Slashdot Mirror
McNealy Answers: No Open Source Java
comforteagle writes "Sun CEO Scott McNealy has finally answered the long awaited question that has been on the minds of open source and Java developers. Will Sun open source Java? No. He stated today that Sun sees no solution solved from open sourcing Java that isn't already addressed."
When pressed about his decision, Scott McNealy admitted, "Well, we were going to open source Java until we realized that the phrase 'open source' is really more of a noun than a verb."
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/25400-1.html
"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM
I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
Why would you need an open source Java?
Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default. This greatly limits the usefulness of Java as a general development language for Linux applications. They are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
It is sad that they don't want to open up java, but really, in the end, it comes down to business strategy. And at this point in time, it just doesn't make good business sense for Sun to throw away their last trump card.
Sun has quite a history of inventing new interfaces, then abandoning them because competing open standards achieved more traction in the marketplace. If they're not careful, C# will do exactly that.
Wouldn't you say that religious fervor is preventing those distros from realizing the benefits of a very good language?
Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default. This greatly limits the usefulness of Java as a general development language for Linux applications.
Doesn't that say more about Linux than it does about Sun?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
How would opening the source up benefit Sun ? It would obviously benefit the open source community and give Sun their respect, but Sun is out to make profit, and even in the long run I don't see how they can make more money. Besides, Sun knows java best, granted, open source developers could make improvements but people are going to use java regardless. Only until a new bit-code type programming language with the cross-platforming capabilities of java and a substantial amount of users, will Sun consider releasing the source. Sun is out to make money, not win friends, and I don't think they will loose many customers because they aren't releasing their source.
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
In the other world, there's Novell who seems to be doing a lot of OSS-hugging lately. I believe SUSE's YAST is going open along with a few of Novell's very own formerly closed-source stuff. Sure, they may not be opening up the keys to the kingdom (not sure if they are or not) but at least they're visibly cooperating with the Open Source community.
SUN still contributes to OO.org stuff so we can't really rip them on that. However, they remain at the very least lukewarm to OSS. They offer Linux because their customers ask for it, they say. They package a Java Desktop where the word "Java" seems a bit out of place...I think banking on name recognition more than anything else. They killed off the cobalt servers. Just not very Open Source-friendly as far as their PR campaign seems to be going.
Open Source Java? A stern no is the answer. I guess they'll still need to hang on to something while the boat sinks. Might as well be a cup of strong hot coffee.
Unix will be back. Really, it will! Everything is beautiful! Don't worry! Be happy! Customers will return to Solaris one day! After all, if schwartz said it, it must be true.
and even scott is a believer:
The "fad will wear off, and big business will come back to solaris".
Sun, don't worry, everything is great. Everybody else should wake up and smell the java.
"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM.
Hmmm... Now there's an idea I could get behind. Maybe. Although I'm not sure how much a database product would benefit from community involvement. IBM has already ported it to just about everything. The free (as in beer) aspect would probably kill off Oracle and SQL Server pretty quick, though.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
some amazing solutions would show up for Java that will probably never appear with it being closed source.
like what?
so is Java
You could buy a program and run it on OS X, Linux, Windows, or whatever.
you can do just that with any Java app today
I code in Java for a living. I don't think open-sourcing it or not has anything to do with Java's current problems in the marketplace. Just my 2 cents.
there's no place like ~
One of the big problems with Java is the license. Here are some issues that real people have faced:
1.) RedHat couldn't put a JVM in their desktop OS w/out including the Java license in anaconda and having the end user agree to it at install time. As a result, RedHat couldn't set up Netscape and Mozilla to run Java applets seamlessly and out of the box.
2.) FreeBSD couldn't include Sun's JDK in the ports tree out-of-the-box. An admin pays $$$ for cut CDs or spends time to download ISOs so that they don't have to do a network install. When they find go to build Java on FreeBSD they are told by the ports tree to go "agree to Sun's license and download the JDK from http://java.sun.com/blah/blah/blah". Not only is it annoying to have to download an extra component that isn't included on the ISO, it leaves a poor taste in the admins mouth for Java. And come on - admins are the last people developers want to irritate.
