Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

James Gosling On The Sun/Microsoft Settlement

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the horse's-mouth dept.

Java 361

greg_barton writes "James Gosling has responded to the two previous commentaries cited on Slashdot about the Java Dilemma. Some interesting excerpts: "In Rick Ross's 'Where Is Java In This Settlement?' he worries that Sun may have sold out the Java community. We didn't. We have not sold our soul to the Dark Side." and "There's a long thread of discussion on Slashdot 'Two Takes on the Java Dilemma' that is pretty entertaining, from a wow, what are they smoking! point of view. There are voices of reason, and conspiracy nuts.""

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Where is IBM in the settlement? (4, Interesting)

coupland (160334) | more than 10 years ago | (#8855968)

Personally I'm surprised nobody is lobbing Big Blue's name around in all these discussions, because I think the Sun/Microsoft deal has a lot more to do with IBM than it does with Sun.

IBM is the only company in the world that could realistically engage in a multi-front competitive battle with Microsoft. And if they were capable of gaining more control of Java (perhaps by a cash investment in Sun, or perhaps even buying them) they would pose a far greater threat to Microsoft than Netscape ever did. IBM's e-business strategy coupled with Java control would be an unstoppable force.

People talk about Microsoft competitors yet they raise company names like Sun, Real, or Netscape. The threat they pose to Microsoft is a drop in the bucket compared to IBM and their e-business strategy. A strategy that is incredibly reliant on Java.

Taking it a logical step further lets assume Microsoft made this settlement not to take *Sun* out of the game, but rather to take *IBM* out of the game. Perhaps the silence on the Java front is because $2 billion is the price to get Sun to walk away from Java. Silently. Could this cause Rich Green to leave in disgust?

Personally I suspect this deal was all about dealing a terrible blow to IBM. I think the one thing Sun and Microsoft aren't talking about is the one thing they ever really cared about in this deal -- Java. I hope not, but the more I read the more sure I become that Sun has done a deal with the devil and Java was the bargaining chip.

Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856011)

IBM is a washed up has-been. MS made them their bitch. Twice.

Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856274)

I hate to reply, but $50,000 IBM app servers aren't a real competitive threat to Microsoft. Expect it to happen a third time.

Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856019)

Thats one reason but I think the real reason is that Microsoft now realizes the government isn't going to break the up. MS developed .NET only so that if the government broke them up, they would be at a competitive advantage in the application front against competitors (since they could easily port to various OS'). Now that thats not going to happen, Java is a nuisance that MS can't stand anymore.

Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (5, Interesting)

Anarcho-Goth (701004) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856134)

People talk about Microsoft competitors yet they raise company names like Sun, Real, or Netscape.

I would guess that this is because before Microsoft was the big evil corporation that is going to take over the world, IBM was.

The difference being that IBM cut down dramatically on acts that could potentially be interpreted as anti-competative, and maybe even took a step back. I remember some IBM people telling me that IBM made a lot of bussiness mistakes in the late 80s early 90s. This might or might not be related to the IBM anti-trust trial, but before then they had stopped being quite so ruthless.

The difference between IBM's and Microsoft's anti-trust trials were I don't think IBM ever got convicted, and they cut it out anyway so it became a moot point, while Microsoft was convicted, but nothing is being done to tame them.

IBM is the only company in the world that could realistically engage in a multi-front competitive battle with Microsoft.

True, and one would hope that an IBM monopoly would at least write better software than Microsoft. And they are supporting Linux right now so they might be content to share the wealth, as long as they are still making buckets of money themselves, and not force the entire world to use crappy software.

Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856237)

True, and one would hope that an IBM monopoly would at least write better software than Microsoft. And they are supporting Linux right now so they might be content to share the wealth, as long as they are still making buckets of money themselves, and not force the entire world to use crappy software.
IBM only wants linux to succeed to drive IBM's bottom line. They are trying to shape the image that Linux promotes so eventually corporate accounts to run IBMIHS (Apache) and WebSphere (tomcat) instead of their trueblue AIX. They aren't currently using Linux for their big customers yet, but they are gearing up for Linux to be ready to take over for the big boys.

Linux looks like it's at least 2 years away from being caught upto the level the rest of the unix platforms (SunOS, IRIX, AIX, etc.). Think from IBM's perspective. Why should IBM pay millions of dollars into development and maintainence of AIX when Linux is growing and getting better. Eventually they will have Linux PPC for their big boxes. Their goal is to have it cheaper than what it costs to develop and maintain their current AIX platform.

It kills me that all these OpenSource advocates want things to be FREE. The opensource developers donate all their FREE time to developing Linux which IBM can turn around and sell hardware to run linux which they get for FREE which returns PROFITS for IBM.

Doesn't it seem like these developers are doing something VERY NOBLE to donate their free time to drive IBM's bottom line and stock price?

Sure, IBM is currently donating millions into Linux (redhat & novell). I'm sure there is a chart somewhere within IBM showing how many millions they have to donate to feed Linux, and I'm sure every year that chart is going downward towards a big fat $0.

Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (5, Insightful)

Anarcho-Goth (701004) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856308)

It kills me that all these OpenSource advocates want things to be FREE. The opensource developers donate all their FREE time to developing Linux which IBM can turn around and sell hardware to run linux which they get for FREE which returns PROFITS for IBM.

Funny, I thought that was the whole point of the GPL, it is so free, you can make money off of it.

But I think it will be a while yet until we see Linux take over AIX. But it would be nice to have smit on linux.

This reminds me of a quote in someone's .sig:

  • ESR: I want to live in a world where software doesn't suck.
  • RMS: Any software that isn't free sucks.
  • Linux Can I have Free Beer?


Primarily what I want is software that doesn't suck.
If it is GPLed too all the better.
If IBM makes a profit from it good for them.
If I can make a profit from it then I'm really happy :)

Hardware isn't where the money is.... (1)

modder (722270) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856338)

The money is in software, licensing agreements, user base, support, etc. I don't know about using free software for this. When time comes to upgrade, linux will run on whatever hardware is cheapest at the moment. No need to retrain your users/admins.

Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (1)

Tony-A (29931) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856508)

Symbiosis can be defined as mutual parasitism.
If this isn't botched too badly, both sides come pretty close to getting "something for nothing".
Actually, seems like IBM's major contributions have been low-profile down-in-the-trenches stuff that everyone else benefits from more than IBM.
From IBM's perspective, if you have a goose that lays golden eggs, it's probably not a good idea to scrimp on chicken feed.

Did you even read the article? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856253)

About a third to half of the article you're supposedly responding to consists of Mr. Gosling claiming the exact set of baseless allegations your post brings up to be false. In fact, attempting to refute such allegations appears to have been one of his primary reasons for writing said article.

Did you just not notice this? Or did you not read the article? I'm leaning toward the second, since first off it references nothing in this article whatsoever, and second that's an awful long and carefully-formed post to have gotten FP on. Either you read and type reeeal fast, or you wrote this beforehand and waited for another Sun story so you could grab an early post number and get up to Score:5.

So, at any rate, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you read the article. So is what you are implying by your post that you believe Mr. Gosling to be lying when he explicitly brings up the things you allege and says they are entirely untrue and without basis? Why?

Re:Did you even read the article? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856289)

Look familiar? [slashdot.org]

That's because it was copy/pasted from the last sun/java article. He's probably either an anti-slash jihadist or a karmawhore.

Re:Did you even read the article? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856314)

I thought it was funny:
1) Read Gosling bash on moronic Slashdot posts
2) Go and see that the top post on Slashdot in reply is totally moronic.

Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856286)

IBM is trying to kill Sun, not save them. By 'kill' I don't mean to reduce market share. I mean that IBM intends to put the company out of business. Completely.

Sun is weak right now, and they really don't have a good strategy to counter the full attack of IBM support and services, combined with Linux on their pSeries, xSeries, and mainframe platforms.

Ultimately, Sun will try to adopt the Opteron platform, but that's going to go over with Sun fans just about as well as SGI's foray into Intel workstations and Windows went over with SGI's fans.

Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (3, Insightful)

jarrettwold2002 (601633) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856374)

I disagree that IBM is at the moment, capable of engaging Microsoft in a multiple front competitive battle with Microsoft.

They are capable of going directly against the Windows Server platform and that is essentially it. Gerstner transformed most of the company into a best of breed systems integration provider. In addition IBM's far flung divisions at the beginning of Gerstner's reign, are still more or less far flung.

The two critical areas that Microsoft maintains dominance in are: Office and Windows consumer editions. IBM has no product offerings that rival in any reasonable shape those two dominant areas. We can speak of OS/2 and so forth, but market reality is what it is.

At the core IBM is a fundamentally different Big Blue. Their largest competitors are no longer Microsoft in a large way, but Oracle, SAP and others.

IBM is a complex organization. It has teriffic potential in many of the research projects. However, how these concepts are utilized in products is another matter.

Sun and Java are for the most part inseperable. I doubt very highly that after the investment of billions into Java, that Sun will part ways with it for 2 Billion dollars. The future of their company in many ways rides on Java. If they do part with it, then they part ways with running a company.

Litigation encourages further litigation. Microsoft paid Sun off as a)nuisance fee b)avoid precedent setting and c)to rest. You have to realize Microsoft has been in almost constant litiagtion with fairly large companies for just under a decade.

Microsoft is a predatory animal. However even predators need some R&R before the next hunt.

Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856515)

"IBM is the only company in the world that could realistically engage in a multi-front competitive battle with Microsoft."

In IT business, yes.
But you need to add Sony for the digital media/entertainment, consumer products, and mobile platform front.

Oh, wait .. you have to add Google as well.

Ok, just hope IBM will merge with Sony. Takeover Apple, Google, Palm, and Sun.
And hope they can manage that monster enterprise well.

Then you can have something that can fight MS in every fronts.

But if it's still not enough.
Try considers GE, GM, Walmart, and PepsiCo.
(so next time you can win a WebSphere MultiMedia Studio for Java Car Platform license from a Frito Lay snack). :)

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8855969)

fp; everyone else fails it

Great! (-1, Flamebait)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856003)

So when is Java going to be open-source?

Re:Great! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856030)

Read The Fscking Article, Right Tedious Fscking Asshat.

Re:Great! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856040)

You misspelled fucking, fucker.

Re:Great! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856074)

No he didn't. The periodic fsck is about the equivalent to being ass-raped. Especially when it finds problems. But its a good type of being fucked.

