Slashdot Mirror


Criticizing Sun's Java Desktop System

An anonymous reader writes "Uh-oh. PJ is not a happy camper. 'Sun has made its choice and opted for The Way Things Used To Be,' she declares in a Linux Viewpoint at LinuxWorld. 'It's a new world, and Sun is not in it,' she declares. Her gripe is with the Java Desktop System, which she argues is grossly cavalier with the GPL and doesn't properly acknowledge its roots. Her main objection: 'You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have.' Feisty read, as ever, from Groklaw's founder and editor. That Jonesian coinage 'GNU/Linuxy' is worth the read alone!"

43 of 624 comments (clear)

  1. Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? by jrj102 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've never understood why the Open Source community is so quick to praise Sun, and pretend like Java it's an Open/Free technology... it's not. Is it a good, elegant language? Yes. Is it Open? No. Downloadable source code does not make Open software-- the key is in the licensing. IBM gets Open Source a lot more than Sun does, but doesn't get nearly as much credit.

    I totally agree with the notion that the Java Desktop (which IS basically a Linux distro) doesn't sufficiently acknowledge its Linux roots. I also think that their licensing of the Java Desktop is WAY too restrictive and closed to fit within the constraints imposed by the GNU-licensed technologies that are part of it. I just don't understand why people are surprised. Why would you expect them to do anything differently than they have in the past? They make pretty good stuff... but to pretend like they are an Open Source advocate is a mistake.

    Of course, with that said, Sun has an army of lawyers... I'm sure they are not technically violating the GNU. They know better.

    --- JRJ

    1. Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? by minotaurcomputing · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I think that a popular view is that if one can look at a program's source, then it is open source... not one that I share, but one that is out there in the ether.

    2. Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? by jrj102 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >if one can look at a program's source, then it is open source

      By that Rationalle, Windows is Open Source.

      (Yes, I know you weren't advocating the view point, just pointing it out.)

      --- JRJ

    3. Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? by minotaurcomputing · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "By that Rationalle"

      Yeah, but when I install windows the source isn't sitting there waiting for me to check it out. Not only that, but MS has made it abundantly clear that if you check out there source by other means than those that they provide, then you will get stomped.

      (I understand your point, I'm just trying to continue with this thread of conversation)

    4. Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you can look at the source, and contribute back changes, it is "Open". What it is not is "Free". I'm not sure how the meaning of Open changed, but it sure seems to have, at least around slashdot, or assorted GNU/Minions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? by jrj102 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >If you can look at the source, and contribute back changes, it is "Open".

      I contend that if a company can (and does) sue you for making a change or an extension to the technology that they don't like then it isn't Open.

      --- JRJ

    6. Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But you're talking about freedom from responsibility; you want to be indemnified. This is about Freedom, not about Openness. A door is open, I can walk inside; I may be tresspassing, so I am not free to do so.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? by Gumshoe · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If you can look at the source, and contribute back changes, it is "Open". What it is not is "Free".


      Absolutely. And this is the reason why Stallman is so vocal about Free software and why he doesn't actively support the Open Source movement. I have nothing against Open Source but it's rejection of political activism is unfortunate in my opinion. Yes, it has had many victories, convincing companies into the fold who might have rejected Free software otherwise (Netscape or IBM being notable examples) but the current Sun debacle demonstrates how the weakening of core beliefs can damage the goals of the movement.

      As it stands I don't know if the Open Source split was a good thing or a bad thing. I like to think it is but I'm really not sure.
  2. Why trust them? by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they have no loyality to their own employees, what makes you think they will have any loyality to you?

  3. Please Tell Me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Her gripe is with the Java Desktop System, which she argues is grossly cavalier with the GPL and doesn't properly acknowledge its roots.

    Please tell me where in the GPL does it state that you have to acknowledge its roots or pay its proper respects.

    As long as it complies, it's fine. Why does everything have to bow down and act like the GPL is all holy?

    This is another example how how un-free the GPL philosphy is, and why BSD licensing is the best way to go.