I can understand Sun's position with not open sourcing Java. Although relatively uninformed on the topic, I don't see any prevailing reason to make it open source - there are open source implementations of the JDK other than Sun's - go with them. But for cripes sake change the farking license.
It is a sad sad statement that I, as an enterprise java developer of 6 years, am unable to get applets to work appropriately on my Linux desktop.
Do it for da shorties
Is that Sun's problem or the Distro's problem?
Someone who doesn't know enough to install the JDK on their computer on their own from a package that is already included in their distro (just not in the 'free' section) probably wouldn't be able to develop in it. If you like java, you can install it, you can use it.
Maybe the linux distributors should be a little more open regarding what programs they would like to include.
Look at sourceforge. The number of open source projects written with java is huge.
It's not sun that's going to lose out by not open sourcing java. I'm not trying to sound negative. People are deploying java apps on linux all the time. Especially web applications.
It seems like the OS community wants sun to do it out of principle. None of the arguments made really hold up in my opinion.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
Because many distros will not ship [Jave because it it] non-free software by default. They are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
They refers to the distros that are so caught up in the OSS religion that they won't ship a useful and decent free (as in beer) language because it's not fee (as in liberty), right?
everything in moderation
Why do people think making something Open Source is unanimously good? Indeed, in this case I think Open Sourc-ing Java would be a bad move. Java has a slew of sattelite ecosystems and things that are portrayed as "technologies" themselves. I think Java desperately needs a backbone on which those entites can rely on for stability. In fact I think this is why Java is a little too popular. Now days you cannot get a Java project without being required know J2EE, JNDI, JABC, JDEF, JJJ, and fifteen other acronyms. The whole thing has become an exercise in marketing. Now factor in the coup de gras of different permutations created by Open Source people and you're thuroughly confusing the situation.
Incedentally, isn't it strange how the Java API can evolve so much and yet despite the holes in POSIX no one has even considered changing it.
By all means, ask for x86 support. But DON'T KILL SUN. Now is not the time to ask for Java to be open sourced. It would be a good thing, however, to extract from them, some promise that as Java evolves, some earlier version can be open-sourced.
Actually this would not be a problem only with Linux, but even across other operating systems.
Like I indicated in another post, there is nothing to stop Microsoft from having their own "windows-only" forked version of Java. And nothing to stop from the GNU/Debian crowd to have their own "puritanical" version. And nothing to stop from IBM to have their own "enterprise-ready" version of Java.
If you notice, even in case of Linux, Linus and a handful of others actually maintain the core kernel code. In case of language, it would be difficult to have this kind of a central point of control - the forking would be really hard to control, and would only lead to more confusion and more complexity, not to mention serious incompatibility issues - all of which flies against the very principles that Java has been built on.
People are naturally asking "What does open sourcing Java get us?"
My answer is "Java on the desktop", where it has been an abysmal failure. Yep, there's three or four applications you can point at that are the exception... now show me 20 or 30 common Java desktop applications.
Imagine Java + QT or Java + GTK. I'm a Python partisan and frankly pretty much hate Java, but you know, stick a decent, time-test GUI toolkit on it and I might consider developing with it in the future, especially in light of the other improvements being made to it.
(Being able to program in Java without making me gag would probably improve my employability long term, though I'm still running successfully with "if I never learn Java I'll never have to program in it" without limiting myself as much as you might think...)
I code in Java for a living. I don't think open-sourcing it or not has anything to do with Java's current problems in the marketplace.
In fact, it would only make it worse - Opensource it and you will have serious issues with version control and compatibility.
As it is, getting enterprise level applications running together in Java is not an easy task - bring in more forks and incompatibility and you will kill the language.
Sometimes, standardisation through a central point of control can be a good thing.
If sun followed the linux model - and key engineers at sun reviewed each change and made sure that it was ok to add to the release, and followed through everything openly, then it would work.
Your argument doesn't hold water. Where are all the forks of linux? Just because its a language does not mean it will fork and fracture. Perl isn't forked to hell. Nor is python. Nor are many open source languages.
If sun truly believed in open source (and I don't believe they do), then this would be a great step forward for them.