Re:Great! (5, Informative)

dastrike (458983) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856065)

There are Free open source implementations of Java already. Not quite up to the same level as the Sun's offerings yet, but it is difficult to hit a moving target...

Re:Great! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856181)

When .NET is.

Re:Great! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856202)

Never, mikeophile. Never in a million years.

mmhmm (0, Redundant)

TechnologyX (743745) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856012)

" There are voices of reason, and conspiracy nuts."

And you expected anything else?

Re:mmhmm (0, Redundant)

thestarz (719386) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856068)

He must be new here.

Re:mmhmm (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856154)

People think with their feelings and not with their head. My favorite "conspiracy theory" is that Sun sold out to Microsoft to defeat Linux. Right after they released one of the *best* Linux desktops on the market. Go figure.

irony from slashdot: what are they smoking? (1)

Tora (65882) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856015)

Funny to see this comment from slashdot, since the rest of the world often things the same thing of the fanatic and horridly biased opensource slashdot topics and commentators.

Yanno... (3, Interesting)

up up down down lrlr (761202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856023)

Scott McNealy used to always say gravity was on his side. I used to wonder how he figured that since you had IBM, and all the other big iron makers dropping in from above and back then it was microsoft and intel setting up a rockhard floor for him to be squished on.

Sun is now in quite the pickle. Sparcstations arent a contender for the desktop. Their server sales are being trashed by Linux on Intel, and Linux on mainframe.

Their latest play MadHatter looks nice but so does lindows,suse, and redhat. The latter 3 have one great thing going for them, they are one time licenses not perpetual service contracts like mad hatter.

Its no wonder that they paid SCO a licenses fee and are now dissing Linux. Its also no wonder that Bill Joy left the company.

Re:Yanno... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856363)

>> [Sun] now dissing Linux

Troll. You can't be dissing it at the same time you are selling it. Hell, they are even using Intel. Are you still in grade school or just a dropout?

>>Its also no wonder that Bill Joy left the company.
Bill Joy likes Sun's Unix a whole lot more than Linux because he "wrote" most of Sun's Unix. Perhaps he left 'because' of the Linux strategy?

Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (2, Insightful)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856026)

Not that there is anything particularly wrong with having a viewpoint that perhaps GPL-like freedom is not the most important thing to preserve in computing, but Gosling's personal attacks on RMS are a little over the top. He starts off by accusing RMS of redefining "Free" and then proceeds to deconstruct the entire concept of Software Freedom based on the hinge that RMS is essentially a kook.

I respect Gosling as a very intelligent programmer and language designer, but his willingness to engage in personal attacks against others in the Software Community makes me question his personal judgement.

Java does not need to be Free to be useful, but such can be said without resorting to deriding the entire Software Freedom movement, IMO.

Anti-slash troll! Beware! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856123)

Nice troll. Too bad you got it off antislash. Go away.

Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (4, Interesting)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856223)

Not to mention the fact software compiled with gcj or linked with libgcj don't fall under the GPL. You can write proprietary software and compile with gcj and not be "infected" by the GPL. So this part of Gosling's anti-RMS rant is pure FUD.

The real problem is that after all of the work that Sun has put into making Java a platform in real life Java is currently splitting into a million different directions. gcj and GNU Classpath are picking up steam, IBM is pushing platform dependent SWT and Eclipse instead of Swing, etc. With Sun losing the hardware war to Intel and AMD, and the UNIX war to Linux, that leaves Sun with Java as its best hope for a recovery. However, it's a pretty slim hope. Java application servers are basically a comodity as are Java development tools.

Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856296)

Not to mention the fact software compiled with gcj or linked with libgcj don't fall under the GPL. You can write proprietary software and compile with gcj and not be "infected" by the GPL. So this part of Gosling's anti-RMS rant is pure FUD.

While that bit was very confusing, what I believe Gosling was trying to do with his "viral license" paragraph was that he was simply trying to set up a comparison between the license on the Java materials and the GPL. I think he wasn't so much trying to say "the GPL is viral, and it's bad", as he was trying to say "the GPL has restrictions to reflect the agenda it's trying to push; the Java licenses have restrictions to reflect the agenda it's trying to push, and these restrictions aren't any more limiting from the developer perspective than what the GPL requires", as part of his defense of those restrictions.

This was of course just my interpretation and I could be wrong.

Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (2, Interesting)

black mariah (654971) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856448)

That's the way I read it too. People pretend like the GPL doesn't have an agenda. It does, and a rather loud one at that. It's one of those 'forest for the trees' situations.

Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (5, Insightful)

elmegil (12001) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856238)

RMS is essentially a kook.

Let's see. My first exposure to RMS was being told as an undergrad that if I wanted to, I could go log into his accounts at MIT because he didn't bother to keep a password. He has proceeded to rant and rave and rail against anything that is not his pure community of software technicians giving their every line for the greater good.

RMS is essentially a kook.

I couldn't have said it better myself. He has certainly done many great things with his efforts, but in the general scheme of things, he's a kook. If you weren't so hung up on taking the observation personally and finding people to label "Anti Free" perhaps you'd be better able to accept this.

Finally, and to the point, Gosling doesn't call him a kook; he comments that RMS has a peculiar (as in unique) definition of "Free". Some of his comments about GPL are less charitable, but they don't involve whether RMS is a kook or not.

Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856270)

While his comments in the article were troubling and very poorly backed up, I believe the reason that he was putting a personal attack on RMS was that RMS was, personally, attacking Sun and Java.

Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (1)

Ruie (30480) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856280)

"As for Richard Stallman's "Free but shackled: The Java trap," it's hard to know where to begin. He has his own rather peculiar definition of "free" that I think violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (energy is conserved)"

Such invocation of energy conservation law is, unfortunately, a common fallacy.

Before explaining it away, let me formulate a counter-example:

This law implies that everything is a zero-sum game. If it was literally true (and not only for select systems) it would imply that life is a zero-sum game - whatever you gain must be torn from something else and in the end everything turns to dust. The very inevitable bleakness of such conclusion suggests there is a flaw in the argument (as most science is usually neutral whenever emotions are concerned).

In fact, there are at least two flaws:

  • The energy is NOT conserved in open systems (which are most systems we ever deal with, closed system is an approximation)
  • The energy is conserved on average, and can be "borrowed from vacuum" whenever quantum effects show up.
Sentience and its products are manifestly quantum phenomena and so do NOT have to obey such law. This is actually good news: it means there is a way to contribute to Open Source, without sacrificing anything and without requiring immediate payback.

OT: questionable claims (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856476)

Sentience and its products are manifestly quantum phenomena...

Interesting claim, but...how do you know? Are you claiming sentience requires quantum phenomena to occur (a very bold and unsubstantiated claim), or are you simply stating that since our universe is quantum mechanical, anything that arises within it (including sentience) is of course a quantum phenomena?

Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (4, Insightful)

sporty (27564) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856294)

In some ways, RMS is a kook. He's taken a basic word, "free" and redefined it. Free doesn't have to mean, free for anyony to get and use. Free can also mean, as gosling pointed out, free of charge. In some ways, the bsd license is "free-er" than GPL, as you owe no one anything other than a statement in the source. You can sell it in binary form, no hooks attached.

Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (2, Insightful)

G-funk (22712) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856524)

RMS _is_ a kook, and GPL'd software isn't free. I personally think authors should be able to choose whatever licence they please, including the GPL, but the only truly free software is public domain software. GPL'd software is free of charge, and free for modification / redistribution, but it's only free so long as you only ever want to do the same things with it as RMS wants you to.

commanded taco (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856033)

1Oth poz7 bio+ch

Voices of reason... (0)

jd (1658) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856035)

...thrive best when the corporation they'd be talking about isn't busy putting everyone down. Flamers may not care, but the more rational folk are not going to be quite so happy about being called a nut, even if they know better.


Why should they contribute, if the side they speak up for isn't interested?

I have to wonder what gosling is smoking... (1, Troll)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856036)

since he's apparently overlooked the halloween memos from Microsoft stating that they would be causing as much disruption in the open source community as possible.

Wether the speculation is true or not, it's certainly not unfounded.

I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856117)

Since Gosling is an employee of Sun, not Microsoft, and is trying to defend the actions of Sun, not Microsoft, how is your comment relevant?

Re:I don't understand (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856173)

Maybe...just maybe because he's commenting on slashdot's reaction to Sun and microsoft's recent settlement?

Change in Rhetoric (4, Interesting)

LaNMaN2000 (173615) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856046)

I think that there will be little meaningful technological change in either Microsoft's or Sun's products as a result of the settlement. Microsoft did not want to be barred from distributing the JVM while Sun did not want Microsoft to fork Java (like J++ originally tried to). The settlement ensures that both concerns are met. The major surprise to me was the magnitude and nature of the license payments to Sun. I would have thought Microsoft could structure the payments as an equity investment similar to their $100million investment in Apple so as to at least they receive something of more tangible value in return.

Re:Change in Rhetoric (3, Insightful)

nudicle (652327) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856362)

I don't know why MSFT and Sun chose the settlement payment scheme as they did, but one explanation could be that since apparently Microsoft is trying to extinguish as much of its litigation as possible not taking an equity stake was the safer bet. Taking an equity stake in Sun would draw criticism in the form of "Now Microsoft owns ANOTHER big player in the market!" and the anti-trust types (and Europe) would get suspicious, the slashdot theorizing even more wild, etc .... Even if its equity stake were in non-voting shares people would still look askance at the deal.

Seems to me making the payments as part of a settlement agreement and simply disengaging might have been the more sensible option from a pragmatic point of view.

That said, I don't actually know.

How much does murder cost? (1, Offtopic)

MacFury (659201) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856049)

Offtopic perhaps...but how often does M$ actually see a lawsuit through it's course in the legal system? It seems that they can buy anything through settlements.

Re:How much does murder cost? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856371)

how often does any company?

Lawsuits (and lawyers) are very expensive. Even if you're confident in your case, the judge or jury can do unpredictible things.

Who exactly do you think MS is buying off?

Scenario 1: Sun or intertrust files a lawsuit against Microsoft. Microsoft looks at the facts and decides to just pay them them $100 million.

Scenario 2: Sun or intertrust files a lawsuit against Microsoft. Microsoft defends against it and goes to court and loses. The judge orders Microsft to pay $100 million.

What's the difference?