    1. Re:Please Tell Me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh good god.
      BSD is best...no gpl is best.. no licence X is best..

      get over it. They all have advantages and disadvantages.
      BSD is a great licence and fosters innovation, but if the original work is not kept up, spin offs may be non-free and so it does not have a guaranteed lasting effect.
      GLP has a guaranteed lasting freedom to it, but at the price that it has trouble combining with other licences.
      Non-free stuff works when it's profitable, and the company that owns the code decides they want it proprietary to keep their advantage in the market.

    2. Re:Please Tell Me.. by ADRA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She isn't arguing the legal stand-point of Sun's position. She's arguing that sun is 'using' the community without being a good neighbor. They want to reap the rewards of the community without paying respect back.

      IBM may sell billions in Linux and they definitly contribute to Linux for (among other things) profit, but they also actively promote the community, and their practices.

      The article Pamela quoted makes Sun out to be the same old corporate game of playing friendly until you have the upper hand, then locking in like they always have.

      If Sun really wants to play with OSS in the long run, they have top start shutting up these inconsistent spouting mouthpieces.

      --
      Bye!
    3. Re:Please Tell Me.. by Gumshoe · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No, I guess you're right. Because SOMEBODY might use it for profit, you'd best make sure NOBODY can use it for profit. Yeah, that's the ticket.


      Oh for god's sake. The GNU GPL doesn't prevent people from making a profit. Where in the "rules of capitalism" does it say that only proprietary software can result in profit? Do you think IBM would have anything to do with the GPL if there was no profit incentive.

      For the record, I have nothing against the modified BSD licence and even advocate its application in certain instances, but to compare it to the GNU GPL and claim that it is somehow more sympathetic to capitalism because it permits proprietary derivatives is pure FUD.
    4. Re:Please Tell Me.. by TheRealSlimShady · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The GNU GPL doesn't prevent people from making a profit.

      Of course it does - it allows you to redistribute anything released under the GPL for nothing, or for as low a cost as you like. It doesn't matter how much money the original author wants to sell it for, someone else could buy it and redistribute it for nothing. The only way people really get around this is to use trademarks (you can't resell RedHat as Redhat - it's theirs) or include some proprietary value add with it.

    5. Re:Please Tell Me.. by StormReaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Please tell me where in the GPL does it state that you have to acknowledge its roots or pay its proper respects."

      Section 2. Specifically section 2c, though the end user is only required to be explicitly informed of the GPL roots under certain circumstances.

      I really can't fault Sun for not doing what is not required. Doing so would score brownie points with the community, and would therefore increase its goodwill asset, but Sun is not violating its obligations at this time regarding what PJ brought up.

      It sound like Sun desperately wants to alienate the community in the future, though, when the exec talks about including closed Microsoft technology in Sun's distribution.

  4. GPL Acknowledgment. by Luke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    she argues is grossly cavalier with the GPL and doesn't properly acknowledge its roots.

    The GPL doesn't say "Thou shalt display in bright big banners the license of this software". Yeesh. Why not look for real license violations instead of bitching about this?

    1. Re:GPL Acknowledgment. by fwarren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Life will go on if GPL is not openly acknowledged.

      The real thing, is that sun wants to license software like the realplayer, and technology from Microsoft. They want a world where they can charge $x per seat, and lock you in. They want RedHat and everone else to go away.

      They want a Sun Java Deskop with licensed technolgy to be the standard. They want the "Linux Desktop" to be considered a toy without this stuff. They want to force the point that RealPlayer should be licensed, not included free. They want to be the "One Distro" that binds them all "with licensed" software.

      --
      vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
  5. what is wrong with people by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "'You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have.' "

    Yeah, why should they know, does it really matter, no. Sun can put it in there if they want. People companies are using linux for what it's worth. Why do some think that if someone is using linux they must spread the virtures of it and be a sales person for it. Also not having mention fo GNU, or GPL doesn't change what it is. In the end it's the software that matters. If you base how good something is on the if it's GPL or not your pretty much out of it.

    Does Intel need to show in their end product what brand chairs the engineers at intel sit in? Does GM need to put stickers all over there cars saying what brand steel was used for the fenders?

  6. Why acknowledge? by NineNine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is another case of OSS people saying, "I gave my stuff away for free... now it's not fair." To this I say, sorry kids. You gave it away for free. You're not entitled to money or acknowledgement of any kind. Sure, that's great if somebody gives you a pat on the head and says, "Now that's a good little coder. Go back to work and build me something good. I have to re-upholster my jet." But you're not entitled to it, and expecting as such is ridiculous. As long as Sun does what the "license" says, they don't have to acknowledge squat.