And McNealy's challenge to IBM to open source db2 is silly too; sun makes no money from selling java licenses (duh, they're free), where as IBM does make money from db2.
Just like there are dozens of incompatible versions of Python and Perl right?
There is something that is call historical momentium... if you show decent leadership at the start of an OSS project you most often won't be forked....
As long Sun didn't OS-it under a BSD license I doubt MS would touch it with a very long poll, doubley so now that they are pushing their own CShit.
You've never had to write code that compiles under multiple compilers for multiple platforms, have you?
One of the driving forces behind Java's evolution was the fragmentation of the C++ camp.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
If Sun suddenly dies (as many have been doing in the industry), who is left to maintain the code?
Don't say "Oh that won't happen." We've heard that before -- and it did. The question now is alot of their code "who's going to maintain/support it?"
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
You forget the fact that companies that have vested interests in killing Java *cough* a certain Seattle based company *cough* could use this against Java.
.Net? Microsoft has everything to gain by killing it - it would only more people to use their platform.
I'm NOT starting a flame war here - but Microsoft does not really consider Perl or Python to be a serious contender as Java.
What do you think really inspired Visual Studio
Right now, Java gives people the freedom of platform - if in any way killing it or changing it in a way that makes it beneficial to MSFT, they WILL do it.
Look at perl for example. Do you think it would be where it is today if it were closed source? It would probably be some hack that about 2 guys use.
Another poster already pointed out how java already meets all the criteria you posit as possibly attainable by java [only] were it open source. But I just wanted to point out that your post is wild speculation; you have zero knowledge about what Perl would be were it not-open source or what Java would be were it. As such, your post is devoid of any meaningful insight whatsoever, yet it attained +5 Insightful status before my very eyes.
I can only hope that meta-moderation repairs that; meanwhile no one has indicated any single (likely) benefit to Sun or Java programmers that will (likely) come from open-sourcing Java, without just staing this claim tautologically. Yet many, such as yourself, have strutted about empty arguments encouraging Sun to open Java source. I don't get it. Why?
everything in moderation
I've been working in an all-Java shop for close to 5 years now. One of the big headaches with Sun is the unenthusiastic response to some of the more obscure problems/bugs in the core API (especially around socket handling from what I've seen). Sun gives them low priority because they only affect sophisticated applications (touching rarely used parts of the API) where workarounds might be available. Man, there's a pointless stack trace dump in the HTML parser that's been annoyimg me for at LEAST 3 years. Some of these bugs have literally been out there for years. That would never fly in the open source community.
Of course, I can see their point of view also. Java is Sun's creation and giving it away does lose them a shiny badge of honor, since they wouldn't be able to market Java success as their own. And, open source APIs tend to advance so quickly that not-so-old APIs become obsoleted and incompatible. Open sourcers tend to be up to date with versioning, but this can become a big problem in corporate settings where a customer demands Java version X.1 for their environment, but your product ships with Java version X.2 (or vice versa). Java has essentially been backwards compatible since it's inception, disregarding the new classes.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Care to explain how Java's license that forbids distribution the fault of the distributor?
> Wouldn't you say that religious fervor is preventing those distros from realizing the benefits of a very good language?
*silence*
*the OSS judges confer for 10 minutes looking confused*
*cough*
Someone gets up and yells, "Burn the witch!!!"
Problem solved.
Open sourcing Java is not a panacea.
/.)...
I agree that ultimately it'll probably make it a better language, but it will take plenty of time for the benefits to realize themselves, and in the mean time, as the language get stagnant, it'll probably be eclipsed by C#. Look at Netscape/Mozilla for example. Open sourcing Navigator ultimately led to a better browser, but how long did it take before a version 1.0 of Mozilla was finally released? During that time, while Navigator was stuck in 4.x limbo, IE overtook it easily. Furthermore, despite Mozilla being open sourced, its evolution is guided closely by Mozilla.org. Java have a similar guiding entity, it's called JCP (Java Community Process). A board anyone can join and contribute to. Besides, Java's API's are clearly documented, and other companies can make a compatible JVM (IBM, Apple, and BEA all did). And the sources for the classes included with the JDK's are freely available.
