Board index » jbuilder » IBM continues trying ...

IBM continues trying ...

 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Quote
I have mixed emotions about an all open source Java. I am afraid, without
strong centralized management, it will fragment and morph into so many
different flavors, that it may become unmanageable.
Open sourcing does not imply decentralized management. Open source can be
merely quality control and cheap and fast way to test and fix bugs.
Sun and IBM can sell Java eproms, cpus or something.
Java has strong market now, but I have feeling it might go down in 5 years
(if something does not change) because of .NET
Quote
Look at all the framework even now? Struts, JSF, Swing, SWT, Hybernate,
Torque, Velocity, etc.
Those are frameworks, not VM and core libraries. They are result of EJB
complexity, breaking OO principles, and price.
I'm glad there is Hybernate because I don't have to use entity beans if I
have not database cluster, which I don't have and will not have ...
Soon, I'll be even more glad when I introduce gcj-ed SWT apps to my
customers.... looks like we are going to wait at least a year to have gcj-ed
Swing.
Quote
I want features, but I do not want overwhelming choices and complexity.
Its about choice. I agree there is definitely information crisis we are
dealing here. You should probably surrender certain areas of interest, and
not cover them with current depth. I think it is more efficient to form some
kind of index in your head, about what is what, and for what it can be used,
with what is related etc .. and have closer look only if necessary.
Competition can do only good to customers (us), because framework makers are
forced to improove their products.
Because there was not competition for Sun/Java until net arrived, Java did
not advanced to degree it would otherwise.
Quote
Personally, I think IBM wants to take over Java completely.
Cant blame them. They invested a lot in something that is not under their
control. I think IBM would do better than Sun, steering open source Java
like they did with Eclipse. In his book (Bussines at speed of thought) Bill
Gates said that sun is "vertical" company, and because of that they spend on
r&d more money then they would if they were horizontal. IBM on another hand
is hybrid, both vertical with their mainframes, and horizontal with PC's,
and he was 100% right about that (it was 1998) - Sun has more and more
troubles. I wouldn't want Java go down with Sun, and if Java would be open
source, it would be safer.
Think about Java + Linux platform also.
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Buch wrote:
Quote
www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3344811

--
Replace zeroes with "o" to reply
I have mixed emotions about an all open source Java. I am afraid, without
strong centralized management, it will fragment and morph into so many
different flavors, that it may become unmanageable.
Look at all the framework even now? Struts, JSF, Swing, SWT, Hybernate,
Torque, Velocity, etc.
I want features, but I do not want overwhelming choices and complexity.
Personally, I think IBM wants to take over Java completely.
 

{smallsort}

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Buch wrote:
Quote
>I have mixed emotions about an all open source Java. I am afraid, without
>strong centralized management, it will fragment and morph into so many
>different flavors, that it may become unmanageable.

Open sourcing does not imply decentralized management. Open source can be
merely quality control and cheap and fast way to test and fix bugs.
Sun and IBM can sell Java eproms, cpus or something.
Java has strong market now, but I have feeling it might go down in 5 years
(if something does not change) because of .NET

No but who would the manager be? That is the problem.
Linux kernel development for instance, is under tight control with Linus.
Noting gets approved until he and his co-developers approve it.
I have not seen anything in the Open Source Java world that approaches this.
The JCP DOES KEEP very tight reigns on what constitutes Java. Sun is not in
control of the JCP entirely, neither is any one entity. Sun does control
copyright of Java, which is OK. After all, they invented it.
Quote
>Look at all the framework even now? Struts, JSF, Swing, SWT, Hybernate,
>Torque, Velocity, etc.
Those are frameworks, not VM and core libraries. They are result of EJB
complexity, breaking OO principles, and price.
I know that these are frameworks, but some have been adapted or are being
adapted as core the to Java standards, like JSF and JSTL. Even if I like
the idea and goals of JSF, for a while, we are going to have two camps. (1)
The Struts camp and (2) the JSF camp. We can add any number of other
frameworks. which when they become somewhat {*word*109}, they will usually be
adopted, with minor variations.
However, the only reasons that these frameworks are not part of the
standards is because of the JCP. The JCP is in charge of constituting what
is part of the core standards for J2ME, J2SE, and J2EE. That does not,
however, prevent others from developing their own frameworks and/or library
extensions for Java. Look at GCJ, for instance. It is not part of the JCP,
but you are free to use it, if you want to. Do we want everything that the
Open Source community creates as an extension or alternate
framework/Compiler/JVM to become part of the core of Java? Then we will
surely have over-complexity and fragmentation. That is the part that
worries me.
Quote
I'm glad there is Hybernate because I don't have to use entity beans if I
have not database cluster, which I don't have and will not have ...
Soon, I'll be even more glad when I introduce gcj-ed SWT apps to my
customers.... looks like we are going to wait at least a year to have
gcj-ed Swing.

I do not mind these alternate frameworks being available, but I do not want
all of them part of the core of standard Java. That is the point. Do you
want 15 different ways to implement Data Abstraction cores to be part of
the standard Java core? I don't, it becomes confusing and frustrating to
the customers employing it. If they are available, as an option, but not
part of the core of Java, then it becomes like any other alternate lib or
extension framework, whether commercial or Open Source. But it does not
constitute the core, nor the basis of the certified Java framework.
If we ever begin to adapt this type of "throw it all in" approach, futility
would ensue in the minds of developers and IT departments. That again, is
what I am afraid of.
This is beyond even considering, what the Application Server providers
would have to come up with to provide all of these alternate frameworks as
part of the core of the Java Standards. If this were to ever happen, your
App Server would be out of date every three months :) IBM and BEA would
love this temporarily, because it would guarantee constant repurchases.
Eventually however, it would mean the death of Java.
Quote
Its about choice. I agree there is definitely information crisis we are
dealing here. You should probably surrender certain areas of interest, and
not cover them with current depth.

But if Open Source is free to add all of these frameworks and Java becomes
so bloated, then ignoring these are not possible. You will need to become
familiar with them all and consider them all. That is my fear.
Quote
I think it is more efficient to form
some kind of index in your head, about what is what, and for what it can
be used, with what is related etc .. and have closer look only if
necessary. Competition can do only good to customers (us), because
framework makers are forced to improove their products.
Yes, and the current model provides for this. Java is big enough, without
becoming even more inclusive. Think about the entire Java world for a
moment. It even dwarfs entire Operating Systems.
Quote
Because there was not competition for Sun/Java until net arrived, Java did
not advanced to degree it would otherwise.

I do not agree with this at all. Java was huge from 1.1 forward. Once
Servlets, and remote processing (RMI, Corba, EJB) came onto the scene, it
literally exploded. NET has done nothing to increase the usage of Java. In
fact in MS centric shops, it has detracted from it.
However, the competition has been good for the improvement of Java, no
argument. But if anyone be honest, NET is really nothing more than a subset
of parts of J2SE and J2EE, package in MS proprietary libraries and VMs.
Quote
>Personally, I think IBM wants to take over Java completely.
Cant blame them. They invested a lot in something that is not under their
control.
That is because Java fit the bill and IBM was free to be a major contributor
and have access to all of the source code, as well as others who are an
integral part of the JCP.
I am still trying to understand, what is wrong with the JCP? Some believe it
doesn't move fast enough, and I am sure that there is a germ of truth to
this. But how fast should it move? I do not want a new Java version rolled
out every three to six months. It changes too fast as it is :)
Quote
I think IBM would do better than Sun, steering open source Java
like they did with Eclipse.
But isn't this replacing one overseer with another? Granted in todays Sun
verses IBM market, IBM has more clout. But how does this make Java
oversight better than JCP?
BTW, personally, I detest the Eclipse IDE. Talk about taking giant steps
backwards in a natural working IDE! In fact, I would personally have to
say, that of all of the Java IDEs, I would have to rank Eclipse dead last.
I am not speaking here of the plug-in type additions, nor many of great
libs available for it, but the IDE itself.
The Eclipse IDE is {*word*82}ugly to work with, IMHO. Half of the plugins are
next to impossible to find and the Docs on these plugins wreak. That is why
Borland JBuilder and Oracle JDeveloper do so well.
The only thing Eclipse has going for it, is it is free, open, and darn well
supported through the plugin community. What is has against it, is that it
is ugly, unnatural, and beotch to navigate with. It reminds me too much of
Visual Age.
Well since I digressed (<G>), we shall get back on topic.
Someone has to be the general overseers of Java, or it will fragment. Why
should the engineers of IBM be the overseers rather than Gosling and
company?
I do not mind "sharing the oversight", but why should IBM be over the
committee rather than Gosling and the original engineers? That would be
like you or I inventing something and some other force coming in and taking
control of our invention with or without our approval or desire. Can't see
how this is fair, nor how it makes the process better.
Quote
In his book (Bussines at speed of thought)
Bill Gates said that sun is "vertical" company, and because of that they
spend on r&d more money then they would if they were horizontal.
That because Gates and company, contrary to what they say, are not an
innovation company, but rather a marketing company. Look at what MS claims
to have invented. If you trace the roots to their "so called inventions",
it always comes to stolen ideas, buying out lesser companies, etc.
MS has invented precious little, but they have taken someone else's code and
designs, put their name on it, and marketed the hell out of it. Not trying
to take anything away from MS, they are very good at what they do. But I
would not call Microsoft an innovation company. I do see them as a great
marketing company.
What you said about Sun is dead on. Sun has always been an engineering
company. Great on implementation, but slow on marketing.
Quote
IBM on
another hand is hybrid, both vertical with their mainframes, and
horizontal with PC's, and he was 100% right about that (it was 1998) - Sun
has more and more troubles. I wouldn't want Java go down with Sun, and if
Java would be open source, it would be safer.
Think about Java + Linux platform also.
I do agree with you here and I can see why some want Open Source Java,
because of Sun's troubles. Please understand, I am not against changing the
guard per se under a different umbrella, but I do not want to throw the
"baby out with the bathwater", either. I do not want Java GPLed at all!! I
can guarantee you, this will kill it in the Enterprise.
Linux is an OS, and as such does not carry the same ramifications as an
Application framework. The vast majority of software companies are not in
the Operating System business, they do not build and distribute operating
systems, they simply use them and want their customers to do so as well.
But they are in the Application Development space.
If software companies have to release the source code with every extension
they write for every app they write, I can almost, with certainty, bet they
will not use the Programming platform for their serious application
development. We definitely do not want this to happen. GPL Java should
DEFINITELY BE RULED OUT.. So what type of license should an open source
Java carry? Another major concern I have.
Don't misunderstand me. For Linux and like projects, I think Open Source
rules. I do not however, see it as a cure all for everything. Operating
Systems are a commodity more or less. Their purpose and job is to make the
computer work, and give developers something to write to/on top of. I do
not see all open source programming languages, nor all open source
development frameworks and platforms, as tenable nor viable. I think a
mixture of proprietary but open (as in supported from many platforms and
the APIs open), as well as Open Source, is what makes sense is what should
determine what is and is not open sourced.
Many in the Open Source community envision the day when everything;-- every
database, every program, every application development language and
framework, and every application itself, all are open source.
Personally, I see this as the beginning of the end for future software
development. Are we going to trade all professionals and modest profits for
hobbiest and hackers only? Suggest a viable system that will replace
monetary reward and still guarantee productivity and freedom, without some
centralized control issuing employment mandates. I would welcome it, but I
do not see how it can be done.
Let's face it a guy with a ninth grade education is not going to become a
neurologist, heart surgeon, nor a very good programmer. Without incentives,
people are not going to choose those careers that demand the most, they
will rather choose what is the easiest. That has been proven when and where
ever such a system of monetary equality, has ever been tried.
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Quote
No but who would the manager be? That is the problem.
Obviously, IBM :))
Perhaps, IBM remote controlled detachment of their people, like Eclipse.
Quote
Linux kernel development for instance, is under tight control with Linus.
Noting gets approved until he and his co-developers approve it.
That is the way I like it. Team should have a leader. Collaboration does not
imply anarchy.
Quote
adapted as core the to Java standards, like JSF and JSTL. Even if I like
the idea and goals of JSF, for a while, we are going to have two camps. (1)
The Struts camp and (2) the JSF camp. We can add any number of other
frameworks. which when they become somewhat {*word*109}, they will usualy be
Then you should choose one, or use both, keeping in mind situations where
usage of one is better than another.
Having more than one choice is alwasy better than not having a choice.
There is a time when there are not any more place for improovements in one
framework, so another should be created.
Look at this like situation with database middleware in Delphi. It would be
bad if only BDE existed.
Quote
but you are free to use it, if you want to. Do we want everything that the
Open Source community creates as an extension or alternate
framework/Compiler/JVM to become part of the core of Java? Then we will
surely have over-complexity and fragmentation. That is the part that
Nobody said that everything should be in core. Core is core, and if it is
under reasonably tight control, like you said, it would be ok.
Perhaps we will have "Java distros", some including all, some including
subset. But as long there is one common denominator, it is OK.
Quote
I do not mind these alternate frameworks being available, but I do not want
all of them part of the core of standard Java. That is the point. Do you
want 15 different ways to implement Data Abstraction cores to be part of
No. Perhaps it would be good idea to remove ejb and else from core and make
it more optional ...
Quote
If we ever begin to adapt this type of "throw it all in" approach, futility
would ensue in the minds of developers and IT departments. That again, is
But where did you saw this "throw it all" approach. I have seen quite the
opposite .. "keep core under control" kind of.
Quote
But if Open Source is free to add all of these frameworks and Java becomes
so bloated, then ignoring these are not possible. You will need to become
familiar with them all and consider them all. That is my fear.
If you look it that way, then Java, and IT in general, are already bloated.
We are talking about Sun letting its control over Java to some kind of open
source community.
Frameworks are already "included", in a sense.
Quote
argument. But if anyone be honest, NET is really nothing more than a subset
of parts of J2SE and J2EE, package in MS proprietary libraries and VMs.
For now.
Quote
I think IBM would do better than Sun, steering open source Java
like they did with Eclipse.
But isn't this replacing one overseer with another? Granted in todays Sun
verses IBM market, IBM has more clout. But how does this make Java
oversight better than JCP?
It is. Look at it this way: Big companies often change top management,
because after 2-3 years original one implemented their ideas, and
perhaps/most likely has not knew one.
Fresh {*word*76}. Well, its about time to get another management. :)
Quote
The only thing Eclipse has going for it, is it is free, open, and darn well
supported through the plugin community. What is has against it, is that it
is ugly, unnatural, and beotch to navigate with. It reminds me too much of
Visual Age.
I'm experimenting adapting JDT (that is visual libraries used to display
Eclipse0s IDE) for database interface.
I really like how it looks, and has lot of eye candy that can attract
customers.
Customers like eclipse's look, because of swt. I was careless enough with
laptop running eclipse, while waiting for a meeting.
When they saw it, they asked if I can make their apps looking like that ...
they are {*word*60}ed to windows l&f. Looks like mee too.
Quote
MS has invented precious little, but they have taken someone else's code
and
designs, put their name on it, and marketed the hell out of it. Not trying
Japan did like this also. Now they have Toyota, which is better than
american cars, or even german cars.
People can drive better cars. American car industry is guilty of not keeping
their pace ahead of competition.
Same with Microsoft and others.
Quote
What you said about Sun is dead on. Sun has always been an engineering
company. Great on implementation, but slow on marketing.
Well, they finally made good steps, like PCs and desktop OS...
Quote
"baby out with the bathwater", either. I do not want Java GPLed at all!! I
can guarantee you, this will kill it in the Enterprise.
You can't, I'm sorry - Linux is GPL, and its getting more and more
enterprise.
Quote
Linux is an OS, and as such does not carry the same ramifications as an
Application framework. The vast majority of software companies are not in
Java going open source is part of larger picture.
If you remember, Gates said (few months ago) that he predicts very cheap
hardware.
Would that not be nice for Microsoft, they sell software at the same price
as today, put people buy more of it because hardware is chepaer, therefore
more affordable.
Certain 3 letter companies :) , on the other hand, wants very cheap or free
software, and same price for hardware as they are today, for the same
reasons.
That is why IBM and others (Intel too, but more covertly :) ) support Linux,
and thats why they want open source Java.
We IT people are getting a bit torred apart between these two options.
On one hand, sell support for MS and buy their software, or buy hardware.
Its about adding value to product, MS having cheaper hardware, IBM having
cheaper software. (well, don't take that literal, I reffer to IBM as a group
of companies)
Quote
DEFINITELY BE RULED OUT.. So what type of license should an open source
Java carry? Another major concern I have.
Mozzila? (mozilla, mozzilla, mozzarella? :) )
Quote
Many in the Open Source community envision the day when everything;-- every
database, every program, every application development language and
framework, and every application itself, all are open source.
It is moving in that dierction, that or very cheap hardware, or most likely
something between, until IBM-centric or ms runs out of money.
Fine with me, I'm developer, I sell my apps and services, not hardware or
system software.
Quote
Personally, I see this as the beginning of the end for future software
development. Are we going to trade all professionals and modest profits for
Why? There will be still need for customizations, integration, transitions
to new platforms, frameworks ... plenty of space for application software
developer.
Quote
Let's face it a guy with a ninth grade education is not going to become a
neurologist, heart surgeon, nor a very good programmer. Without incentives,
Yes. However, best programmers I know have high school only, without
college.
Interesting thing, they could not pass college at all, although they were
more intelligent and knowledgeable about programming then their professors.
I'm currently few months behind graduation, after many years I finally found
mental strength to endure - will that make me less good programmer? (lol)
(How did you ever managed to get Ph.D., you look too smart for that :)) )
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Buch wrote:
Quote
>No but who would the manager be? That is the problem.

Obviously, IBM :))
That is what they would like for sure. I do not believe it would be wise,
prudent, nor justifiable for one company to invent something, take all of
the R&D cost on themselves, and then hand it over to another company. I
surely would not do that, without some major bucks flowing my way :)
Quote
Perhaps, IBM remote controlled detachment of their people, like Eclipse.

I do not WANT Java like Eclipse. As stated previously, I HATE the Eclipse
IDE. It is something akin to "Lets go back to the stone ages." If Eclipse
was the best IDE Java had to offer, well I might have to say, "DOT.NET
anyone?" :)
Quote

That is the way I like it. Team should have a leader. Collaboration does
not imply anarchy.

Yes, without tight control, Java becomes multi-flavors and loses the beauty
of Java itself, namely "write once using common APIs and libs, run
anywhere."
Quote

Then you should choose one, or use both, keeping in mind situations where
usage of one is better than another.
Having more than one choice is alwasy better than not having a choice.
There is a time when there are not any more place for improovements in one
framework, so another should be created.
True, but considering this (Struts and JSf) as an example. They furnish the
same type of basic framework structure. It is kind of like saying we will
have six{*word*249} different frameworks, that basically do the same thing from
six{*word*249} different places. No thanks.
Quote
Look at this like situation with database middleware in Delphi. It would
be bad if only BDE existed.

Yes, but for a time, the BDE was standard. No one has stopped or is stopping
others from coming up with additional frameworks for Java, but you cannot
couple everything into Java, nor should it be that way. I do not want a Jre
that is 50 meg in size, to support a plethora of services that are
basically duplicative in nature. Where would it end?
Quote
Nobody said that everything should be in core. Core is core, and if it is
under reasonably tight control, like you said, it would be ok.
Perhaps we will have "Java distros", some including all, some including
subset. But as long there is one common denominator, it is OK.

God, I hope not. I do not want a Suse Java, a Mandrake Java, a Red Hat Java,
and/or an IBM Java, a Sun Java, a MS Java, a Debian Java, etc. To be
personally frank with you. if this is the way Java was today, I would not
be using Java and would have no plans to adopt it at all. If I desired a
multi-flavored programming language and compiler scenario, I would totally
adopt C/C++.
I use Java because it allows me to code once for many platforms and because
it is consistent across platforms, If it becomes an everybody has their own
distro, type of programming language and platform, I would definitely
migrate to something else.
I do not want Java to become like DOT.NET either. I do not want an MS
version and a Mono or GNU version of DOT.NET, which may or may not be
compatible, either. I want what I have with Java today;-- one Java, one set
of APIs and one consistent set of libs, that runs the same across all
platforms. Who makes the JVM or jre is not important. What is important is
that regardless of whether I choose to use an IBM jre, a Sun jre, or a
Blackdown jre, my code changeth not.
Quote
>I do not mind these alternate frameworks being available, but I do not
>want all of them part of the core of standard Java. That is the point. Do
>you want 15 different ways to implement Data Abstraction cores to be part
>of

No. Perhaps it would be good idea to remove ejb and else from core and
make it more optional ...

EJB is essential to Java. Without it, Java is woefully incomplete, like
Dot.Net is today. Read my post of Delphi NG, about Dot.NETs inefficiency in
terms of not having a persistent framework like EJB. I agree, EJBs are
sometimes overhyped and made to sound like a cure all, but for Enterprise
type development, they are essential, or at the least something similar to
them.
Quote

But where did you saw this "throw it all" approach. I have seen quite the
opposite .. "keep core under control" kind of.

So, isn't that what the JCP is about currently? Why change from the JCP to
GPL? That is what I just don't get.
If we want to remove Sun's tight control, Ok. But I see the JCP as a good
working model. Amend it perhaps, but no need to start all over again.
Quote
If you look it that way, then Java, and IT in general, are already
bloated. We are talking about Sun letting its control over Java to some
kind of open source community.
Frameworks are already "included", in a sense.
Yes, and THAT IS THE PROBLEM. We know MS is NEVER going to play with the
rest of the world, by choice. The only way MS would ever agree to having a
level playing field is if they totally and completely control it. There is
no need for DOT.NET for instance. The only reason for DOT.NET is that MS
could not control Java. DOT.NET is nothing more than MS' version of Java.
That doesn't make DOT.NET all bad, it does a lot of things well, and
improvements to the Java core have been made. But that was not the purpose
of DOT.NET and still is not. DOT.NET is all about MS controlling what the
development community uses, so that all roads will lead to Redmond, WA.
It is when we embrace proprietary solutions, that we are going to be forced
to deal with complexity. If we were all using one OS that was open (like
Linux), then the APIs, GDI, and kernel would all basically be the same.
There would have been little need for Java, or Web Services. We would be
free to remove complexity from the application core, because the OS core
would be homogeneous. However, I never see this happening until or unless
the developer and user community demand it. You can bet that MS would never
accept this without being forced by the developer and user community to
accept this. To be fair, Oracle, IBM, Sun, etc. would not desire all of
their systems to be this open either (at the Database or Server Application
Level).
Quote
It is. Look at it this way: Big companies often change top management,
because after 2-3 years original one implemented their ideas, and
perhaps/most likely has not knew one.
Fresh {*word*76}. Well, its about time to get another management. :)

However, there is a great deal to be said about the "creator's genius" and
the ownership pride of success. IBM for instance, is not known for making
the complex simple. Ever tried to read one of their manuals? :)
Quote
>The only thing Eclipse has going for it, is it is free, open, and darn
>well supported through the plugin community. What is has against it, is
>that it is ugly, unnatural, and beotch to navigate with. It reminds me too
>much of Visual Age.
I'm experimenting adapting JDT (that is visual libraries used to display
Eclipse0s IDE) for database interface.
I really like how it looks, and has lot of eye candy that can attract
customers.
Customers like eclipse's look, because of swt. I was careless enough with
laptop running eclipse, while waiting for a meeting.
When they saw it, they asked if I can make their apps looking like that
... they are {*word*60}ed to windows l&f. Looks like mee too.

SWT is nice, it is the IDE that makes me wish for Borland IDEs :)
Quote


>What you said about Sun is dead on. Sun has always been an engineering
>company. Great on implementation, but slow on marketing.

Well, they finally made good steps, like PCs and desktop OS...

>"baby out with the bathwater", either. I do not want Java GPLed at all!! I
>can guarantee you, this will kill it in the Enterprise.

You can't, I'm sorry - Linux is GPL, and its getting more and more
enterprise.

Why? Do you ship the Linux OS as an application? Do you really think
organizations are going to want to ship the source code to their internal
and external application customers who use them? I can guarantee you, they
will not.
It is much different at the OS level, where the OS is a commodity. In other
words, the OS is in use by many and is non specific between organizations.
Applications can be general use applications, such a Word Processors,
graphics programs, etc., but most are environment and business specific.
I would not want my Order Entry system for XYZ company to be open for all
other companies to use and exploit. In fact I know of no major business
that would say, "Take all of our applications that we have developed, and
any company or user than use, exploit, or extend our framework." Security
and specificity are null when this happens.
That is what I meant by their being a huge difference between an Open OS and
an open application development platform. Would you want to make all of the
source code available for every application you write and/or distribute? If
it were to ever come to this, start looking for a new career. If the OS
community were to try and force this, MS would win, for sure.
Quote
Java going open source is part of larger picture.
If you remember, Gates said (few months ago) that he predicts very cheap
hardware.
Would that not be nice for Microsoft, they sell software at the same price
as today, put people buy more of it because hardware is chepaer, therefore
more affordable.
Certain 3 letter companies :) , on the other hand, wants very cheap or
free software, and same price for hardware as they are today, for the same
reasons.
That is why IBM and others (Intel too, but more covertly :) ) support
Linux, and thats why they want open source Java.
Not all of them WANT Java open sourced. Look today at JBoss announcement for
instance. They are voting for tight control over Java, not necessarily Open
Source.
Quote
>DEFINITELY BE RULED OUT.. So what type of license should an open source
>Java carry? Another major concern I have.

Mozzila? (mozilla, mozzilla, mozzarella? :) )

Something that allows free use and does not demand releasing application
extensions, I can live with. GPL, for an application framework, I cannot
live with.
Quote


>Personally, I see this as the beginning of the end for future software
>development. Are we going to trade all professionals and modest profits
>for

Why? There will be still need for customizations, integration, transitions
to new platforms, frameworks ... plenty of space for application software
developer.

I disagree. If all software is free and developers are not paid to write it,
why would a company hire a bevy of programmers, when they can just send
request to OS community at large?
Quote
>Let's face it a guy with a ninth grade education is not going to become a
>neurologist, heart surgeon, nor a very good programmer. Without
>incentives,