    1. Re:Why acknowledge? by Luke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You gave it away for free. You're not entitled to money or acknowledgement of any kind.

      Excellent point. I would also add that so much high-quality software is available for free it has the effect of devaluing the worth of what programmers do. It's something that a brilliant coder should consider first before giving away their hard work - you have to weigh the advantages with the disadvantages.

  7. I'm just too old, now.... by joshsnow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have.'

    I'm just too old for all of this misguided zealotry. Sun and Java are one of the (many) reasons Linux based systems are making such tremendous inroads into corporate-land.

    And lest we all forget, winning corporates means winning mind-share. Winning mindshare means linux based systems become more of a de facto standad everywhere.

    I quite understand why sun wish to leverage Java and Linux - it's a magic combination. I can't understand why the author of the article wishes to leverage this tired, old zealotry.

  8. How about sucking it up? by The+Bungi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The GNU tools and the Linux kernel are released under a license that allows this very thing. This sounds exactly like Stallman's stupid rant about how everyone should call it "GNU/Linux" because "that's the right thing to do". If the people who release software under licenses like the GPL don't like this, then may I suggest a change of license?

    In any case, just like he did with XEmacs and everything else that uses his software in accordance to his license, I'm sure RMS will start calling it "GNU/Java Desktop" whenever he can.

    If this woman wants to see some touchy-feely good akcnowledgements from a corporation she (and everyone else) is in for a big disappointment.

    This is where the rubber meets the road, and you can't have it both ways. As long as your license is not being violated, suck it up or stop releasing software under it. It's that simple.

  9. are the GPL terms being met? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If so, then don't complain.

    The GPL is about Free software and the "software freedoms" defined by the FSF. It is remarkably well-defined, even more well-defined than some closed-source EULAs. It doesn't say anything about advocacy or trademarks (yes, believe it or not, it doesn't say "GNU/Linux" ANYWHERE).

    It doesn't say "in order to use this software you must share RMS' political beliefs" or "you must love and cherish Free software" or "you must go above and beyond the terms of the license even if it doesn't make any business sense" or "no profits allowed". It doesn't specify what point type the words "contains Free software" should be printed in, in fact it doesn't have any such requirement at all. Yes, I'm sure RMS would love it if you did all that, but he is wise enough not to put that in the legal text.

    One of the great things about the GPL is that it doesn't require any of this stuff. You can ignore it UNLESS you are distributing copies. And once distributing copies, you have some pretty clear rules to follow. You can love the GPL without being a Free software fanatic.

    I think it's a great world where you can buy software in a box with commercial support, yet still enjoy the basic rights of viewing the source and making copies for all your machines or friends. It seems to me that in such a world, companies wouldn't go out of their way to advertise the GNU/Linuxy-ness of it, would they?

    Just follow the terms of the GPL. Beyond that, do whatever is in your own best interests.

  10. For what? by Ignatius_VI · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's good to know the roots of things, but why does the average user care about the GPL? The JDS was designed as competition against Microsoft to get corporations to switch from Windows.

    Why would an employee care that they are using open source software?

    Do you know the roots of your car? Who founded the company? If the answer is yes, you like cars and that's why you know it...same reason why you would know about the GPL. If the answer is no, then I make my point.

  11. Xfree86 by bcore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, let me get this straight..

    -Xfree86 is evil because they have a license that forces distributors to acknowledge their work.

    -Java Desktop is evil because they don't acknowledge the work they use.

    *confused*

    1. Re:Xfree86 by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So, let me get this straight..

      -Xfree86 is evil because they have a license that forces distributors to acknowledge their work.

      -Java Desktop is evil because they don't acknowledge the work they use.

      Let me re-write that and you will see that the positions are not so confusing:
      -XFree86 is distributed under a license that makes it impossible to re-distribute under the GPL.
      -Java desktop may be violating the spirit if not the wording of the GPL.