Look at perl for example... But no, it's on the standard distribution of just about any UNIX-like OS out there, and many websites use mod perl with Apache to get some great results (including
This logic doesn't explain the tremendous growth Java has enjoyed on the server side. J2EE technologies are implemented widely on the Internet, and there are plenty of web applications (and tools) build using Java (Tomcat, Ant, etc.).
-B
I can't really see what Sun has to gain from open-sourcing Java either.
The open-source community is more than capable of building it's own Java clone e.g. Kaffe and supporting Java technologies e.g. gcj if it wants to, and Sun have every right to hold onto their Java implementation, if they feel it best suits their business goals.
I know I am quite happy using the Java packages provided by Sun and IBM, and agree with McNealy in that IBM should shut their mouth about open source Java unless they are prepared to open source their technologies as well.
Sun is most likely concerned, and rightly so, about the prospect of IBM pulling an 'Eclipse' on the core JVM.
IBM is a ruthless, anti-competitive mega-corporation, and it is easy to forget that in light of the SCO debacle etc., where they are portrayed as the good guys.
I dont think the community at large has any real stake in this particular battle - The Java standards are open, we are free to implement them in whatever way we see fit. If you want to see open source Java, then support the open source Java efforts like Kaffe, and leave Sun alone.
Normally, i'm quite a Sun-detractor, but I think in this case, they are being unfairly beaten up on about an issue that is quite clearly a non-issue.
If you want Java you can get it for free, and if you want to implement a VM that runs Java code, you are also free to do that, supported by detailed information and specification by Sun.
I doubt most of the people baying for blood over this issue would have any interest in improving Java were it to be released as open source, and it's not like there arent plenty of existant open source Java-related projects that couldn't do with your help anyway.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Time makes more converts than reason
Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
I personally wasn't aware of the degree to which this was an issue until I installed FreeBSD. Sun doesn't supply a native JVM for it, and it's current license puts a lot of restrictions complicating the optimization of a free JVM for FreeBSD.
You can get it running, but you have to jump through hoops, agreeing to Sun's source license, and then downloading it from Sun's site before you can compile a version for your PC. After you apply patches created by someone that worked very hard to get the thing to run on your OS, the compile process takes a long time.
The worst part, though, is that it is slow on FreeBSD compared to other operating systems running on the same hardware. Very little can be done until Sun truly open sources Java.
The primary solution people have taken to is creating patches to solve the problems Sun's code has running on different platforms. This has several drawbacks. One is that the patches take time to develop, creating a lag in versions. The second is that the patched versions rarely get true testing, so you can only hope it works with your application, and that something unexpected doesn't surprise you down the road. Most people creating these patches don't have access to Sun's highly priced compatibility test suite.
The irony is that the compatibility Sun want's to maintain is eroded already by Sun's reluctance to both open source Java and make the test suite more accessible. This decision also decreases the platforms that Java can run on, the opposite of one of Sun's stated goals.
A lot of people take it for granted when they install a pre-compiled JVM downloaded from Sun's website on one of the operating systems Sun happens to support. Let me know, please, when Sun releases a FreeBSD JVM, and solves problems the OpenBSD people have had getting it to run correctly.
Open Standards Portal
Let's say there was a fork, Sun holds the trademark to the Java name so said fork could not promote itself as "Java." If it did, it would have a lawsuit on its hands that is a guaranteed loss.
If it forked, it would become some other language, and people could decide to use it or not based on its merits. However, those in the Java camp would know where to look for the Java they want.
Furthermore, example proves this point. We have languages like Perl, Python, Ruby and countless others that are doing just fine in the open source world.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
The license does not prohibit redistribution. Debian has just decided the license doesn't suit them is all. That's Debian's issue not Sun's.
For the record here are the re-distribution clauses from the 1.4.2_04JDK:
Linux VPS hosting *with* Sun JVMs
(vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.
That, for instance, does not sound like a term that any distro would be particularily happy with (or, in the case of a community effort like Debian, even possible).
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
"they" are almost every distro out there. And "they" do not include Java for pretty good, license-related reasons.
