Slashdot Mirror
Sun Apologizes To Blackdown Team
LinuxGrrl write to us with a ComputerWorld.Com story regarding the recent hoopla of the Sun/Inprise JDK. Sun has apologized to the Blackdown team.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Sun is simply yet another company (the worst offender, as far as I know of) trying to ride the open source bandwagon to big Wall $treet dollars without actually supporting the concepts of freedom.
When way the last time you heard of a major corporation apologizing publicly to a group of individuals for having bahaved in an entirely legal manner and without any threat of legal action?
Um, how about last time a company did something that pissed off a group of customers and feared bad PR. Companies apologize left and right as soon as they have stepped on people and it gets out in the press. Apologies are cheap, especially when you are an organizationd devoid of dignity (like these companies are).
Nothing interesting has happened here until we see evidence that Sun have changed their attitude.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
- Fetch the IBM unsupported ADSM client
- Uncompress and untar the package
- Then run: strings dsmc | grep "C lib"
- You should get some like follows:
- Download the source code to the Linux C library and take note on how much of the code is covered by LGPL
- Read the requirements for statically linking with LGPL material in the LGPL section 6
- Notice that, unlike the SCSL which does not require any acknowledgement of Blackdown's work, that the LGPL requires "prominent notice" of the use of the library
- Also, notice that by statically linking with the LGPL the distributor is required to provide a method in which the LGPL material can remain modifiable (an object files for relinking should be made available
- Try locating any prominent notice of the use of the Linux C Library in the ADSM README file - not there?
- Try locating any prominent notice of the use of the Linux C Library in the ADSM INSTALL file - nada?
- Try locating any prominent notice in the ADSM start-up banner and you get:
- Note that not only do they fail to acknowledge use of the Linux C library, they claim copyright on the material they aren't legally entitled to claim copyright on!
- Try Contacting IBM/Tivoli about the availablity of the object files for relinking as required for statically linking with LGPL
- Do they even acknowledge use of the Linux C library or do they just explain that no modifications to how they distribute can be made since the Linux client is not supported?
- Do they acknowledge that lack of support is not a valid excuse to violate licensing/copyright of material?
I personally am surprised at the turn-around time since the time that Sun was contacted that they decided (without any requirement from the license that they do so) acknowledged the work of Blackdown. IBM/Tivoli is REQUIRED by license to provide prominent notice and refuses to do so. While IBM has choosen to be kind on occation to the open source community with such works as Jikes, it is only because they choose to support such kindness. If IBM decides that they don't want to provide support in other areas of open source then they are prepaired to violate licensing conditions, violate copyright for redistibuting of material they don't have license to redistribute, declairing copyright on material they don't own and then demanding their actions are valid due to lack of support. IBM's "support" of open source has been like someone volinteering to teach an entire 3rd grade classroom and then when the school administration isn't looking forcing a third of the class to sit in the corner while insisting that the parents of the other two thirds talk about how great they are for volinteering to teach the class. Supporting open source shouldn't be a pick-and-choose game where you decide to unsupport following licensing conditions here but flex your PR for support over there. In my mind, IBM is far far worse than Sun has ever been. Jikes is just a cover-up for lack of supporting (or even acknowledging) open source. If IBM can justify violating LGPL while requiring we honor copyright/licening on their own products then they clearly don't take open source seriously. They understand that just because I don't support Lotus Notes doesn't give me right to redistribute the Lotus Notes server software and declair copyright on it. But they refuse to even acknowledge that copyright should work in favor of open source as well.By the way, IBM/Tivoli has been informed of the LGPL violation by both email and phone. They have not given any indication they plan to correct their actions.
Sun might apologize, but Blackdown or any other developers outside sun that might have contributed. are still not mentioned anywhere on their site (Early access site requires registration woth Java Developer Connection).
Understanding is a three-edged sword. --Kosh
Software companies today depend on their talent to about the same degree that professional sports teams depend on their talent. Bill Gates knows this. Bob Young knows this. Sun is getting a taste of it right now.
And my oh my, what efficient feedback mechanisms we have! From the time that Sun committed their faux pas, to the time that half the working Java programmers in the world knew about it and lowered their opinion of Sun, only a few dozen hours elapsed.
Will collapse; it's only a matter of time. It'll be interesting to see what the landscape looks like after it happens...
Well, I'd say that it's not going to help there profits very much if they entire Open Source/Free Software community loses all trust in them. It's not going to help them if anybody who likes Linux (many IT people) start distrusting them. That could certainly hurt sales, even hardware ones.
Got HTML? Want LaTeX? Try html2latex
This is nothing new, and the reason that my companies (as in the companies I run) dropped Java a few months ago. Sun doesn't want a viable leading edge Linux platform. Linux Java (if Sun has its way) will always trail the Solaris/Win32 versions by at least a minor release.
The wild card is the recent emergence of viable IBM JDK products. You will see Sun fight this on a legal and PR level and they will begin to change Java (a la Microsoft tactics) to keep IBM and others from using a standard Java unowned by Sun. This is also the reason why the ECMA standards submission was retracted.
I hope those of you still counting on Sun for a good portable Java implementation enjoy yourselves.
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
Does anyone know how much effort it takes to port the JDK 2 to yet another free Unix flavor on yet another system?
Surely FreeBSD shouldn't be that hard to do - how far would linux binary emulation go?
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
At what point does it stop being a trivial misuse and become meaningful. I want to be able to correct some buffer overflows in the older version of the libc that is used. According to the LGPL, I should be able to relink my modified version of libc. According to IBM, their statement of non-support waves them from their legal obligations which would allow me to relink with a modified version of libc. Now, buffer overflows problems in backup software might not be meaningful to you, but it is meaningful to me. If you have any meaningful statements on how I can go about linking in my modifications as I should be able to then I would be happy to hear them. If all you want to do is talk about magical printf implimentations then your not much help to me.
I think he ment finding a boot disk link on Suns web site.
I'm not wanting to dis Mr. Schultz directly, but aren't we all sick of this nonsensical corporate double-speak?
Does this sound like an apology to you? If you broke the cookie jar, and you told your mom that you had an apologetic stance towards the event, do you think she'd buy it?
Corporations should be capable of saying, "Know what? We did a shitty thing, we admit it, and we'd like to publicly apologize to the people we've hurt."
Guess that's only for televangelists and politicians, and even then, only after they've been caught.
Feeling cynical,
JM
"why a company like Sun (which after all employs some pretty smart people coming from the free software (BSD) camp) makes such mistakes." do you think Sun would port JDK 1.2.2 to NetBSD?
Bravo! I had a very strong feeling that the Redhat/KDE "requirement" was just bullshit. I plan to run it on Slackware just to see if it will work, but then I'll go back to using Emacs + JDK + JDE for development.
IBM has expressed *interest* in Linux. But have they done anything that could be considered above and beyond the resources Sun made available in the UltraPenguin project? How dumb does IBM think we are? IBM's support of Solaris is continuing to grow faster than then support for Linux. Why don't they put together a market fluff www.ibm.com/solaris to go along with www.ibm.com/linux I'm just not buying that IBM wouldn't dump Linux in a split second if the media hype of Linux ever started to drop. What has IBM done to show that the are truely entrenched in supporting linux. When IBM can't even provide support for their flagship cross-platform administration and backup software then their statement of "support" looks pritty shabby. And Sun, they provide a full office suite for free and seem to be continuing the UltraPenguin project.
talk about going for the more robust/stable implementation... combined with jikes, it may be an upset for sun!
Your right, they aren't the company they used to be. They even are more likely to do more harm than good to Linux. There are some business practices that IBM has already taken on in regard to Linux that leads me to wonder if the Linux community would be better off if IBM had never heard the name Linux.
IBM has provided AFS for Linux for a long while now. Unfortantly, when you contact them for support they make it clear that Linux is considered a second rate OS.
MS owns non-voting stock equal to roughly 10% of the company; they bought the stock as part of a patent licensing deal.
Since it is non-voting stock, and because MS and Inprise/Borland have traditionally been competitors, their influence isn't as large as it might seem it should be from the numbers alone.
--Robert West
Delphi R&D
Sun - we put the dot in dot com, and if your not a dot com then too bad
They are only apologizing because they were CAUGHT like a CRIMINAL in the ACT.
The Blackdown crowd played by Sun's rules to port Java and they've been badly burnt. Take heed anyone who thinks Sun's SCSL prison community license is a good thing. It's not. The inmates are just slave labour who can be cast aside after they've produced something useful with nary a credit in sight. Sun has since made a belated apology but their arrogance is clear for all to see. Sun is the Microsoft of the Unix world. They want to keep Java to themselves and to hell with those who think it should be standardized or opened up. Anyone who thinks Sun is a friend of Linux or open source needs their head examined. For a REAL open source Java try Kaffe
This might be reduntant but I can't see the reason for why Sun would do such a thing. The Blackdown team is know for their outstanding work which is highly valuable for Sun. The long expertise aquired from porting Java 1.2 to Linux should be recognised by the managers at Sun. Don't they see that continuing cooporating with Blackdown is in their best interest.
Maybe it was just a big slip. Someone mentioned that this was the final blow in a long line of problems. When people leave the team it's clearly an indication that something is terribly wrong. The problem is that Sun is a big company and those work slow, have long chains of command and the employees are given directives from PHB. Such a company are possibly less able to work smoothly with a small team like Blackdown. Maybe they should just hire the whole team.
Then again I'm not an expert on these matters and a case like this have two sides. Negatively portraying big companies like Sun is always easy. Who knows - maybe it was a good short term business desicion .
Stock market investors are NOTHING like the people on slashdot. Guess what guys.. they're interested in PROFIT. 99% of the people out there aren't investing to get a warm fuzzy feeling in their heart when they buy Redhat stock. These people want returns on their investments by almost any means necessary. That's why buyouts and mergers and downsizings and high quarterly earnings mean their stock goes up. Just remember one thing, Yahoo's day is coming. The tech stocks will be decimated when people wake up one day and realize they are not receiving ANY returns on dividends from these companies. They don't make any profit! They only way to make money off tech stocks like these is to buy and sell them at a higher price. It has become a high stakes game of trading Pokemon cards.. only with thousands of dollars at stake and an entire industry that could collapse when this house of cards tumbles.
I didn't have any trouble with it. Just stuck it in my Ultra 60's CD-rom and typed "boot cdrom" at the prom. :-) Booted up like a champ.
You see that is the problem with sun they are just like apple. They have good, yet overpriced hardware, and and closed system that requires there os to run on their computer (like apple). Its funny that both sun, and apple follow the old IBM model for computing.
Give me linux, and the bsd brothers anyday (open, free, and net).
At least I wont have to worry about my development tools being ripped apart. Java was such a cool technology and Sun had to go mess it up multiple times. Anyway....:(
Sun's website has to be the WORST website I've seen. I mean, it's confusing to navigate, uses session IDs to track where people are going, won't let you download anything (free) without registering and a host of other annoyances.
.com is (whatever the hell that is supposed to be) then can stick up their ass.
It this is Sun's vision of what a
The change happened a long time ago (when was the RS6000 introduced?). I will never forget going to a computer show and seeing the IBM folks in jeans and sneakers and all the Apple people in suits. I wondered what universe I'd woken up in that day.
Kaffe is already in an advanced state and emulates JDK1.1 and most of 1.2. It still has bugs of course, but it's well on the way to becoming a clean room solution that allows users to the dump proprietary Sun VM in favour of a GPL'd one. If you're developing Java software, it's well worth evaluating Kaffe.
Hopefully the recent behaviour of Sun which shows them for the scumbags they are will be beneficial to Kaffe and other Java-related open source projects.
THINK! apparently is becoming fashionable at IBM again.
I like what IBM is doing; they seem to be making the fewest mistakes of all the people jumping on the bandwagon, and sadly I think they are going somewhat unnoticed for it.
In the end, though, I think IBM sees Linux and Open Source as a way to win against Microsoft. They lost in the OS/2 battle, when they played by Microsoft's rules. Now they get a chance to turn the tables, change the rules, and score big. They follow the "widget frosting" model of open-source: they make Big Iron, and as long as they have a full-featured OS, they sell boxes. By unifying their offerings from desktop, to small server, to big iron, they present a unified front, something MS and their 42 software offerings can't match. They develop loyalty in the community, so people start using their development tools, buying their hardware, and killing MS market share. They get tons of free advertising from Linux partisans, so their sales force can be more effectively utilized. Its a win on all fronts. All they have to do in return (to keep this win-win situation going) is behave. Open the tools, don't piss people off, and don't hoard.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
I dont think IBM is the company that it used to be. IBM has fired most of those upper management suits that they used to have in the 80s. IBM in my opinion has trimmed alot of fat. They no longer hold that tyrannical software/hardware hold that is so popular with Apple, and Sun. Not to mention that they still do cool stuff (unlike Compaq and dell who just make money)..
mey $0.02
I've just downloaded and installed JBuilder on my Debian Potato system (PII/400, 128Mb Ram.) My system has no KDE compliance as far as I am aware. The installer has gone off without a hitch, but the `free key' is a pain. Especially when Inprise's server seems to be dying under the load. Corporations will do anything for market info, won't they? The JDK1.2.2 package also claims a requirement for KDM, although AppletViewer works without any problems. Perhaps Sun are just erring on the side of caution with their requirements?
Just my little question. How can Sun base "their" JDK on Blackdown and change the license? Isn't Blackdown JDK GPLd? /Nisse Ghandie
In the README that comes in the tar, you'll see it metions "University of California". Should this lead us to believe that this was possibly compiled by UC as an external to IBM project?
Also the readme states "The code in this distribution is statically linked because of the interface to Motif and to NLS. The state of NLS varies from Linux to Linux." Anyway, this was put up as a "favor" to those of us that are getting Linux used in places where it wasn't before. And I can say that this was a MAJOR help/advantage in getting the Linux boxes implemeted.
I understand your post fully. I agree that now that it's been out awhile and seems to perform, the time has come to repackage it and make the correct notices/acknowledgements.
Whoever is responsible for the compile/packaging needs to step up and make things right.
Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot getting it done though.
I do my development work here at IBM on my Linux laptop. The windows box they gave me is good for running Lotus Notes and that's it.
I have a definite advantage over my team mates. My code moves very very easily from my Linux Java environment to the target AIX server. Theirs requires a few tweaks and other stupid things to move to the AIX box because it was written on a Windows machine.
Furthermore, I can mount all the test data I need through NFS. My windows using comrades always need to make copies every time the test data gets updated. I waste little time because of that.
IBM really likes Linux, and the managers are happy to let me use it.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
To me, Sun's refusal to turn Java over to ISO or ECMA is much, much more disturbing, and has turned me from an enthusiastic Java advocate to someone who would just as soon program in C++.
You can link into an executable to get objects, thus rendering them available.
You can modify the object by using a hex editor thus allowing the alteration of code.
The copyright statement is attached to the name. (I'm sure that the Linux client wasn't available in 1990, but the name was.)
When a company makes a product that it has to support AND needs to be trustable, dynamic linking is not a reasonable option. **
Obviously someone had their feelings hurt, and although sharing is a good form of therapy, I do not think that venting them in a public forum is the best idea.
** In an effort to keep the list short, I will explain #4 here. I am a big believer in open source, etc..., however, a product which is used to protect vital data (you know, Banking records, long distance information, medical records, stuff like that,) requires a high degree of trustability. That means quality in design, and testing. It also means that when a customer gets the executable, you know exactly what is used in execution. If the libraries (or objects) have changed, there are no assurances that defects will not introduced, nor that data will not become irreversibly corrupted. And when it comes to liability, that inevitably remains with the product. For these types of reasons, control becomes paramount and thus idea of allowing alteration of the executable code, unacceptable.Lemme tell you a story about a man named Corel,
Poor java-neer barely kept his family fed,
Then one day he wuz shootin' at some food,
And up through the ground come a bubbling LINUX,
LINUX, that is - black gold - Texas Tea.
Java is selling a promise of what might be.
LINUX delivers now.
Wowsers! I didn't know I was part of a "cover-up" -- I thought I was just an overworked programmer paid by IBM to work full-time on open-source!
In any event, grep does produce the output you report. I will send a letter about this to management.
By the way, I suspect the person who put this file together didn't appreciate the distinction between static and dynamic linking. We first got requests for Jikes for Linux in April '97, and I didn't fully appreciate the distinction then even after exchanging several e-mails with rms himself. I didn't reconsider this again until June '98 (after getting yet more requests, and some help from Nelson Minar at MIT). I spent a couple of weeks going over the GPL and exchanging (lots of) e-mail with one of our attorneys before obtaining permission to release Jikes in binary form for Linux (Jikes was the first binary for Linux released from Research, as it was later the first open-source program from Research).
dave
PS: (Shameless plug). I'll be speaking on Jikes at the Bazaar next week, and also at the NYLUG meeting (in the IBM bldg. at 57th and Madison) Wednesday night. IBM is also sponsoring a reception at FAO Schwartz from 9-11PM Wed. night for Bazaar attendees.
i guess you have never worked for a large software company. it does not work that way. in the last two decades, i have never met a single software development manager who have ever uttered anything so stupid. if anything, many companies are overly cautious in this regard. they write their own instead of using free software.
-- nous
Yeah, it'd make the software a little bigger, but c'mon... gzip the credits and nobody'll notice 'em in 30 MB of install. I know it'd make me a happier little developer...
In the end, though, I think IBM sees Linux and Open Source as a way to win against Microsoft. They lost in the OS/2 battle, when they played by Microsoft's rules.
I think the thing you miss is that IBM plays by a different set of rules all together. They lost the OS/2 battle because they saw it as a low-end threat to their high end profit centers. Time and a consulting business has proved to them that there is money to be made on the low end.
Still, if you were to call IBM and ask for a 'ebusiness' solution, Linux wouldn't bubble up to the top of their list. They'd be more likely to do the following:
1) Do you need (can you afford) a Mainframe?
2) No? Do you need (can you afford) a high-end RS/6000?
3) No? Do you need (can you afford) an AS/400?
4) No? Do you need (can you afford) a low-end RS/6000?
5) OK. So you want Windows NT consulting services and hardware?
6) No? How about Linux consulting services and hardware?
7) Oh, you want OS/2? Let me transfer you.
The good news is that Linux is on the list, which means lots of support and ported products. (It also lets IBM drop it's less profitable low-end RS/6000 line. Linux is also good for 'services' like DNS and mail gateways to the big iron.)
The bad news, with a big high-end company like IBM, Linux is never going to be seen as a 'strategic' platform like AS/400 is. If you want a hardware vendor that's 100% behind Linux, buy VA, not IBM.
(AS/400, btw, has been growing far faster than Windows NT in recent years, and by IBM's account is more profitable than all of Sun Microsystems. They're not going to undercut that by pushing something like DB2 on Linux. They're not stupid.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I think you guys are getting too specific -
ANY company that occupies a near-monopoly position will attempt to hold it for as long as possible. This is because large companies are ruled by stock holders, the larger the company gets, the more outrageous the demands from stock holders get. In fact, there is no real "entity" of the company - just a board of directors who listen to share holders and a CEO (microsoft is an interesting exception since it's majority share holder is also its kinda-CEO).
People say "That dang Microsoft! That damn IBM!" Any company that approaches their size will consistently attempt to enlarge their market penetration until... guess what? They are the market. Remember ALCAN?
Both netscape and sun are run by intelligent, driven individuals and I know it in my water that they would do some of the same stuff MS does if they were in that market position. They wouldn't say, "Hey you know? Browser users should have choice. Let's not crush this new competitor like a bug." AOL/netscape is going to have some of the same battles in the coming years, I can tell.
As far as shooting ourselves in the foot, there isn't much to loose here. When I spoke with Derik a Tivoli, he explained to me about all the other platforms they support and if I would just switch over to a different platform THEN they would consider not violating the license on the material they distribute. And take a look at the score card here:
But just like a used car dealer, International Business Machines will say ANYTHING to make a sale:
It has been for longer than "a while!" It has been over a YEAR since Slashdot reported on this client. Since that time, IBM's "commitment" to extending "support" has failed to even acknowledge that they have licensing conditions to meet when redistributing LGPL works!
Shooting ourselves in the foot?! HELL NO. Shooting ourselves in the foot is looking to IBM as the "good guy" right after Sun correctly there lack of acknowledgement of Blackdown. Shooting ourselves in the foot is defending IBM's actions because U. of California compiled their package for them. IBM's illegal activity isn't defendable. Not by a non-support statement and not by a statement of U of Cal's involvement. Illegal activity is not a valid way of promoting Linux. Defending this package is just defeneding diluting the percentage of valid backup packages that make of the options for backing up Linux. There are other alternatives from companies that do support Linux and do support acknowledging and honoring the LGPL. Demanding that illegal packages do not pull customers away from valid solutions is not shooting yourself in the foot. Shooting yourself in the foot is defending the defacement of LGPL in the name of "extended support" for a package that isn't even supported.
IBM's "commitment" to extending support is not what Linux needs. It shouldn't be part of the global domination plan to get Linux distributed by used car salemen and software pirates. Sun will at least listen EVENTUALLY to the Linux community. Has IBM really demonstrated that they are doing something more than trying to make an extra buck with meaningless fluff. Is it really shooting yourself in the foot to point out that IBM's marketing hype is useless when the reality is their flagship backup (key item in support, don't you think) product "it not supported by [them]" to the extend of even being an illegal redistribution of LGPL material. Is it really shooting yourself in the foot to point out that IBM hypes themselves up as supporting opensource while their actions attack a common free software license. No, what is shooting yourself in the foot is to defend such a monster. IBM is not the good guy in the Open Source community. IBM is not a good guy in the Free Software community. Sun might have it's problems but they are FAR from being the two-faced beast that IBM has become. Cashing in on the open source name and not actually honoring it is not a defendable action. Ever.
I just got a response from management. Could the AC who posted the original note please send me an e-mail address so I can put you in touch with the (quite senior) manager dealing with this? Otherwise I would expect a posting from management here sometime tomorrow a.m.
dave
If Sun was sorry it would release the software under a free license and allow developers to own the work they do on it. Since they are not even considering that, we can assume they simply want to save face. Huh? How do you draw that conclusion? Sun screwed up on this: true. Sun doesn't want to play the fully open source game: also true. Therefore Sun just wants to save face by apologizing? FTF? Your words don't support your conclusion. Sun might very well have blundered, still might not want to play the open source game, and STILL want to honestly apologize for it's mistake. You speak as if Sun were one person, with one mind. It simply just doesn't work this way. I personally know the engineers in the Java division who worked with blackdown on the port. They are *livid* at blunder. Indeed, every single Java engineer there that I know loves Linux. You speak as if this were intentional -- that some mind somewhere up high was thinking "let's screw blackdown and take all the credit". This is much much easier to explain by oversight. Indeed, my friend says that this appears to be truly what happened. Stupid? Yes? Evil? No. You know, I see a very disturbing trend happening here: that if a company doesn't look and smell like open source, then they are inherently bad and evil. This is just looney. In the end, Sun makes great hardware, and a rock solid OS. Java as a language is way cool, but the JDK still needs work. Sun doesn't want to give away control of it's IP, that's it's right. But that doesn't make it an evil company. Do they screw up now and then? Sure -- as every big company will. You want to know how I define evil? Reading the email from Bill Gates saying how they'd blackmail Apple into switching from Netscape to IE -- that's evil.
Two words: grow up.
This looks like a classic "sorry I got caught" situation. This assumes intent. I think it's much more likely an "oops -- didn't even think of it" situation.
The limit of accidental action from a corporation is shipping a PC with the wrong amount of RAM. Anything this major is deliberate and premeditated.