      There, it's quite consistent -- the issue is that the GPL is the favorite license of /.-ers and /.-ers don't like people who violate the GPL.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  12. Here's the comparison by ScottGant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sun = Saruman

    Microsoft = Sauron

    Someone should point out to Sun before they get into bed with Microsoft: "There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power"

    --

    "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
  13. Why is PJ commenting in the first place? by bangular · · Score: 4, Insightful

    PJ is not a programmer, lawyer, or analyst, she is a paralegal. I don't see why her comments are newsworthy to begin with. It seems PJ just looks for things to be high and mighty about sometimes. A lot of noob friendly distros attempt to hide the fact you're using linux. So what? Lindows renames a lot of programs to generic names; such as renaming Mozilla to "Web Browser" and things of that nature. How many people actually know their linksys router is a linux based product. Or that their DVR runs linux. Complaining about something like that becomes complaining just for the sake of being a zealot.

  14. Clue-By-Four for previous posters by OWJones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I sense a lot of bitter BSD developers thinking they've caught a Linux advocate in an instance of blatant hypocracy. HA-HA! We had that advertising clause, but you pushy GPL people kept nagging us over that clause until we finally gave in, but now you're bitching about the same thing!!!

    THWACK!!!

    From the GPL, Section 1

    You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. [emphasis mine]

    Notice that the GPL requires you to display the license agreement, not the names of the developers. The GPL requires that you notify the users and developers who obtain a copy of this code that they have certain freedoms and certain obligations. If Sun is hiding the GPL they may be in violation of Section 1.

    For those who are saying that anyone who licenses their work under the GPL and "gives it away" deserves to have their work distributed absent the appropriate copyright notice, grow up. The work is not "given away", it is licensed; placing a work in the public domain is "giving it away" since the author(s) retain no control whatsoever over the work. A rudimentary understanding of copyright law would clue you in. PJ may be a bit zealous in her attack on Sun, but in all likelihood she knows the GPL and copyright law a hell of a lot better than you (or I) do.

    PJ's complaint: not about advertising, but about licensing. For those who still can't understand the difference, there are places where you can get help.

    -jdm

  15. Shame on Sun by Teckla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That does it!

    I'm going to take a break from writing Java software using Sun's JDK, and boot up OpenOffice, and I'm going to write a letter to Sun, saying they never contribute anything! I'm going to save the document via NFS to my department file server, and get everyone to send their own copy of it to Sun! I'm so mad, I have half a mind to shutdown my x86 machine that runs Solaris!

    Those greedy bastards! They never give anything to the community! WE DESERVE FREE HAND-OUTS!

  16. Excuse my bias by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally, I think the notion of Sun's Java Desktop to be entirely underwhelming. Almost pointless in fact.
    Actually, if it were a post on Slashdot, I'd moderate it redundant, if it weren't at -1 redundant already.

    From what I've read at the Sun site, you get something based on SuSe with a hacked up Gnome front end and Java tied into as many things they could think of. Nothing reveloutionary... seems mainly to be an attempt to get StarOffice in front of people who might not otherwise even know it exists.... in fact, isn't this part of the walmart deal? So I guess that would explain it. Sun Java Desktop is for the walmart shopper and not the Linux/OSS initiate.

    So in that light, it makes perfect sense to try to put the wizard behind the curtain and let the user deal with the smoke and mirrors, The average Walmart user will generally be too clueless to know what it really is other than that it's not windows.
    When looked at in that perspective, it actually makes sense to hide the underpinnings as much as possible, lest the curious and ignorant do something catastrophic since the more advanced users would be able to figure it out anyway.

    Personally, if you want a unix-like system with a great desktop UI and productivity/development software, go with Apple if you can afford it. Linux on the desktop is still a few years off, AFAIAC.

  17. Sun, oh Sun, what has happened to you? by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yesterday I was helping my friend get set up with a Java application she needs. She's a fairly experienced Windows user. She needed to install the Sun JRE 1.4 to get this thing to work. She needed help from me, and a bit of exploring on java.sun.com, to find out which is the right file for her to download to get this thing working. If Sun wants MS Windows users to upgrade to be able to run Java apps easily and painlessly, there needs to be a big link right on java.sun.com saying "Windows users, click here to download Java for your system." Such a link does not exist and the user has to figure out "do I want NetBeans (no), do I need a SDK (no), do I need J2ME (no), do I need the JRE (yes)". Ridiculous. How is she supposed to understand the Java technology family in order to know how to navigate this? Is Sun trying to kill Java? Is there some secret Microsoft/SCO/Knights Templar conspiracy infiltrating in Sun? Ok, probably no on that last one...