Yes. However, best programmers I know have high school only, without
college.
Well, I would disagree with this as well. Most people with HS only diplomas,
are hackers, since their exposure is not in an organizational sense. Of
course I would agree that experience in software development, especially
within the framework of a corporate IT structure, is more valuable than a
formal degree in many situations.
However, most engineers have some type of an engineering background, or
formal education which prepares them for their specific tasks. But I did
not mean this in terms of academic attainment, but rather in terms of
aptitude and intellect. Education can come in many forms;-- formal and
self-instruction.
I would agree that many BS and BA holders from formal university settings,
are not as well prepared, nor as equipped, right out of school, as some of
their tech type school counterparts. Tech schools usually place their
emphasis in the area of concentration, not on academia in general.
Quote
Interesting thing, they could not pass college at all, although they were
more intelligent and knowledgeable about programming then their
professors. I'm currently few months behind graduation, after many years I
finally found mental strength to endure - will that make me less good
programmer? (lol) (How did you ever managed to get Ph.D., you look too
smart for that :)) )
LOL!! I agree that many academic programs push for academia over
practicality and real world practical usage. It is also true that many
professors are woefully lacking in good IT skills. The reason that this
disparity exists, is understandable however.
Look at the salary that a college or university IT professor receives,
verses what a senior level programmer or R&D Team lead makes. No rocket
science required here. :) This is why many tech type school students are
better prepared than their liberal art counterparts, as well.
Many of the professors in a tech school environment, are still engaged in
the real IT world, and are not full time professors, or most of them been
IT professionals before they were engaged in formal academic endeavors.
Therefore, what these professors know and convey is not based upon an ivory
tower "religious" experience, but rather in the real world where "elitism
and liberal musings", do not function well. It is fine to try and
understand why 2+2 has to always equal four or to change the world of
constants in your ivory tower, but if you spend your time in such dribble
while attempting to be productive in the real world, you will seldom, if
ever, get anything useful or productive done.
Many professors are so busy being ethereal and esoteric minded, that they
are useless in the real world where things are as they are, not as you wish
they could be.
Have a good one..
BTW, my Doctorate is not in IT. Is is in psychology, which does help me to
understand myself as well as others. Basically, I discovered, any
programmer is a little off to begin with, starting with myself. :):)
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Buch wrote:
Quote
>No but who would the manager be? That is the problem.

BTW, here is the link to the JBoss interview, where they (JBoss group),
which is an open source implementation of a Java Server, is making my point
about Java control
www.infoworld.com/article/04/04/30/HNfleury_1.html
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

pnichols < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Yes, without tight control, Java becomes multi-flavors and loses the beauty
of Java itself, namely "write once using common APIs and libs, run
anywhere."
Sort of, but why hasn't that happened to more OSS products? There was
a fork of Emacs back in the day because RMS didn't want X11 support
(hence XEmacs), plus LucidEmacs and that thing James Gosling
made. There was a fork of GCC which led to the fork taking the role of
the official GCC. But those are generally the only examples.
It should perhaps be noted that the least fork-vulnerable OSS projects
generally have a strong "founder" who keeps guidance, e.g. Larry Wall
for Perl or Guido von Rossum for Python. Java doesn't, there's just a
"committee" (the JCP), and languages in the hands of committees rarely
develop in a good way, look at C++ for example. :)
Presumably, Anders Ohlsson is still "helming" C#, which would mean
that has a better chance to stay focused than all-over-the-place
featuritis Java, the {*word*221}stamping folks at ECMA merely adding a
sheen of respectability to what is essentially a Microsoft product.
Quote
True, but considering this (Struts and JSf) as an example. They furnish the
same type of basic framework structure. It is kind of like saying we will
have six{*word*249} different frameworks, that basically do the same thing from
six{*word*249} different places. No thanks.
Yes, it's a bit like SWT: It's only necessary if you suck at Swing
coding. :)
Quote
EJB is essential to Java. Without it, Java is woefully incomplete, like
Dot.Net is today.
Well, to play the Devil's advocate: With ADO.Net, Remoting (think
session EJBs) and ASP.Net they have most of J2EE equivalents in place.
Quote
Read my post of Delphi NG, about Dot.NETs inefficiency in
terms of not having a persistent framework like EJB.
Entity Beans are generally on the way out, replaced by DAO and
specialized persistence frameworks. There is generally no reason you
can't cook up the same thing in .Net.
Quote
So, isn't that what the JCP is about currently? Why change from the JCP to
GPL? That is what I just don't get.
Agreed: There is no rational reason why an OSS version of Sun's
implementation will have a better life than Kaffe and GNU Classpath
have today. The SCSL is not too draconian for anyone interested in
developing Sun's implementation to go right ahead and do so today.
Quote
If we want to remove Sun's tight control, Ok. But I see the JCP as a good
working model. Amend it perhaps, but no need to start all over again.
Do Sun even have more veto power today than any other member of the
Executive Committee?
Quote
I disagree. If all software is free and developers are not paid to write it,
why would a company hire a bevy of programmers, when they can just send
request to OS community at large?
Expediency? The OSS community generally tends to write software they
want to use themselves, not what others want. Just take a look at all
the half-hearted, 1-2 person projects on SourceForge, often haqving
the same goal. It's more "interesting" for an OSS developer to start
their own thing than work on someone else's thing, unless it's one of
the "big" things like Emacs or GCC.
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Quote
the R&D cost on themselves, and then hand it over to another company. I
surely would not do that, without some major bucks flowing my way :)
Bucks were about to flow, that was most likely main theme of IBM-Sun talks.
Looks like they could not agree on price.
Quote
I do not WANT Java like Eclipse. As stated previously, I HATE the Eclipse
IDE. It is something akin to "Lets go back to the stone ages." If Eclipse
Can you update JBuilder as you can Eclipse? That does not look like stone
age to me.
Besides, we are talking about model of development here, and that has
nothing to do with design choices made by Eclipse's team that made you hate
that particular IDE.
Quote
same type of basic framework structure. It is kind of like saying we will
have six{*word*249} different frameworks, that basically do the same thing from
six{*word*249} different places. No thanks.
It follows the same evolutionary mechanism that made us also ->let more
successfull one survives.
Evolution as development model is well prooven.
Quote
Yes, but for a time, the BDE was standard. No one has stopped or is
stopping
others from coming up with additional frameworks for Java, but you cannot
couple everything into Java, nor should it be that way. I do not want a
Jre
No one is talking about coupling everything to Java.
Quote
God, I hope not. I do not want a Suse Java, a Mandrake Java, a Red Hat
Java,
and/or an IBM Java, a Sun Java, a MS Java, a Debian Java, etc. To be
personally frank with you. if this is the way Java was today, I would not
If we analyze this it would be JavaDistro := CommonDenominatorJava + AddOn.
As long as you write code compatible with CDJ (CDJ ha!! perhaps I forged
monester's name ->lets see if I can infect people with this lol)
you should be fine, as you are today.
AddOn is vendor specific, and it represents their look on what competitive
advantage they have and they give to you as their user.
You can write specific code for it to take advantage of it, or use OO
feature - write an interface, so if there is another AddOn with simmilar
funtionalities, you can use that too. (or use another framework, as you
would say, until one wins)
Quote
be using Java and would have no plans to adopt it at all. If I desired a
multi-flavored programming language and compiler scenario, I would totally
adopt C/C++.
You could not, not in bussines I presume you are in. C++ productivity is way
beind Java, Delphi, C# or VB.
Quote
I do not want Java to become like DOT.NET either. I do not want an MS
version and a Mono or GNU version of DOT.NET, which may or may not be
compatible, either. I want what I have with Java today;-- one Java, one
set
of APIs and one consistent set of libs, that runs the same across all
You cant have what you want - it is in nature of competitive world. (read
Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene - you'll like it as psychologist)
Quote
no need for DOT.NET for instance. The only reason for DOT.NET is that MS
could not control Java. DOT.NET is nothing more than MS' version of Java.
Yes.
But, its here, and it will evolve. You can't ignore it, nor Java can.
Quote
to deal with complexity. If we were all using one OS that was open (like
Linux), then the APIs, GDI, and kernel would all basically be the same.
There would have been little need for Java, or Web Services. We would be
One OS - one API - one GDI does not sounds bad if it is open source,
opposite to one controlled by one company.
It's about where you put Java layer - if you integrate Java in OS, you get
all OS'es compatible with your app - If you make Java in VM, you have the
same,
but money goes in another direction.
Quote
However, there is a great deal to be said about the "creator's genius" and
the ownership pride of success. IBM for instance, is not known for making
the complex simple. Ever tried to read one of their manuals? :)
Nobody can remove Java makers out of history :)
But that has nothing to do with fact that Sun as corporate entity owns Java,
not their makers, so to them there is no difference, or not much.
Quote
>You can't, I'm sorry - Linux is GPL, and its getting more and more
>enterprise.
>
Why? Do you ship the Linux OS as an application? Do you really think
organizations are going to want to ship the source code to their internal
and external application customers who use them? I can guarantee you, they
will not.
I could I want/need.
But that is not the issue.
I would not want GPL licence for java also. Mozilla is better.
Quote
I would not want my Order Entry system for XYZ company to be open for all
other companies to use and exploit. In fact I know of no major business
That would be in GPL scenario, but that is not going to happen. Mozilla
would reedy that problem.
Quote
Not all of them WANT Java open sourced. Look today at JBoss announcement
for
instance. They are voting for tight control over Java, not necessarily
Open
Source.
They have right to their opinion.
But their oponion does not matter.
Only that matters is will IBM raise its offer :)) (from top of my post)
Quote
I disagree. If all software is free and developers are not paid to write
it,
why would a company hire a bevy of programmers, when they can just send
request to OS community at large?
We are talking about free system software.
Nobody talks about free application software.
Besides, as I said before, system software still needs to be customized or
configured to particular user's need.
Quote
Well, I would disagree with this as well. Most people with HS only
diplomas,
are hackers, since their exposure is not in an organizational sense. Of
I'm disagreeing with your disagreement.
Hackers are by definition better programmers - they do it 24/7.
When they grow up, good boss will tame them.
Quote
However, most engineers have some type of an engineering background, or
formal education which prepares them for their specific tasks. But I did
I hear lot about "engineer's way of thinking" mantras - when you look at
this, it is only omnipresent planing - realisation - evaluation cycle,
backed up with some preconfigured rigid case studies on how particular
problems should be solved.
Definitely kind of thining for "execution slaves".
I like scientific/artistic thinking more.
Quote
BTW, my Doctorate is not in IT. Is is in psychology, which does help me to
understand myself as well as others. Basically, I discovered, any
programmer is a little off to begin with, starting with myself. :):)
Get yourself one in IT, and one in philosophy. Then you can be good
candidate for Rational's boss - it's amazing how that guy is full of
diplomas. :))
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen (TeamB wrote:
Quote
Sort of, but why hasn't that happened to more OSS products? There was
a fork of Emacs back in the day because RMS didn't want X11 support
(hence XEmacs), plus LucidEmacs and that thing James Gosling
made. There was a fork of GCC which led to the fork taking the role of
the official GCC. But those are generally the only examples.