Re:How much does murder cost? (1)

S.Lemmon (147743) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856397)

Well, in a civil lawsuit, money what you get when you win anyway. Settling, especially for such a large amount, is more or less admiting the case is lost - just with a bit of face-saving attached.

Any long-running trial is a constant drain on resources for both sides. From Sun's standpoint, with Microsoft ready to settle, what would Sun really gain by dragging it out further?

Re:How much does murder cost? (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856548)

Answer: Whenever they can win. Whenever they're on the right side.

No, I don't remember any of those times either.

---
Oh yeah, in the Eolas patent case, they were on the right side.

Conspiracies (1)

dj245 (732906) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856050)

There are voices of reason, and conspiracy nuts.

But there really is a conspiracy!

Seriously though, if there was a conspiracy, would not the voices of reason then become the trolls, and the conspiracy nuts become the voices of reason?

the real question is... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856056)

WHY IS PRESIDEN+ BUZH TEZTIFYING _NEX+ T0_ CH3NEY T0 T3H 9/1l KOMMIZZI0N??/

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ll lll

Re:the real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856069)

Because the ventriloquist's dummy can't speak with the ventriloquist.

I liked his answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856099)

"So I can answer the questions"

Nukyular!

Re:the real question is... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856323)

The president is a busy man. He doesn't have time for this liberal pantywaist dog-and-pony show. Now finish your homework and go to bed, little Eggbert.

let's see what happens (5, Insightful)

smd4985 (203677) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856066)

i'm going to 'have a little faith' and trust gosling and mcnealy. we haven't even seen what Sun's next move is yet hoards of /.'ers are freaking out. lets give these guys a chance before we dismiss them.

Re:let's see what happens (0, Flamebait)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856249)

We are supposed to "have a little faith" in a company that shifts direction almost as often as a political candidate? No thanks. Been there, done that, ain't ever trusting anything important to a product or service that is tied to any single entity. Sooner or later their goals and mine diverge and I get screwed.

Trust, but verify is a better way to go. Sun SAYS they will not screw over their Java development community but what concrete assurances do they offer to allow one to verify? Have they even made a Trolltech like promise that they will free the code if Sun pulls the plug on Java or, more likely, Sun itself is bought or broken up for spare parts?

Personally I prefer to deal with software under a DFSG compatible license since then I KNOW (as opposed to an act of faith) the software will continue to be available and so long as a few people care about it, updates will continue. I also prefer open hardware from multiple sources for the same reasons. No one corp's ever shifting plans will leave me high and dry.

Plus with Sun you get policies that are just insane. No other word really describes the behaviour. Example: It is obviously in Sun's interest to see a JVM on as many machines as possible. Their JVM is a free download. But you can't even redistribute unmodified copies of it, which is why no linux distro includes a JVM. To use Java under Linux requires a user to go search it out, download a non-trivial package and install it. Won't be holding my breath waiting for someone at Sun to drop into this thread and answer that one.

Please clarify (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856417)

shifts direction almost as often as a political candidate

In exactly what way does Sun "shift direction almost as often as a political candidate"?

But you can't even redistribute unmodified copies of it, which is why no linux distro includes a JVM. To use Java under Linux requires a user to go search it out, download a non-trivial package and install it.

Whaa? I am typing these words into Epiphany on a Gentoo Linux machine. This machine has a fully functional JVM on it. I didn't install this JVM or do any other consious action to put it here. Would you care to explain to me how it got there?

Re:Please clarify (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856541)

It's political crap. Every distro finds a way to install Microsoft TrueType Fonts, but for some reason they a fit about Java's licence.

I don't have faith in companies. (3, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856344)

Companies are the wrong place to put trust. They are a nessisary evil that is to be watched carefully to ensure that they do not abuse their power. They are not God, their whitepapers are not to be followed religeously. As always do whats in the best interest of your particular company. Never fall in love with a company or technology, or you will be burned.

Re:let's see what happens (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856385)

You don't put faith in companies. That is utterly stupid. Companies (as opposed to the people working in them) do not have morals or ethics. Their goal is shareholder satisfaction - that is, in fact, their legal duty. If that means dumping crap on a former partner, skirting just this side of legality when breaking the intent of a contract or whatever, then so be it.

When you deal with companies, you want a written deal with them. It doesn't matter if the company is Google or Microsoft - you want terms-of service, sales contracts and so on. In writing. Legally binding. Relying on anything less is foolish. Don't forget that SCO was firmly in the Linux camp a few years ago. Relying on their good faith has turned out to be somewhat misplaced, won't you think?

See my Gosling msoking weed post (2, Interesting)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856078)

You might want ot view my weblog post titled Gosling smoking weed..

Gosling makes several errors both on the economic trends of SUN in the server hardware sector the difference between a state machine and a desktop manager and etc..

Also remember that the linux standard survives and thrives under GPL stewardship..a charge Gosling never has completely refuted other to resort to name calling..

You will probalby see more name callign from several sectors at Sun.. sad really.. so much could be solved by stopping the name callign and deal with the real issues such as devleopers worried that because the settlement seem to take aawy 50% fo all java marketing in one fell swoop that java may be waning and etc..

Hi, (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856225)

(1) Slashdot is, itself, a commentary site. It's generally probably not the most polite thing to say "I've got commentary on this, but you have to go elsewhere to see it."

(2) If you are going to do this, you ought to at least make a compelling case to the reader that your external commentary is worth reading.

