Slashdot Mirror
Sun Demurs On Open-Source Java
Tarantolato writes "A Sun spokesman and James Gosling now say that there are no set plans to distribute Java under an open-source license. According to Gosling, 'the debate is still going on, fast and furious'. Concerns about forking are cited, as usual."
...then perhaps they should look at why projects forks? If they can manage to spot things that might lead to a fork early on, they can adress it in a way that benefits everyone as well as avoids forks.
Off course, that also requires whoever is responsible for the code to be able to work with others...
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Actually, it seems to me that after several years of drifting aimlessness they are finally in the process of making a firm decision about whether to make a complete shift away from being a hardware/software/service company to being a pure service company. I think it is normal for there to be disagreement and confusion within the company about when, if and how this is going to happen. What I find disconcerting is how much of this is making it out into the public. Don't these people clear with PR before voicing all these claims? Honestly, all these conflicting reports are just plain unprofessional.
The only difference is, Sun is losing those arguments!
What is interesting is Apple's integration of Java into OS X (into the OS X System Architecture), in addition to cooperation with Sun (i.e., allowing OS X specific attributes into Sun's Java).
These are unusual developments because they are not seen between any other OS and Sun.
Certainly, Apple has an interest in Java and, while holding a very small server market share, increasing its server presence. Merely that Apple is not associated with the server market and Sun is, may be very valuable to Apple.
Certainly a relationship between Apple and Sun does exist. How far that relationship develops will be interesting to see.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
The reason why forks are not dangerous is because people will still want to write "standard" Java code, no matter how many different strange Java-esque things there are.
Linux is horribly forked. There are dozens of different distros, on dozens of different hardware platforms. There are many different kernels, and the different distros often have their own kernels with their own patches and changes. And here is a perfect example of a fork in Linux which has come back to help all of Linux: Because Linux was forkable, the NSA chose Linux to be the basis of its secure operating system, SELinux. SELinux is so strange and different from regular Linux that it wasn't compatible. It was a true fork, creating a different set of APIs that were mutually incompatible in many ways. The openness of Linux allowed this innovation to occur. It was something that Linus hadn't thought of years before it happened (I'm guessing). And yet it happened. And now, guess what, the work that was done in SELinux has been rolled into 2.6!
So, we had open source software, which allowed a fork, which allowed for totally innovative, off-the-wall creative development, which turned out to be cooler than people would have expected, which then ended up getting un-forked back into the main codebase!
If Sun open sources Java in the right way, that is exactly the kind of thing that will happen with Java, too. It's hard to prove this argument, because I can't say exactly what those innovative forks are going to be, becase they're things that people haven't thought of, but that's what will happen.
So do it Sun!
-------------
WAP news
Yeah, but speaking as an -employee- of Sun, the time it is taking to change the guard is starting to kill us. At the Director level and _below_ there are a lot of good folks, but above the Director level (including Director+VP level) they just need to go. And we all know that won't happen until the top level is chopped.
And I keep thinking it will happen after every RIF and annual loss, hell, that thought is what keeps many of us here because we -know- what we could do if things were going in the directions they should.
I would caveat this with saying that I think Schwartz should stay, but I am starting to believe that his support of Open Source and Linux as mass-market sellers is a facade. However out of the entire upper echelon I would want him to stay over all others.
Sun has gotten in the feedback-loop track. They make a sweeping change in the -lower- ranks and if it doesn't fix things by the next analyst meeting, they do it all over again. The problem is that the core issues are driven by the upper ranks _and_ you can't measure success or failure of strategic level changes in a couple of quarters. If you change over and over again you never find out which of those changes will actually work. A number of businesses (media outlets especially as relates to ratings/sweeps) are susceptible to this, but I have never seen a player in Tech succumb to it quite so badly.
Natch I will be clicking the "Post Anonymously" button!