Sun Wrote the SCSL. The license specifically allows them to do this. Why? Because at the time they created it they had this sort of thing in mind.
Any apology will therefore be insincere. Any attempt to pacify the Blackdown crew is just that. I don't trust any publickly traded corporation. Simply because the only thing keeping them out of the slave trade are a few old laws.
Trust licenses that protect your interests. Nothing more or less matters. Verbal communication doesn't matter. Promises just stink.
If Sun was sorry it would release the software under a free license and allow developers to own the work they do on it. Since they are not even considering that, we can assume they simply want to save face.
Big deal.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Their actions seem to demonstrate a complete lack of consideration for how the IT community at large and the specific user groups they really ought to value will react.
They may be excellent at what they do, but I don't think they've ever been very good at public relations or image management. They're Ok at riding the crest of a positive wave of media attention, they frankly wallow in it, but they're no good at selling themselves when the friendly reporting isn't immediately forthcoming.
I suppose what I'm driving at is that I disagree with the "evil empire" comparisons of Sun to Microsoft. I think they're just incompetent when it comes to selling themselves. Unfortunately, in this day and age, that's unforgivable in a large corporation.
Salocin.com
.....how in the old days, "Big Blue" were the bad, proprietary and closed ones while Sun was the "good" alternative (someone around here has a clever signature saying something like "I remember when Sun really was about open computing").
Now, everybody is cheering at Big Blue and ranting over Sun being proprietary and closed....
One has to wonder...when will the things change again, and we will find ourselves cheering at Microsoft...? (It could happen, you know....)
-- "Life is a bitch - and she hates me..."
It's interesting that there have been several mentions lately of IBM's support for Java on Linux. (and Linux in general...)
It seems that while Sun makes a big noise about Linux and then catches flak for the SCSL, IBM quietly carries on supporting Linux and Java.
However, my knowledge of IBM's real policies towards Linux are sketchy at best... Anyone care to tell us what licenses IBM are using? Has anyone had any good/bad experience with IBM and Linux?
----- Documentation is worth it just to be able to answer all your mail with 'RTFM' - Alan Cox.
While SUN is making those uncredible mistakes (withdrawal from standards process, theft of Blackdown's effort while denying credit), it seems odd to see that its stock is climbing without rest (today by 9%), and has done so for many months. Apparently stock market investors don't seem to be like us. My own reaction (if I had money to put in that sort of game) would have been to retaliately sell my SUN stocks.
why a company like Sun (which after all employs some pretty smart people coming from the free software (BSD) camp) makes such mistakes. Surely they have some people who understand the open source (GNU) mindset. So what do they do? They simply take someone elses work (Blackdown) and distribute it as theirs. While a legal move, this is something that anybody with half a brain could have predicted that it would cause some anger.
... interestingly enough, IBM (with it's monopolistic past) seems to get/accept the OSS mindset with a surprising agility. So it can be done. So why doesn't Sun get it? Maybe the real reason is that they're scared of Linux. Linux is improving at an incredible rate and already offers some benefits that Sun can't match (better user interface, nicer desktop, etc). How long until Linux is scalable enough that it starts invading Sun's territory of high-end servers? This probably is Sun's ultimate fear: they lost the desktop to Windows, they're under attack in the mid-tier (from Linux and NT) and Linux scalability seems to be improving rather fast. Despite all their claims, Linux (for them) is an enemy that threatens them (and radically devalues much of their software offering).
While Sun might make good hardware and have a decent OS, their attitude/actions speak louder than words: they want to side with the OSS community but not pay the price. They want ultimate control of their technology. This of course is their right but they should not be surprised if the OSS community doesn't follow/believe them anymore. They've disappointed too many people too often
What coder really cares about such things? Yes
we will all use the best jdk.. but is it really important who produces it? It's like dealing with ibm people.. sit around.. talk. worry about saving face and making good relationships.. Then never get anything done.
Press releases that aren't related to stock, cool new apps, important tech decisions, or serious crises are just a waste of bandwidth.
Sun, Your kungfu is old.. and now you must die!
"And how can this be? For he is the
It's kinda weak, but you can find it here.
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
this looks ugly. according to the article it almost seems as if the blackdown team is all but disbanded. i never really stopped to think about it, but it must have been tough for the blackdown team to have to deal with sun's ways for so long, just to make the product available to us. i guess i just want to say THANK YOU BLACKDOWN for all the hard work you guys have put in over the years. perhaps sun will see the reaction in the linux community and get their act together -- or does it take a DOJ investigation to make big business see the light?
The really interesting issue here is the way the free software community has impacted business model.
When way the last time you heard of a major corporation apologizing publicly to a group of individuals for having bahaved in an entirely legal manner and without any threat of legal action?
Sun may be wholly behind the ideals of free software, but they certainly seem to be aware that they are part of a community and have certain responsibilities as a result.
It also says something about the power of public opinion on the internet.
In my opinion, the real problem is that we will soon grow tired of hearing this kind of stories and stop reacting. This is exactly the reasons why Corel and Sun are doing this:
"Let us see if anyone is watching us - if we get caught, we apologise, else we win. Sooner or later they will get tired of watching."
Imagine what will happen, when in 2 years Corel puts yet another stupid licence somewhere in their distribution? That's it: NOTHING, because we will all be so pissed off by corel that noone will even bother reacting anymore. What we need is a central linux (or more general "Free software") legal departement to fight them in the long term...
Sort it out, there's more in the world (and on /.) than just MS-bashing you know.
Sun seem to have a very tight deal with Inprise - Noticed that JBuilder Enterprise is only available for Solaris? Yet it is 100% Java, so to get it working on Windows all you have to do is follow the /bin/sh install script mentally on your Win box. I know, I've done it. Yet Inprise are prepared to loose all the Windows JBuilder Enterprise customers for a few months by telling people that it is Solaris only. That means Sun and Inprise are deeply in bed.
I wonder if deals like this will feature in a future DoJ vs Sun monopoly case? Granted Sun are not currently as badly behaved as MS, but that is only because they don't have the opportunity.
