I hadn't realized that there were doubts as to who is the quote's author. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Franklin never said anything of the sort.
I'd say you'd need to do more research before claiming that. A discussion in a newsgroup is not unlike a discussion on Slashdot, with an identical force of authority. In other words, show me proof he didn't say it.
In the meantime, I'll use the quote without attribution until I learn who actually said it. Thanks again.
I reply to a sig with one of my own, and it gets rated as -1 Flamebait. Nice. May the Karma wheel of Meta-Moderation roll over and permanently depress your keyboard.
I've got nothing against Microsoft Users... it's just their Overlord I can't stand.
Yup, Apparentlyso. