses)
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.
Posted Aug 7, 2003 10:50 UTC (Thu)
by rjw (guest, #10415)
[Link] (2 responses)
Java will die if it doesn't become open source, Mono will eat its lunch.
Posted Aug 7, 2003 16:57 UTC (Thu)
by jonabbey (guest, #2736)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 8, 2003 1:08 UTC (Fri)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
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
Posted Aug 7, 2003 0:06 UTC (Thu)
by piman (guest, #8957)
[Link]
I suspect you're also against working on Perl/Python's VM? Or Parrot?
Posted Aug 7, 2003 9:48 UTC (Thu)
by stuart2048 (guest, #6241)
[Link]
Well, I'm no fanatic about any one language in general, but Java is much more than binary portability. The write-once-run-
Posted Aug 6, 2003 19:50 UTC (Wed)
by dwalters (guest, #4207)
[Link]
By launching their Linux desktop initiative, they are giving themselves the lifeboat they will need later when their Solaris boat sinks, and they'll have no choice but to become a true (inasmuch as Red Hat and IBM are) GNU/Linux and FLOSS-supporting company.
Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:41 UTC (Wed)
by leandro (guest, #1460)
[Link]
Ironically, open-sourcing Java would be a big step towards out-shipping MS Windows on the desktop....
Sun pragmatic about open-source software (News.com)
OpenOffice is open source. It's not outshipping MS Office yet, is it?
Sun pragmatic about open-source software (News.com)
Actually, if we compare the number of new installs of OpenOffice and number of the licenses for Microsoft Office bought in the same period of time, the numbers may be similar.
Sun pragmatic about open-source software (News.com)
That's not what "ironically" means.
Ironically
According to American Heritage (4th Ed.) irony is (2a) "Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs".Ironically
Now there's a turn-up for the books: an American publication with a definition for irony! And we always thought they didn't know what irony was... ;-)Ironically
> an American publication with a definition for irony!Ironically
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.
Whoop.
In a Free Software world, a virtual machine makes little sense. However, the real world runs mostly on proprietary software.Whoop.
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...
Who's taking market share from whom?
Whoop.
However, the real world runs mostly on proprietary software.
Whoop.
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!Whoop.
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?
Sorry to interrup,... but if you only have 20% in 5 years, you'l be dead.Whoop.
Because by that time M$ is already full steam ahead in locking everything under DRM(.N(O)T/Paladium/NGSCB ).
Tell me, how big a chunk of the desktop market have you got by now? Sorry to burst the bubble...Whoop.
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.Whoop.
If you run a non certified VM, you can expect incompatibilities. Whoop.
That doesn't mean that the licence should preclude the ability of people to modify their VM.
Perhaps, but Mono has a long way to go, still.
Whoop.
yes, and after pressure from HP and Intel, Ximian changed the license to X style (noncopyleft).Whoop.
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.)Whoop.
>We don't need no steenkin' binary portability. We have source.Whoop.
this got my hackles up.
anywhere slogan is way overplayed imho, and as witnessed here
comes back to bite on occassion. It's a useful feature but it's
not the highest on my list.
As much as people like to bash Sun these days (especially since the SCO license issue became public, and Scott McNealy's ignorant and disparaging remarks about GNU/Linux and OSS) I do like the direction they are moving in.Sun pragmatic about open-source software (News.com)
How can they be pragmatic when they say GNU/Linux is better fit to x86 systems? This way they are painting SPARC out of a potential market. IBM and its POP initiative are beginning to bear fruit, and Sun could have been there first, given it already had SPARC system builders a long time ago. These could have produced GNU/Linux SPARC systems to compete with Lindows and the such.
Sun pragmatic about open-source software (News.com) -- is ignorance pragmatic?