Generally I think, because the founders keep tight control over it, as you
alluded to before. The releases are not released until they have approval
to be released.
I do not mind if Java becomes open source, just not GPL. But I definitely
want "tight control". I think this whole diatribe concerning open sourcing
Java, is who will have control over Java;-- IBM or Sun.
Quote
It should perhaps be noted that the least fork-vulnerable OSS projects
generally have a strong "founder" who keeps guidance, e.g. Larry Wall
for Perl or Guido von Rossum for Python. Java doesn't, there's just a
"committee" (the JCP), and languages in the hands of committees rarely
develop in a good way, look at C++ for example. :)

Agree... Strong control is the key. But a one person control is not wise.
People do perish and can fall victim to accident. :)
Quote
Presumably, Anders Ohlsson is still "helming" C#, which would mean
that has a better chance to stay focused than all-over-the-place
featuritis Java, the {*word*221}stamping folks at ECMA merely adding a
sheen of respectability to what is essentially a Microsoft product.

Don't you mean Anders Heilsberg? I am sure Anders Ohlsson would appreciate
the promotion however :-)
Quote
Yes, it's a bit like SWT: It's only necessary if you suck at Swing
coding. :)

LOL!! I use Swing because it is the Java standard. I do not have trouble
with it, but I do understand the initial need of SWT. I do not see a big
speed difference since 1.4.x however. For embedded, it can yield benefits.
Quote
>EJB is essential to Java. Without it, Java is woefully incomplete, like
>Dot.Net is today.

Well, to play the Devil's advocate: With ADO.Net, Remoting (think
session EJBs) and ASP.Net they have most of J2EE equivalents in place.

But no persistent framework that is managed by the App Server or OS itself.
You may be able to enlighten me here (I asked those in the Delphi NG to
explain to me how you can write reusable objects in the managed environment
in NET, without having to worry about resource management between
applications (in other words, what manages the resource pool of Enterprise
type objects, without having to code this functionality directly into the
client or managed object pool itself). No one was able to provide me with a
suitable answer. I am not beyond learning how this can be done in NET, mind
you, I am only a novice with NET framework.
From my understanding, the only way to create a remote object repository is
through Web Services, or COM+/DCOM objects, currently in NET. If you can
reveal some other model, I would like to know what that is.
Quote
Entity Beans are generally on the way out, replaced by DAO and
specialized persistence frameworks. There is generally no reason you
can't cook up the same thing in .Net.

I don't think so, overall. New specs for EJB 3.0, does not reveal entity
beans going away, nor their replacement.
The new specs will make Entity EJBs and EJBs in general, easier to deal
with, but there is no concensus about their demise. I do not think the new
specs would spend the time on Entity EJB simplification, if that were the
case :)
Please do not misunderstand me, Entity EJBs can be real resource hogs, but
in certain environments, they can prove very beneficial. They are not
necessary, nor prudent in every situation, but for large Enterprises with
multiple server pools, they can be a necessity.
Quote
>So, isn't that what the JCP is about currently? Why change from the JCP
>to GPL? That is what I just don't get.

Agreed: There is no rational reason why an OSS version of Sun's
implementation will have a better life than Kaffe and GNU Classpath
have today. The SCSL is not too draconian for anyone interested in
developing Sun's implementation to go right ahead and do so today.

Precisely..
Quote
>If we want to remove Sun's tight control, Ok. But I see the JCP as a good
>working model. Amend it perhaps, but no need to start all over again.