And no, this is Sun:s problem, not the distributions. A good deal of people that would have been using Java for their applications are instead happily using Python, Perl, C/C++ or, rarely but increasingly often,even Mono/C# for their development. Those people were Sun's to loose, and they did.
Right now we have the situation that even Sun is doing all their GNOME contributions in C/C++, as Java is not acceptable as part of the core desktop at this time (neither is Mono/C#, of course - no need to start a flamewar here). In fact, we will likely see Python (and maybe Perl) accepted as core technologies for the desktop (for both GNOME and KDE) long before we see Java - and by then, it may be too late for Java no matter what happens. Of course, that is a problem for Sun (and for dedicated Java developers), not for the distros or for the general user/developer population.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I also question the benefit to open source java. Microsoft Java? Maybe, but they built C# because Sun took them to task for violating their license, and creating a "write once, run on Microsoft" version. I don't really see any compelling arguments for making it open source. IBM, BlackBerry, and other java SDKs without an open source license, and there is a community process for submitting changes to the specs.
It's not just about specs. Implementations matter. If Sun's reference implementation isn't open source, the language isn't really free.
I can understand Sun's initial reluctance to open-source Java years ago -- Microsoft would have (probably successfully) embraced and extended Java, as they indeed tried to do. At the time, the closed license was beneficial.
Here's the compelling reason for Sun to open-source Java now -- Microsoft no longer has an incentive to embrace and extend Java. They've done an end-run around the Java license by reimplementing a virtually identical language and calling it C# instead of Java. Microsoft will keep pushing C# over Java, and they're already successfully stealing away significant mindshare from Java. Microsoft has proven their ability to (illegally) leverage their monopoly position to acquire new markets. I hate to say it, but in the battle of C# vs. Java, the smart money is probably on C# unless something changes.
Making the Sun reference implementation completely open-source would change the rules of the game. Microsoft might try to subvert it again, but there really wouldn't be any point; C# does the job equally well. More importantly, the rest of the industry would embrace Java even more than it already has, and it could serve to steal mindshare back from C# despite Microsoft's monopoly advantage. This is a compelling reason to do it.
"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM.
I have no doubt this remark was sarcastic on McNealy's part, but suppose IBM takes it seriously? If IBM wants Java open-sourced badly enough, would they consider making DB2 open-source as a sort of trade? If IBM responded with an offer to enter into a contract at Sun for both Java and DB2 to be open-sourced together (and conditionally on each other), would McNealy take IBM up on the offer? Or would he just find a new excuse to refuse to relinquish control over the code?
It seems that Sun still hasn't learned their lesson from the NeWS debacle of the late 80s. While NeWS was clearly superior technology at the time, X11 was free in every sense. And it mattered. NeWS fans (including me) could see the writing on the wall, and complained that Sun should make NeWS as free as X11. ("Open Source" wasn't a term coined yet, of course.) Of course, Sun refused, and NeWS died a slow and terrible death at the hands of an inferior (but free) competitor. Even now, Sun shows little interest in making NeWS free, when its value as an "asset" is zero. Will Sun maintain a similar deathgrip on Java until it too lands in the dustbins of history, while the world settles on C# instead of Java, as with X11 and NeWS?
Sun, learn from your mistakes. There was a time when Java's license prevented abuse by Microsoft, but that time has passed. C# is Microsoft's new approach to "embrace and extend" Java, and the only effective way to counter it is to make Java fully open-source now, before C# inexorably crushes Java. The writing is on the wall yet again -- don't let Java die the same lingering death that NeWS suffered!
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
There are numerous licenses in existence that would allow Sun to maintain their closed source product that probably would not be against RedHat policy.
.so file into your browser (rarely do the already compiled .so files line up with your browser version), put out a dozen or so different sub releases (JDK 1.4.2_03 build 13? come on...), and then watch with confused looks on their faces as Flash takes over the world of client side GUI development.
I think the crux of the issue with RedHat is that:
a.) Sun wants you to download Java only from Sun
b.) RedHat wants to redistribute Java via the RedHat end user license.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't understand why Sun can't just let "other people" (RedHat, FreeBSD, etc) distributed their binary code without checking in at Sun.com first.