    And now the Sun "Java" Desktop, which presumably comes with Java built in, but does that mean you can double-click on a .jar file and your app starts up? No. You have to write a shell script, or add an icon with a command like "java -classpath foo.jar ..." to get it to work.

    Sun, what are you thinking?

    Maybe expecting Sun to move from the world of big servers, where expecting users to write a shell script is perfectly acceptable, to the world of desktops, where users should be able to do everything just by clicking in an obvious place and without having to understand the difference between an ELF file and a JAR, is too much to ask.

    An authentic Java desktop would be, in my opinion, one in which all the work gets done in Java. That means a Java office suite, a Java window manager, a Java file explorer. This is completely doable, and Java is a fantastic environment for doing those things (I know, you will flame me saying Java sucks, Java is slow, etc, sorry, that isn't true anymore). I would love to see such a desktop environment, and it would have fantastic security and portability advantages. A real Java-based OS is the only thing that has a real chance of competing with Linux, I believe (ok, I will get majorly flamed for that, but it's true).

    I think that if Sun is serious about this, the way forward is:

    • Partner up with Suse/Novell. They are going to win in the desktop by producing a real-world desktop distro. In fact I'm using it right now and it's great.
    • Open-source Java, or give enough assistance to existing OS java projects such as Kaffe and GNU Classpath to make them viable real-world usable Java implementations. Sun thinks this is irrelevant; it's not. Getting something truly open source is a key step to making something ubiquitous.
    • Develop some real-world Java apps. As someone else on /. said, J2ee is becoming the Cobol of our age. That is sad because Java could be so much more than a server system. How about developing a word processor and spreadsheet in Java? By doing this, they would give people a reason to use Java, and they would also really find out what the limitations and flaws of Swing are, and maybe they would fix them.

    Ok, that's enough ranting, sure to stir up many heated flames about how much Java sucks, and Scott hasn't called me anytime recently to ask for business advice, so I'll leave off here.

    -------
    Create a WAP server
  18. But I didn't give it away free... by cr0sh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I "gave it away", under the GPL, as a developer with the understanding that should any changes to my code would be "paid back" to me and the community. I "gave it away" with the understanding that if someone has the binary, they can ask for and recieve the original source code, so they could compile it themselves, make changes (if needed or wanted), and release these changes back to the world under the GPL - thus making (on the whole) the entire piece of software all the more better.

    What people seem to keep missing about the GPL is that it isn't just "free" - that is a minor point of the GPL. The greater point is that it is "Free" - as in FREEDOM, for both the user and the creator to ensure that the work stays available for future generations, regardless of the hardware. Of great importance to this stance is the availability of GPL or GPL-compatible development toolsets, like gcc or perl. Sure, you can write and GPL VC++ source code - but what is the point when the compiler itself isn't Free? What happens when (not if, someday it will happen) Microsoft ceases to exist as a company? What happens if the assets (VC++, etc) are not transferred to a party who will continue to develop them? Where does that get you in regards to your GPL'd VC++ source code?

    The fact is, you are hosed (or the future is hosed) - with the GPL and GPL'd tools, you can have solace in the fact that the source for all will survive.

    This is the true point of the GPL...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  19. roots.... by elmegil · · Score: 5, Insightful
    doesn't properly acknowledge its roots.

    You mean the way Linux doesn't acknowledge that it has primarily lifted the rc*.d startup methodology from Sun? Or the fact that before Linux came about, the vast majority of the Free Software Foundation's software (and lots of other free/OS Software) was primarily developed on SunOS and Solaris?

    Come back when you have a real complaint.

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  20. Last I checked... by nial-in-a-box · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...the GPL does not require distributors and integrators to staple the license to users' foreheads. Just a thought. Yea, it is kind of dishonest, and if they don't include all the original docs they should be punished and probably even banned from using GPL'd software for a while, seeing as Sun is basically just a burden on all of us: stale platform or just a rehash of what you can get anywhere else for free or less, and the easy-to-program-in-but-not-well-implemented Java.