Do Sun even have more veto power today than any other member of the
Executive Committee?

Not that I am aware of, touche, my point.
Quote
>I disagree. If all software is free and developers are not paid to write
>it, why would a company hire a bevy of programmers, when they can just
>send request to OS community at large?

Expediency? The OSS community generally tends to write software they
want to use themselves, not what others want. Just take a look at all
the half-hearted, 1-2 person projects on SourceForge, often haqving
the same goal. It's more "interesting" for an OSS developer to start
their own thing than work on someone else's thing, unless it's one of
the "big" things like Emacs or GCC.
I agree, but remember we are dealing with less than IT knowledgable managers
in many cases :)
Open source has the potential to help the IT industry in tremendous ways,
but also hurt the IT industry if carried to illogical conclusions.
I love the Open source model, but not for every type of project or
application development. I do not personally see why everything has to be
open source, no more than I see everything having to be proprietary. I do
like the idea of the OS being Open Source, because it allows me to not only
look at certain code sections, but also fix current bad code without having
to wait on an official patch, or to extend certain functionality for
internal use. I could argue the same for the Application language and
runtimes, and I would not mind a published Open Source Java and JVM source
code, it is the license that I would worry about, more than the publishing
of the code.
What I mean is, I do not want a license which mandates that if I change any
part of the core and distribute it (for internal or external customer
base), that I must release all changes I have made to John Q. Public. In
other words, something other than GPL, where the license is very liberal in
the usage of the specifications and use of the actual sources.
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Buch wrote:
Quote
>the R&D cost on themselves, and then hand it over to another company. I
>surely would not do that, without some major bucks flowing my way :)

Bucks were about to flow, that was most likely main theme of IBM-Sun
talks. Looks like they could not agree on price.

I do not see Sun relinquishing trademark or patent of Java to IBM or anyone
else at this point in time. Why should they?
Quote
Can you update JBuilder as you can Eclipse? That does not look like stone
age to me.
Please do not misunderstand what I say about the IDE verses the open plugin
nature of Eclipse. I stated earlier, I like the plugin nature part, I do
not like the way the IDE works overall. Eclipse seems clumsy to me. Some
like it, I personally don't.
Quote
Besides, we are talking about model of development here, and that has
nothing to do with design choices made by Ellipse's team that made you
hate that particular IDE.

I agree. I thought I made this clear in the first response. If I didn't, my
apologies.
Quote
It follows the same evolutionary mechanism that made us also ->let more
successfull one survives.
Evolution as development model is well prooven.

Evolution is fine, as long as it does not make things more difficult, rather
than less difficult. Flooding us with a plethora of divergent frameworks
that perform similar tasks is not evolution to me, it is pollution :)
Quote

No one is talking about coupling everything to Java.

But is not this a danger of an open sourced Java? The very fact all of these
alternate frameworks exists, is evidence that this potential is very real
in an Open Sourced Java world.
Quote
>God, I hope not. I do not want a Suse Java, a Mandrake Java, a Red Hat
Java,
>and/or an IBM Java, a Sun Java, a MS Java, a Debian Java, etc. To be
>personally frank with you. if this is the way Java was today, I would not

If we analyze this it would be JavaDistro := CommonDenominatorJava +
AddOn. As long as you write code compatible with CDJ (CDJ ha!! perhaps I
forged monester's name ->lets see if I can infect people with this lol)
you should be fine, as you are today.
Who controls what goes into and makes up the java core in an Open Source
model? That is key to the whole discussion.
Quote
AddOn is vendor specific, and it represents their look on what competitive
advantage they have and they give to you as their user.
You can write specific code for it to take advantage of it, or use OO
feature - write an interface, so if there is another AddOn with simmilar
funtionalities, you can use that too. (or use another framework, as you
would say, until one wins)

We have this today. So how does Open Sourcing Java help here?
Quote

You could not, not in bussines I presume you are in. C++ productivity is
way beind Java, Delphi, C# or VB.

Of course, that is why I am using Java :). But if we started having a Java
that were multi-directional (ie differnet distros), then Java would be a
monster to develop with. It was in this mode that I made this statement,
not as what is today.
Delphi would not be an option at all, since XPlatform is important to us.
C#, might be some day, but not today. I do not want to write MS code base
for part of the world and Mono codebase for the rest of the world. Call me
spoiled, I rather like having one code base that I can run on multiple
platforms. :)
Quote
>I do not want Java to become like DOT.NET either. I do not want an MS
>version and a Mono or GNU version of DOT.NET, which may or may not be
>compatible, either. I want what I have with Java today;-- one Java, one
set
>of APIs and one consistent set of libs, that runs the same across all

You cant have what you want - it is in nature of competitive world. (read
Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene - you'll like it as psychologist)
But, I already have it. What I general want out of my programming platform,
is available to me in Java today. Sure, I would like some simplification
and some minor additions, but overall, Java fits my bill pretty darn well.
That is another reason I do not want some drastic changes or overhauls that
would muddy the waters or taint the process.
Quote
Yes.
But, its here, and it will evolve. You can't ignore it, nor Java can.

Not trying to ignore it; just realistically deal with it.
We are all going to be faced with NET verses Java in the IT world. What
advantages does NET have over Java? Currently, I do not see NET having many
advantages over Java, if any. I do see Java having major advantages over
NET however.
One is a biggie for me, Write here, run here, verses Write here run almost
everywhere. That is a huge biggie, at least for me.
Quote
One OS - one API - one GDI does not sounds bad if it is open source,
opposite to one controlled by one company.
Agreed.
Quote
It's about where you put Java layer - if you integrate Java in OS, you get
all OS'es compatible with your app - If you make Java in VM, you have the
same,
but money goes in another direction.

Not sure I follow you here. The only reason that Java is not even more
popular, is due to a certain Redmond WA company, who refused to bundle an
up to date Java runtime with their OS.
Quote
Nobody can remove Java makers out of history :)
But that has nothing to do with fact that Sun as corporate entity owns
Java, not their makers, so to them there is no difference, or not much.

Well the creators work with Sun. I do not think they paid themselves for
Java's development. :)
I do believe many people see Sun as the only one controlling what is and
what makes up Java, and have this MS type of mentality in mind when it
comes to Java. This is totally untrue. Sun owns the patents, Java
trademarks, and licensing. They are not the only ones who decides what goes
into Java, nor what is coming in the future Java releases. All of this is
done by executive committee, called the JCP. You might want to look more
closely at the JCP.
Sun has actually been quite unselfish with Java. To prove the point, they
make less on Java than Borland, IBM, or BEA. Much to their own chagrin, I
might add.
Quote

I could I want/need.
But that is not the issue.
I would not want GPL licence for java also. Mozilla is better.