(3) Mispelling so many words I can barely even figure out what you're trying to say is not a good way of fulfilling (2).

(4) "Also remember that the linux standard survives and thrives under GPL stewardship..a charge Gosling never has completely refuted other to resort to name calling.."; in what context is this quote relevant? What are you referring to? The "linux steward" refers to.. what? Who? Linus? Essentially, I have not seen Gosling taking enough of a stand on any GPL issue to be quite certain what you are trying to argue against here, and am unclear on why you think it is Mr. Gosling's job to "refute" the "linux steward", whatever that means. Please clarify.

lies and propaganda... (0, Interesting)

queenofthe1ring (768698) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856098)

did any part of this NOT seem like it was trying to brain-wash everyone? (i am now expecting many an angry respons, should i get any responses at all, so let them come...)

Re:lies and propaganda... (1)

elmegil (12001) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856262)

Shut up and go watch the hypno toad some more.

Someone help me... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856102)

Do we hate Sun this week? Or was that next week?

Sun Strategy: Whistling in the Dark (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856104)

Mr. Gosling drank the cool-aid, liked it, and decided to make more for everybody else. Going by what I read before the "ugh, I'm reading a vapid CNet article" feeling came over me and I clicked the "<-" button, Gosling is taking over for his dear departed boss. Have fun, James, and don't forget to touch up your resume.

Thread title? (3, Funny)

dj245 (732906) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856105)

Anyone else read this as "James Gosling On The Sun / Microsoft Settles"?

Maybe they are afraid that James is going to dramaticically increase the amount he is charging them for radiant energy. Personally I think we should all boycott James Gosling as I don't believe he as actually laid claim to the sun by actually going there.

Even starting to sound like microsoft (5, Insightful)

tonythepony (716819) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856110)

Unlike GPLd software, the Java sources don't come with a viral infection clause that requires you to apply the GPL to your own code

Didn't sell your soul, huh?

Re:Even starting to sound like microsoft (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856361)

Here's a wonderful quote... (2, Interesting)

BJZQ8 (644168) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856118)

"Unlike GPLd software, the Java sources don't come with a viral infection clause that requires you to apply the GPL to your own code." Sheesh! I didn't know that GPL code had a virus! Call USAMRIID! I feel so dirty now...covered with...microscopic...germs. Seriously, though...I think that $2 billion has bought Microsoft a friend for life. Who says money can't buy love?

Re:Here's a wonderful quote... (1)

rgehlbac (742193) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856234)

Unlike GPLd software, the Java sources don't come with a viral infection clause that requires you to apply the GPL to your own code.

Since when does the GPL require you to apply the GPL to your own code ? You aren't /required/ to use GPL'ed code within your programs. If you /want/ to use it, don't whine about the requirements.

Re:Here's a wonderful quote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856416)

he doesn't want to license all his software as GPL. You know what? he doesn't have to. Because java isn't GPL.

Score 1 for java!

Not specific enough (4, Funny)

Deraj DeZine (726641) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856133)

from a wow, what are they smoking! point of view

Is that a "Wow! What are they smoking? Since when were drugs for nerds?" point of view he's talking about or perhaps a "Wow! What are they smoking? Why is their English still mostly intact?" or (most probably) "Wow! What are they smoking? Can I get that here in the States?"

These Java supporters are really shady characters. Corrupting our youth's minds...

1st law of thermodynamics (5, Insightful)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856147)

As for Richard Stallman's "Free but shackled: The Java trap," it's hard to know where to begin. He has his own rather peculiar definition of "free" that I think violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (energy is conserved): Developers put a huge amount of energy into creating software, and if they can't get that energy back in a way that balances, then the system falls apart.

Art doesn't obey the first law of thermodynamics either. Some people put their whole life, unrecognized, into creating art, and when they are long gone, their work is still with us. COMPENSATION and BUSINESS obey the 1st law of thermodynamics, but that is by no means the only driving force behind people.

Proof that computer science is not science (1, Offtopic)

taigu (766288) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856384)

Any Doctor who applies the laws of thermodynamics as in the context of the article clearly has their doctorate in something other than physics. The analogy is more hyperbolic than amusing. I guess this is a hallmark of influence and seniority: concepts such as "energy" and "virus" are used in a cavalier fashion instead of with accuracy.

From:
What is Science?
Richard P. Feynman
the Physics Teacher, September, 1969, pp. 313-320

There is a first-grade science book which, in the first lesson of the first grade, begins in an unfortunate. manner to teach science, because it starts off on the wrong idea of what science is. There is a picture of a dog, a windable toy dog, and a hand comes to the winder, and then the dog is able to move. Under the last picture, it says "What makes it move?" Later on, there is a picture of a real dog and the question "What makes it move?" Then there is a picture of a motor bike and the question "What makes it move?" and so on.

I thought at first they were getting ready to tell what science was going to be about: physics, biology, chemistry. But that wasn't it. The answer was in the teachers edition of the book; the answer I was trying, to learn is that "energy makes it move." Now energy is a very subtle concept. It is very, very difficult to get right. What I mean by that it is not easy to understand energy well enough to use it right, so that you can deduce something correctly, using the energy idea. It is beyond the first grade. It would be equally well to say that "God makes it move," or "spirit makes it move," or "movability makes it move." (In fact one could equally well say "energy makes it stop.")