    --
    I am feeling fat and sassy
  21. Re:Missing the point by elmegil · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Because Sun Obviously contributes Nothing to ANY Open Source projects, like, say GNOME.

    Try again please.

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  22. Re:Can someone let me in on the joke? by golgafrincham · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can someone explain the joke to me?

    1) never use this sentence anywhere in the real world(tm), especially at parties.
    2) the explanation: everything annoyes RMS nowadays. in case your business is to print numbers on rice bags and you use linux for that purpose, don't expect just a comment, expect an essay from RMS if one of your rice bags topples down.

    --
    beer as in "free beer"
  23. Re:Holy shat by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think slashdotters even know what funny is anymore. They just think whatever got modded as +5 Funny must be funny. This joke may have been worth a chuckle the first time, but timing is important in humor, and it isn't repeatable. But people still think it should be funny, because it was modded as funny every time in the past.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  24. Re:Holy shat by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree. The ``Stallman asks the OS be prefixed "GNU/", so he must want every word to prefixed with "GNU/"'' joke bugs me. It was dumb 5 years ago, and it's dumb now. I was kinda embarassed when I saw I had been modded up. (did my modder get it or not? I'll never know)

  25. Compare Sun with Ximian by noda132 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sun: 35000 employees

    Ximian: 70 employees

    Sun: has done a couple of usability studies, and contributed StarOffice (then a lousy office suite) four years ago.

    Ximian: mono, evolution, GNOME bounties, IRC discussions, Project Utopia, and countless patches to and bug reports to any and every GNOME project.

    Same kind of situation applies to Red Hat, which Sun actually has the gall to insult.

    Face it: Sun was a thorn in Microsoft's backside so it was kind of seen as a good guy. But now I see no reason for any self-respecting developer to like Sun. At least Microsoft has the honesty to declare a straightforward stance with respect to open-source software. Sun tries to treat the open-source community as some unsuspecting supplier of free goods.

    If only Sun were more like Ximian....

    1. Re:Compare Sun with Ximian by Nebrie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do know that Sun does have this entirely separate business which is thousands of times larger (not to mention almost 35,000 people) than their Linux/GNU related business? Trying to compare their output against that of a company whose core business is Linux/GNU is absolutely stupid. That's like comparing Apple's contribution to mice technology with Logitech's.

  26. Re:Well, you're banned for life. by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To be fair, PJ isn't really a geek. She's that rarest of creatures: a non-geek who gets it. So even though she may not wear black and big boots (or she may; I have no idea), we adopt her as one of our own.

    And I will hug him and pet him and I will call him "George".

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  27. Sun Java Desktop roadshow ... by lkratz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was present at a JDS show here in europe. And I had a chat with some of their sales representatives.

    Their sales guy are in a real channel conflict, they can't chat on their new JDS without at least saying once solaris ! They see JDS as a short term answer, before having their customer "upgrading" their JDS on Linux to a JDS on solaris. That's the strategy ! That's why they do not market the words GNU, Linux or GPL.

    The other issue is the Java brand ! The slide show (staroffice on jds hopefully !) represents layers of software. from bottom to top, you have :
    hardware : either sparc, intel, or amd
    os : either solaris or linux
    a full length layer : java
    a full length layer : gnome
    But in the show room, nearly everybody knew that the demo of JDS has nearly nothing to do with Java ! just a little demo of their java player ( which is ugly ). Once again they "über market" the java brand ! Java has nearly disappeared from the internet as an applet technology ! Even if java has a hudge market share in the enterprise, I know several case, where the IT department face big problems, due to unmanaged deploiement of complex J2EE applications (usines à gaz in french) (I'm not flaming java here, the problem is "unmanaged" not java) . So the Java brand is not that good, and the good reference with respect to the Java brand are shifting from Sun to IBM. For instance, nearly every business developing stuff in Java are now using eclipse. The sales guy of Sun are still marketing NetBeans, I had to give him the reference of Eclipse.

    Finally, my experience with respect to this roadshow and the chat with sales rep, is that they are frightened. JDS is a kind of cloud of smoke that tries to hide businesses migrating their oracle on solaris to oracle on a redhat cluster.