Agreed.
Quote
>Not all of them WANT Java open sourced. Look today at JBoss announcement
for
>instance. They are voting for tight control over Java, not necessarily
Open
>Source.
They have right to their opinion.
But their oponion does not matter.
Only that matters is will IBM raise its offer :)) (from top of my post)

Your reasoning for Open Source seems more to do with "I want IBM to control
Java, not the JCP." My question is why? What does it matter?
Quote
>Well, I would disagree with this as well. Most people with HS only
diplomas,
>are hackers, since their exposure is not in an organizational sense. Of

I'm disagreeing with your disagreement.
Hackers are by definition better programmers - they do it 24/7.
When they grow up, good boss will tame them.

>However, most engineers have some type of an engineering background, or
>formal education which prepares them for their specific tasks. But I did

I hear lot about "engineer's way of thinking" mantras - when you look at
this, it is only omnipresent planing - realisation - evaluation cycle,
backed up with some preconfigured rigid case studies on how particular
problems should be solved.
Definitely kind of thining for "execution slaves".
I like scientific/artistic thinking more.

Hmm, I do not know of many successful engineers who are not artistic in
their designs.
Quote
Get yourself one in IT, and one in philosophy. Then you can be good
candidate for Rational's boss - it's amazing how that guy is full of
diplomas. :))
My dentist once stated that I had more degrees than a thermomitor. Don't
think I need anymore. :)
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
There was a fork of Emacs back in the day because RMS didn't want
X11 support (hence XEmacs), plus LucidEmacs [...]
Minor quibble: Emacs had been ported to X(10) and then X11 long before
that. Then Lucid "enhanced" Emacs considerably to integrate it into
their IDE, which was fairly revolutionary in its day.
At some point, they wanted to fold that fork back into Emacs, but RMS,
and other Emacs purists, were adamantly opposed to many of the new
features, so it stayed forked and was renamed to XEmacs.
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

pnichols < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Don't you mean Anders Heilsberg? I am sure Anders Ohlsson would appreciate
the promotion however :-)
Whoops, of course: Anders Hejlsberg. I've just been seeing Anders
Ohlsson's name often lately as you probably understand. :)
Quote
But no persistent framework that is managed by the App Server or OS itself.
That will apparently come with Longhorn. The problem with enterprise
.Net is that Microsoft has declared that app-server == Windows 2003
Server. That leaves little room for the market of app-servers you see
in the Java world.
Quote
From my understanding, the only way to create a remote object repository is
through Web Services, or COM+/DCOM objects, currently in NET. If you can
reveal some other model, I would like to know what that is.
.Net Remoting can use SOAP but can also use some other transports,
though I haven't looked at them in any detail.
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Quote
Evolution is fine, as long as it does not make things more difficult,
rather
than less difficult. Flooding us with a plethora of divergent frameworks
that perform similar tasks is not evolution to me, it is pollution :)
You must be patient and wait for certain frameworks to die :))
(like Life - remember you give rules, and organism/s survises or not)
Quote
But, I already have it. What I general want out of my programming
platform,
I was not precise enough. I meant to say "you can't have what you want, and
if you have, it is not going to last". Sorry.
Quote
I do not see Sun relinquishing trademark or patent of Java to IBM or
anyone
else at this point in time. Why should they?
There was reports of IBM-Sun meetings about open-sourcing Java.
It is not unknown that Sun has money problems.
So I made conclusion that IBM actually wanted to pull some kind of purchase.
If IBM gave 2 billion (was it 2? never mind) for Rational, it would not be
hard for them to do it for Java.
Quote
We are all going to be faced with NET verses Java in the IT world. What
advantages does NET have over Java? Currently, I do not see NET having
many
advantages over Java, if any. I do see Java having major advantages over
Looks like tehnnical advantages are only half of the picture. Another is
marketing ... :)
Quote
We have this today. So how does Open Sourcing Java help here?
Sun has actually been quite unselfish with Java. To prove the point, they
make less on Java than Borland, IBM, or BEA. Much to their own chagrin, I
might add.
Your reasoning for Open Source seems more to do with "I want IBM to
control
Java, not the JCP." My question is why? What does it matter?
Do you remember freeware Internet Explorer destroying 1-billion worth
Netscape? MS did not mind to give ie away, and they got their money back
after some time ...
IBM want to pull something like that with ms, I think. That is why Linux,
etc ... (I think Sun has tried that with Java, but they ran out of money
too soon)
Because IBM wants to sell hardware at the same price ... I talked about that
in previous post.
So, IBM has more "ie-bombing" potential than Sun, because it has more money.
And because it has more money, they are more likely to be successfull in
steering/controling open source Java proces.
 

Re:IBM continues trying ...

Buch wrote:
Quote
>I do not see Sun relinquishing trademark or patent of Java to IBM or
anyone
>else at this point in time. Why should they?
There was reports of IBM-Sun meetings about open-sourcing Java.
It is not unknown that Sun has money problems.
I wish I had their money problem!! They have over 6 billion in cash :)
Quote
So I made conclusion that IBM actually wanted to pull some kind of
purchase. If IBM gave 2 billion (was it 2? never mind) for Rational, it
would not be hard for them to do it for Java.

I doubt they would sell Java for 2 billion. Unless Sun comes up with a more
viable business model, they may in the future.
Quote
Looks like tehnnical advantages are only half of the picture. Another is
marketing ... :)

Sure, But Java is well entrenched. I do not see those using Linux or other
Unixes or Embedded devices going to NET. In fact, most in the Linux world
are not embracing Mono.net, is you believe what people are writing. They
see it (rightfully so, IMHO), as a sell out to MS.
Quote
Do you remember freeware Internet Explorer destroying 1-billion worth
Netscape? MS did not mind to give ie away, and they got their money back
after some time ...
IBM want to pull something like that with ms, I think. That is why Linux,
etc ... (I think Sun has tried that with Java, but they ran out of money
too soon)
Sun is not out of money. As stated previously, they had 6 billion in cash,
BEFORE the last MS settlement. It is their business viability that is in
question, not that they are about to go under or bankrupt.
Quote
So, IBM has more "ie-bombing" potential than Sun, because it has more
money. And because it has more money, they are more likely to be
successfull in steering/controling open source Java proces.
Maybe. I would rather see it as it currently is, personally. Sun does not
control the Java process, that is a misapprehension of fact. Look at the
JCP community process. It is pretty open.
Sun only controls the patents and licensing of Java, not what constitutes
Java. That is determined by the executive committee of the JCP. Does MS
have anything even remotely approaching this for the NET platform?
java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/jcp26/
BTW, Sun gives away their app server, IBM doesn't. Please understand, I am
not anti Big Blue, but neither am I anti-Sun. IBM is very good for the tech
community as well as Sun and many others. I surely want IBM, Oracle, SAP,
Peoplesoft, Borland, etc involved in the Java process, even asthey now are.
However, if you want to speak of turncoats in terms of embracing MS'
proprietary Java (aka NET), don't look to Sun, look at IBM, for one.
Have a very good day. Discussion is good.