I seem to recall McNally saying a few years ago something along the lines that he approved of Gates' business methods - he'd do the same thing given the option. Maybe I remember it wrong though.
The bit that I don't understand is that Inprise are partly owned by Microsoft (IIRC). So how does that work?
DWR is Ajax for Java
Their stock split 2 for 1 yesterday. Usually a stock goes up significantly after a split because it is perceived as a "deal" at the lower price. The day after a split is sometimes the bad one, when investors correct the ephoria of the previous day. I'm betting any repercusions will be felt today, but I'm doubting it will move far.
Let's face it SUN abandoning the standard is good news for investors. It means more short term profits for SUN. Investors like profits.
And how many investors care that SUN was a bad guy and exercised their legal rights to "steal" someone else's work. This "theft" benefits their product line and increases their profits. Again, investors like profits.
And what about Grits Boy?
I think that nit-picking any trivial (mis)use of free software encourages the fear and uncertainty that some PHB's still have toward using anything they don't pay $$$$ for. It would be better to save the legal analyses for cases which are truly meaningful.
I very much hope the Blackdown team will keep developing. Remember that we won't see anything but Linux x86 from Sun for the free OS's... The request for enhancements at java.sun.com that asks for FreeBSD should now be the top request (#1 was a Linux JDK), but I very much doubt it will be implemented. The Sun guys probably know that the OSS community is able to make a lot of noise and make lots of people create a JDC login and vote for that RFE, and they may have seen the Slashdot call to do exactly this some time ago (November?).
Does anyone know how much effort it takes to port the JDK 2 to yet another free Unix flavor on yet another system?
But that's exactly it - when you distribute a press release with "Sun Microsystems, Inc" on the letterhead, it is a representation of the entire company. Postings on /. or elsewhere don't represent the entire Linux community, because there is no legal association which defines the entire Linux community. But Sun is a legal entity and they should be prepared to take the criticism for any actions that they as a company make. It's not like some crazy guy in engineering started printing press releases on the office copier and Sun didn't know about it - the actions that Sun has taken reflect poorly on the entire company.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Yeah! As long as we get more software for Linux, what does it matter what IBM does?
I was going to mention that you forgot Barksdale, but he's crawled in a hole since quitting. More proof that God answers my prayers.
Do you have ESP?
Do I, as a software engineer, want to hang out in this forum anymore? I don't know. Even filtering out all 0s isn't working. I'm sure glad that the people I work with every day aren't this bitchy.
Several comments above just really got to me. The baseball bat post was one, the person stating that the apology was just to save face was another. What the heck??!! They apologized, man -- in pretty darn quickly too! What more can you ask? Mistakes happen, it's human nature. Oh, that's right -- because Sun won't give away all of it's software for free, it makes them a bad company.
Open source is a good thing, I think we all agree on that. But it doesn't give us license to fuck over anyone and everyone that doesn't buy into it. (sorry for the language). It's worse than being unprofessional -- it can and is actively hurting good companies. I work with Sun hardware day in and day out, and my customers (you know, the ones that pay the bills) are extremely happy that the servers never crash. But the constant bashing is unfairly affecting the reputation of a pretty good company.
Believe me, my head is not buried in the sand. Sun's a big company, and is clearly looking out for it's interests first. It's just that I'm sick of people spouting calling Sun evil because Sun doesn't subscribe to this one person's open-source philosophy.
So there, I've said my peace. It will mostly fall on deaf ears, I'm sure, but at least I said it.
I did not state that the adsm client should be linked dynamically. However, when distributing a package which is statically linked against a LGPL work then there are obligations that needs to be filled to meet the requirements of the LGPL. You seem to believe that a statically linked program fills the requirement of providing relinkable objects. If you can give details on relinking the dsmc from libc 5.4.32 to 5.4.44 then I will take your suggestion seriously and get my libc security patches applied that way. As far as using a hex editor to modify the program, the LGPL is fairly clear that the library should remain modifiable in it "prefered form" (source code). I'm sure the LGPL didn't intend for modification to require running through a binary recalculating the offset for every branch and jump because library modification increased the binary size of a function. If it did, why even bother putting in section 6 of the LGPL in at all?
The truth of it all is that IBM's present business practices and policies do not lend themselves very well for being a company that interacts with an open source community. IBM has a harden protocol that is very Cathedral in nature. Even for source code they have released it has been a very Cathedral model in which it is presented.
Take install packages for instance, I can take RedHat's RPM application and modify it and contribute it back and RedHat takes my modifications seriously for being part of their offical package (and RedHat takes the time to honor the licensing for it as well). If IBM released the AIX installp today, I strongly believe that it would be in similar nature to their other source code releases. Unlike RedHat which releases code for peer review and seems interested in getting code back, IBM seems to publish the word of IBM (which just happens to be in source code form for that occation). IBM, as a matter of company protocol, is not prepair to actual interact with an open source community.
With the ADSM LGPL violation, IBM didn't take my feedback seriously. One of the offical maintainers for one of the most used kernel drivers took my patches seriously and so did Linus, but IBM is no Linus in software maintance philosphy. Instead, under the normal IBM business model, the already reported ADSM LGPL violation would continue unless in a satistfaction survey a signifcate number or key customers reported that the ADSM LGPL violation effected their view of IBM. Since the satistfaction surveys are written targetting management and not developers, it is highly unlike that the violation would be brought up in enough surveys for IBM to ever take notice. This is not a model of "interaction" that I think is approbate for a company claiming now to be embrassing Linux and open source. Without a shift in the IBM prospective to the greater community also being key developers towards IBM achieving it's goals and IBM treating those external people as such then I believe IBM will continue to do more harm than good. Don't get me wrong, IBM is good at what it does but right now it's attempt at being a good member of an open source community is like an large triangle peg being pushed into a circular hole.