Look at it this way: That's only the definition of energy. It should be reversed. We might say when something can move that it has energy in it, but not "what makes it move is energy." This is a very subtle difference. It's the same with this inertia proposition. Perhaps I can make the difference a little clearer this way: if you ask a child what makes the toy dog move, you should think about what an ordinary human being would answer. The answer is that you wound up the spring; it tries to unwind and pushes the gear around. What a good way to begin a science course. Take apart the toy; see how it works. See the cleverness of the gears; see the ratchets. Learn something about the toy the way the toy is put together, the ingenuity of people devising the ratchets and other things. That's good. The question is fine. The answer is a little unfortunate, because what they were trying to do is teach a definition of what is energy. But nothing whatever is learned.

Suppose a student would say, 'I don't think energy makes it move." Where does the discussion go from there?

I finally figured out a way to test whether you have taught an idea or you have only taught a definition. Test it this way: You say, "Without using the new word which you have just learned, try to rephrase what you have just learned in your own language." Without using the word "energy," tell me what you know now about the dog's motion." You cannot. So you learned nothing except the definition. You learned nothing about science. That may be all right. You may not want to learn something about science right away. You have to learn definitions. But for the very first lesson is that not possibly destructive?

I think, for lesson number one, to learn a mystic formula for answering questions is very bad. The book has some others-"gravity makes it fall;" "the soles of your shoes wear out because of friction." Shoe leather wears out because it rubs against the sidewalk and the little notches and bumps on the sidewalk grab pieces and pull them off. To simply say it is because of friction, is sad, because it's not science.

Re:1st law of thermodynamics (2, Insightful)

SRMoore (87075) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856456)

Actually.. I think artists get a lot out of putting effort into their work. It may not be money. But they do get a satisfaction in doing the work and completing it and sharing it with the world. (At least I do when I work on my art.)

Or sometimes it is purely personal, and they only do it to please themselves. So it isn't a one way thing where they put in all this energy to create and get nothing in return.

I really do believe that there is a return of some sort on every action that is taken by any one person, and most of the time it isn't cash that is the return.

Sun's Generous Patent Grant (5, Informative)

Karma Sucks (127136) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856182)

Here's a link [sun.com] to Sun's patent grant for the full Java.

So Java seems to be less encumbered than .Net at this point.

horse's-ass dept. more like it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856203)

what an absolute pile of horse-shit.

Gosling's pandering to his corporate overloards -- "have a little faith". Please.

he was obviosly put up to this by Schwartz and Mcnealy: 'james, your a "techie". go teel the java zealots to ahve a little faith.

"ok, guys. will I get a carrot then? will I? will I?"

fuck Suna nd all they stand for

he's not a suicider (1)

Wellmont (737226) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856206)

From here [newsforge.com]
'As for Richard Stallman's "Free but shackled: The Java trap," it's hard to know where to begin. He has his own rather peculiar definition of "free" that I think violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (energy is conserved)' As for Richard Stallman's references to "non-free" they may "seem" to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, but non the less he brings up a good point. With all the trouble and mysteries behind Java at this point, it's not a bad idea to Develop the GNU Classpath. Right now Sun seems to have a hidden agenda which we can't decifer at this point...no one knows if, when the time comes, java will remain "non-free" and move on to "pay-me-now".

I said it before... (-1, Flamebait)

SQLz (564901) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856209)

and I'll say it again. Sun sucks a big fat one.

Re:I said it before... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856271)

Why is this flamebait? Can you prove otherwise? The burden of proof is on you, slashfags.

Re:I said it before... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856475)

you sound angry. Is it because you have a small one and sun won't suck it?

We have not sold our soul to the Dark Side (3, Funny)

Grydon (663288) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856242)

We have not sold our soul to the Dark Side. certainly not. oh by the way do you know any good ways to get the windows logos off of our foreheads?

Re:We have not sold our soul to the Dark Side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856287)

They always say they haven't gone to the dark side. Then one day they're choking you from across the room.

Free but not as in Beer (5, Interesting)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856250)

The debate between the GPL folks and Java folks will go on for quite awhile, the big point here is that IBM has more people working on Java and Java based solutions that Sun. Sun has lost the momentum in the Java arena in some areas. Yes the JSR process does produce standards, but IMO If I look at technologies like J2ME, the industry is still fragmented. You may be able to build J2SE applications and run them on Windows, Linux, Solaris or what have you and have a reasonable expectation of WORA however J2ME isn't there, after 3 years. So, putting WORA aside the fragmentation in J2ME even with Palm demonstrates that Java becomes a utilitarian application delivery infrastructure that may or may not be ubiquitious.
Palm and Sun had differences of J2ME, Palm works with IBM and viola, J2ME for Palm the way palm wanted it, not Sun.

So, from a technology High Ground, Sun doesn't control Java explicitly, and that's a good thing. Sun's controls on Java do make sense as Gosling pointed out however let's not forget the J2EE 1.2 specification that was held up by a voting member because of EJB 2.0 compliance issues. In this case the JSR voting member had a conflict with voting on the spec while their product didn't adhere to it. So, EJB 2.0 gets held up, which holds up J2EE 1.2. That happened and the company's initials have a B in them, but it's not IBM.