As a java developer who earns an income based upon Java's success, I really want to see Java succeed on the desktop because it opens up more development avenues for me and other java developers. And I think that Sun has an interest in java succeeding on the desktop as well (their Java Desktop would seem to indicate this). With technologies like Flash that are so nice looking, so easy to install, and lots of times already integrated on your platform - you would think that Sun would be doing __everything_in_its_power__ to help foster the growth of java on the desktop.
I would think Java would be out there lobbying Dell and Compaq pumping them to install WebStart on their desktops. Or put in an up-to-date JRE into IE. Or . . . put in a stinking applet viewer into the Mozilla that ships with the Linux distro most commodity users install.
But they don't. Instead they sit back, come up with a dozen or so mime-types that represent a Java Applet, make it prohibitively difficult to install the correct
Come on Sun. Wake up! I want java to succeed on the desktop as much as you do. You guys clearly haven't figured out how to make Java pervasive - maybe us assclowns at home can figure it out. Just give up the EULA rights to Java so that one of us can figure out how to do, patch it into a vanilla distro (like Fedora), and let you reach the end users you've failed to reach since you came up with applets years ago.
There's nothing like knowing a solvable problem exists that you can't even begin to troubleshoot because some asshat lawyer somewhere wants you to sign their EULA instead of the one from another company (which is frequently the same stinking one).
Do it for da shorties
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sun does make money from Java. They license certification tools so that people can claim 100% Pure Java Certified and use the java logo. They make money from licensing the source code, they make money from licensing distribution rights for the JRE and JDK.
While you can distribute the JRE, you can only do so if you aren distributing it for the purpose of running your application.
You cannot distribute the JDK unless you pay for that right.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
I read this as SUN forbidding Debian to package their JVM in a Debian package.
do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software
This would mean Debian wouldn't be allowed to ship with gcj, Jikes RVM, JRockit, Kaffe or whatever. To me it sounds quite unreasonable for SUN to want to be able to veto what can go into Debian.
defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software
So SUN wants Debian to pay their legal fees? Silly Debian for not wanting to do that.
To me these terms sound quite unreasonable, I know I wouldn't want to adhere to them if I could decide what went into Debian.
Installed the Bubblemon yet?
Okay, look. There just isn't any point to having an open source Sun JVM.
.NET? To a barely-operable Mono or the much-hated Microsoft? I don't think so.
* The specs are open (the big problem with MS is that they work hard to make it a pain in the ass for anyone to make compatible software).
* The specs are all that should be needed. There is *tons* of open source software out there that is RFC-compliant. Guess what? The RFCs don't come with free, public domain reference implementations. They just describe a standard. For *decades*, people have been quite happy with a nice open standard. Who needs the source?
* Sun's JVM is good, but not great. There are lots of people working on JVMs out there -- there is *no lack* of open source JVMs. There must be at least thirty JVMs out there, not counting variations produced by a single company. AFAIK, IBM's JVM is the highest-performance thing out there (for Linux at least) and if we're demanding that something be open-sourced based on the fact that it's really good, I'd like to see IBM open-source theirs.
* It works fine. We have had no problems with the current system. Sun has not tried to leverage their JVM to screw people over, and I don't see how or why they'd do so in the future.
* There is no good alternative. What are people going to threaten Sun with, switching to
* There is a good set of tools to support Java out there.
* There are open-source alternatives that will probably take over eventually anyway. GCJ is slowly moving along. Why, aside from some kind of symbolism, do people care about using Sun's JVM? Just let GCJ get up to speed and get nice native-code Java builds. Instead of trying to beg for favors from Sun, why not work on GCJ? Sun probably spent more developing the language, docs, and marketing Java than they do developing their particular JVM implementation, anyway.
Given a choice between having Sun's JVM open source or not...yeah, sure, I'd prefer to have it open source. But if I really can't stand using a closed one, I can download Kaffe or one of the other JVMs on freshmeat. I'm not going to avoid Java because one JVM happens to be closed-source. If I avoid Java, it would be for high resource usage and issues with the language, not for some silly political issue.
May we never see th