Sun might not being playing well with the greater open source community either. However, I think Sun Microsystems is more likely to attempt to take the open source community seriously as a matter of company protocol than IBM is. Sun, like Netscape, may one day be walking among us in the Bazaar on a regular basis. But can IBM afford the chance of tarnishing it's image by coming out of the "true blue" ivory castle to walk among the common developers? At what point can I call IBM and tell them that they are violating the copyright held by me and other open source developers by violating the license and be taken seriously instead of being told "but your not using the client we provide for AIX or NT or Solaris or the other platforms we support" like Derik was so kind to point out? IBM will never treat an external developer as an equal and in that way they will never truely act as part of the community.
Here is an email from Kevin telling how the Sun applogy wasn't enough. Its a real shame.
Can I Play With Madness?
So it has, and apologized. the point has to do with the idiotic commentary regarding sun's evil intentions. Criticism should work with facts, not fiction.
It's not like some crazy guy in engineering started printing press releases on the office copier and Sun didn't know about it
engineering understands the value of open software, and would not do something so stupid. alas, not all of sun gets to review press releases before hand to catch this kind of slipups.
-- nous
As long as your so up on pushing IBM's push of "supporting" Linux. Please answer me this:
Where is a SSA driver for Linux RS/6000?
There is not one.
Where is an IBM supported backup package for backup/restore on Linux (they provide backup software for the majority of other*nix and NT)?
There is not one.
From where or when can I purchase dsmit for Linux (the multi-platform *nix administation tool)?
You can't.
What assistence has IBM provided, if any, with the Linux SNA project?
They haven't.
When should we expect Lotus SmartSuite for Linux (Sun is continuing to provide StarOffice for Linux for free!)?
I know that development is underway on SmartSuite for Linux; However, no date has been disclosed either internally or externally that I know of.
IBM has expressed *interest* in Linux. But have they done anything that could be considered above and beyond the resources Sun made available in the UltraPenguin project?
I've not compared IBM and Sun, and I won't. My 'insight' is just my own experience with IBM as it relates to Linux. I never said IBM did anything huge, nor did I imply it. I simply showed how, from what I have seen, IBM has developed an interest in Linux and its relationship with Linux seems (to me) to be getting stronger. I certainly wish that to continue... don't you?
How dumb does IBM think we are?
I don't know. How dumb do you think you are?
IBM's support of Solaris is continuing to grow faster than then support for Linux. Why don't they put together a market fluff www.ibm.com/solaris to go along with www.ibm.com/linux I'm just not buying that IBM wouldn't dump Linux in a split second if the media hype of Linux ever started to drop. What has IBM done to show that the are truely entrenched in supporting linux. When IBM can't even provide support for their flagship cross-platform administration and backup software then their statement of "support" looks pritty shabby. And Sun, they provide a full office suite for free and seem to be continuing the UltraPenguin project.
How do you come to the conclusion that IBM is obligated in any way to do anything for you? If IBM saw dumping Linux as a good business decision, I certainly have no doubt they would. In fact, if I saw it as a good decision I'd do the same as well.
My comments were intended to share some of what I have seen regarding IBM's attitude towards Linux. They were not intended as an endorsement of IBM. I expressed my wish that IBM continue down the path that they are currently on because I think that Linux can do nothing but benefit by having IBM on their side in whatever capacity they decide to be. That decision is up to IBM, and it certainly will relate in some way to their business interests... they ARE running a business, after all.
We're training IBM teams just as fast as we can on open source rules and guidelines, including the obligations of the various licenses. Obviously, we have more work to do here. It is absolutely our intent that when we work with the open source community, we work within the ethos, both in spirit and in detail. Like everyone else, we will on occasion make mistakes. When we do, we will fix them. We're looking into the ADSM situation right now. If we've made a mistake here, we will fix it and we will follow up on /. with additional info as soon as we have it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. By the way, ADSM was one of IBM's first offerings on Linux and was built when we were quite new at this (not an excuse, just a tidbit).
Thanks.
Daniel Frye
Program Director, Open Source & Linux
IBM Linux Technology Center
danielf@us.ibm.com
We developed and tested the iPlanet Web Server, Enterprise Edition 4.1, formerly known as Netscape Enterprise Server, with Blackdown's JDK for servlet/JSP support. The product supports pluggable JVM so you can try using IBM's JDK for Linux (when they release 1.2 for Linux, that is), or the new Sun/Inprise JDK 1.2.2 . But we don't know how well they will work. Blackdown is the way to go for now.
-- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
How exactly would IBM like the Open Source community to work with them. In the case of ADSM, I assumed that contacting Tivoli was the right thing to do. But emails get left unanswered and a phone call results in being asked why I don't use a client for another operating system because as Derik so kindly pointed out "[they] provide support for many other operating systems." Statements like that paint a grim picture of reality which contradicts the marketing fluff of IBM's Linux web page. And explaining that a statement of non-support means that we should expect the illegal activity to remain uncorrected pritty much kills a "working" relationship. But lets say that IBM is serious about actually working with the Open Source community, where would we find contact information on that. Would it be on the IBM Linux main page or on the IBM Linux Open Source page or a different page all together. I ended up posting to Slashdot because I ran out of places to find who to contact at IBM and it appeared that Derik had told me the final word on the subject.
IBM felt it made good business sense to drop OS/2. They will reach the point (probably soon) in which they feel it makes good business sense to drop anything having to do with Linux. Developing a relationship with such a fair-weather friend is not what Linux needs right now. It is still showing signs of being graduate student project that just happened to be successful. IBM should get back to us in five years and THEN maybe we can discuss what resources IBM feels they can provide and get a good return on. The present half-ass job that IBM is doing for "supporting" Linux right now is just going to hurt both Linux and IBM in several people's minds.
hmm you got it all wrong most of us dont use gnu/linux because we hate microsoft.
we use gnu/linux because its
- stable
- fast
- easy to use
operating system
To me, it seems that a certain section of the Linux community has been far too hasty in condemning Sun for what is really a PR glitch. This is the history of Java on Linux: earlier this year (or late 98?), Sun license the Java 2 sources to the Blackdown team (with some fanfare). A few months later and it the Blackdown port is not going so well - whether this is the result of insufficient info from Sun, who knows? Inprise want to port JBuilder to Linux, but can't do it without a decent JVM, so they approach Sun and decide to do their own port.