So, while the JSR process isn't perfect, the thought that vendors are most of the JSR participants isn't all bad, unless a log jam occurs. Maybe someday J2ME will be as ubiquitious as J2SE, J2EE isn't quite there yet, but getting there. Let's also not forget the whole JBoss issue, but that's another thread.

How does Sun make money from Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856263)

Has Sun ever figured out a way to monetize Java? Perhaps the Java language and related technologies are lost leaders in order to sell hardware?

Does Sun make any direct income from Java?

Re:How does Sun make money from Java? (2, Informative)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856281)

They make money from licensees and from the testing process. That was a big controversy with JBoss. Sun wanted money that JBoss didn't have to certify it as J2EE compliant. Therefore to brand something as a Certified compliant product it has to undergo testing with Sun's test suites. That was one of the issues in Sun's litigation (at least first trial) over the M$ implementation of Java failing the Logo certification program tests.

Re:How does Sun make money from Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856393)

JBoss is just another bunch of Java Consultants that want charge big banks $200/hr to implement some no-name j2ee container. All the other greed fools in their position have to get certified, I don't see why JBoss should be an exception.

Hillarious! (2, Insightful)

Jonathan (5011) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856298)

Gosling really has his head in the sand in regard to the future of Sun by claiming that Sun is platform neutral and has nothing to fear from x86. Sun makes its money by selling Sparc workstations. Simply claiming that Sun isn't tied to a hardware architecture is just silly. Yes, it has made software for the x86, but like Apple, Sun is a hardware company -- all the software (including Java) exists simply to sell hardware. What happens when people realize that Sparcs no longer have the price/performance ratio?

Do you blame them? (1)

ninejaguar (517729) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856321)

There are voices of reason, and conspiracy nuts.

Show me a "voice of reason" regarding business deals with MacroShaft, and I'll show you someone who's been in a cave since the mid-80's. Some of us are "conspiracy nuts" only because we've seen too many kicked there so often by The Monopoly.

= 9J =

I AM A SLASHDOTTIAN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856327)

I am in a gaming clan, i play games. I am one with the nerd.

But Java's still dependent on the interests of Sun (2, Insightful)

divec (48748) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856358)

James Gosling writes:
Our [...] commitment to Java is very strong. [...] Java is most definitely not for sale. Not to IBM, not to anyone. [...] GPL software is not "free": it comes with a license that has a strong political agenda. [...] the [licence] for the JDK [has] a different catch: redistribution requires compatibility testing.


I'm sure James Gosling only wants Java to flourish. But the big catch about the JDK's licence (SCSL) is that it gives Sun a Nuclear Button. Sun has the power to force the Java platform's development to go only in directions they approve. And however pure their intentions are, as a public company they have a legal duty to use that power in a way that makes the most money for their shareholders. If it is ever more profitable to kill Java, for Microsoft cash, say, then Sun will be legally obliged to do it.

Compare this to Perl or Python, where there is no Nuclear Button. No-one has the power to prohibit derivatives. And so Perl and Python developers have a much more concrete guarantee that those languages will still be living languages in 20 years' time. Meanwhile there's no sign of the "fragmentation problem" which James Gosling argues they ought to suffer from being truly Open-Source.

A 'Very Good Thing' for whom? Microsoft's MCPP (3, Interesting)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856364)

In my opinion, the settlement may be a 'Very Good Thing', but not for Sun, or Sun's customers [linuxworld.com] .

Sun's signing into Microsoft's Communications Protocol Program locks Sun and Sun customers into interoperating with any Microsoft system on Microsoft's strict terms, conditions and royalty rates. It also denies the possibility that the code using those Microsoft protocols will ever be open sourced.

This raises serous questions. For example, how much longer will Sun be free to distribute and integrate SAMBA with the Java Desktop? Will Sun's signing of the MCPP have a network affect on vendors who have access to Sun's source code -- will they also be forced to sign up to the MCPP?

I understand Sun's attempt to spin "Peace in our time" into "This Was Their Finest Hour" [java.net] however, if you look where the quote originated from...

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, on June 18, 1940, at the House of Commons
We can be truly thankful that Churchill's next action was not to sign a treaty with Hitler, accepting gold looted from occupied states as payment for damages done.

Deja Vu (1)

daves (23318) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856373)

This reminds me of the many times ESR defended [lwn.net] VA Linux, on his way to becoming rich [lwn.net] and then normal again.

offtopic, sorry (0, Redundant)

6824ego1 (771099) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856430)

#ego20829391483

Re:offtopic, sorry (0)

6824ego1 (771099) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856458)

#ego219394

Gosling or Joy? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856432)

From the article:

Dr. James Gosling is a Sun Microsystems fellow who managed the group that created Java in the early 1990s.

Who is the creator of Java?
Everyone knows it is Gosling, but for some reason Sun would have you believe Bill Joy did it. Why? Sun only acknowledges that Gosling managed those who created Java. So did Gosling manage Bill Joy as well? This makes no sense. If a wookie lives on Endor you must acquit.

wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856460)

Java is useful mainly for middleware.

It's only in the public eye because at this moment in time, middleware is where corporate money is. This will change and the developers will be free to choose the right tool for the right job again. Java will assume it's rightful place as just another tool in the drawer, perhaps somewhere between bash and C++.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?