Months later and no sign of a release from Blackdown. Sun and Inprise decide to make the Inprise JDK 'official'. Just as they are about to release, Blackdown come out with their own release candidates. This is not some big conspiracy, just appalling communcation problems between Blackdown and Sun.
There still seem to be many people under the impression that Sun have simply repackaged the Blackdown port; this is *not* the case, as anyone who has actually *tried* either port will find out. A guy from the Inprise team has been very active on the Java Linux mailing list trying to point out that they (quite legally) used a few Blackdown diffs, but apart from that it is an independent effort.
Maybe it was a bit lame of Sun not to acknowledge Blackdown in their press releases, but do they really want to be associated with things like Blackdown's v1.2 prereleases? I'm not sledging Blackdown's work (in fact their 1.2.2 port is superior to Sun's), but they have managed to give Java on Linux a bad reputation in the past.
We have to come to terms with the fact that Linux cannot survive as an enterprise platform without a decent JDK. Java is more than buggy Netscape applets and a slow JVM; when it's implemented well, it's a great solution for both server-side and client-side applications. Both the new Sun and Blackdown releases go a long way to fulfilling that gap; and isn't it better to have a choice as well?
briggers
-- briggers Remove blinkers to email me.
"Sun©-We put the 'whatthefsck?' in DotCom."
.com OS"
Have you ever tried to navigate their website?
Time yourself in finding the boot disk for Sol7.
No cheating.
Scott McNealy is the worlds biggest crybaby(well..either he or Larry Ellison). Both deserve to be crippled with baseball bats for their 'we are good, MS is bad' stances.
Both simply want to, as a poster in another thread recently wrote, 'Get the king removed, so they can have his chair'...
And, the sheer arrogance of their new Solaris motto-"Solaris 8 - The
ugh...MAKE ME PUKE!
/disjointed rant
I remember when Apple sued Microsoft in 1989; students and programmers alike took to the streets and held demonstrations in support of Microsoft's freedom (to inovate) to provide a GUI for the open PC platform as an alternative to the evil and closed Apple Macintosh. Although I wasn't a student back then, I remember watching students at the University of Oslo on national TV.
This was the reason The League for Programming Freedom (LPF) was started.
The heroes and villains change all the time, it is up to us to keep a clear focus and protect our freedom.
-- Tov Are Jacobsen
Yes indeed. Looks like a golden opportunity for Microsoft....
Thanks for all the hard work you've put into making Linux a viable Java platform. You've made a real difference.
I realize that, as individuals and as a group, you may no longer want to work with Sun. But i do hope that as a group, you will hang together, and find some other way to focus your considerable talents and energies on Linux/Java. Perhaps working with IBM (under better license terms this time)? Or the Kaffe project?
I won't be terribly upset if Sun's betrayal (despite their apology) means the end of Blackdown's relationship with Sun. I will be a lot more upset if it means the death of Blackdown.
---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
WOHA!
/.
I don't think I've seen so many clueless people as I do at
Well, whoever you are, at least we know you're not Keanu.
remember, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
also, the actions of a few should not be seen as representative of the entire company, any more than the postings of a few excited newbies on these sorts of discussions should be seen as the general attitude of "open source people."
regarding IBM: it seems to me that it needs all the help it can get in the OS arena, just like SGI and perhaps others to follow. They are not scared, they are desparate, and it is easier to hug an appearent winner than to keep trying...
-- nous
Is it me or has Sun become the second coming of Microsoft. Its like they saw how much sucess Microsoft had with its bullying and underhanded tactics and is trying it out to see how it fits. It wouls be a shame if Java was the sole property of Sun. Lets hope they realize that the road they travel down is a dark one.
This looks like a classic "sorry I got caught" situation. Sun designed their "Community Source License" specifically to allow them to do this sort of thing. The only strange thing would be if they didn't actual do what their license said they planned to do all along. Had there not been a firestorm of protest about this, but only a few polite email, I highly doubt Sun would apologize. And if you read the article, they didn't sound too apologetic.
On the other hand, insisting that all software developers be credited in announcements of commerical releases is really just an attempt to institutionalize the "obnoxious advertising clause" from the BSD license. In fact, that original BSD license with the advertising clause is the only free software license I know of that insists on giving credit to the original authors. The FreeBSD license, the GPL, and others do not. As a general rule, perhaps giving some credit to the original developers is appropriate in certain instances, but making this an iron-clad rule would make marketing free software very difficult indeed.
Just a reminder, the Sun Community Source License is not a free software license. Please do not use it.
If you have a question about a specific product, then contacting the product group is the correct first step. But as was learned here, no system is perfect ;-) In general, open source questions or comments can be posted at our open source site at http://ibm.com/developerworks/opensource and they will get to me or someone else on the IBM open source core team (yes, there is such a beast).
Or you can write me directly at danielf@us.ibm.com.
We're very interested in every aspect of working with the open source community and although it may not be as evident as everyone would like, we already are in a number of areas. What we haven't earned yet, based on our short time in the field, is the right to make a big deal about it.
Thanks.
Daniel Frye
Program Director, Open Source & Linux
IBM Linux Technology Center
Blackdown has received more publicity than they ever would have if Sun had mentioned them in the first place. Some people are hearing about them for the first time, or are hearing names of Blackdown individuals for the first time.
Don't count these guys out. They'll likely move ahead, and if not - they'll surely be successful whatever they do.
Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
Just a few little words in Sun's initial press release could have stopped all this bad feeling.
Until the big coparations realise that the majority of people who code for GNU/linux do so for the thrill of seeing their work being used by others and getting credit/respect for their abilities as programmers.
As numerous people have pointed out, the BlackDown team don't have a problem with Sun releasing their code as Sun's own, after all they agreed to the SCSL, but they do want to get recognition for the hours/weeks/months/years they put into getting a usable Java implementation under GNU/Linux.
I guess we should all start saying thanks to people who have spent their own time coding something that we use.
Iggy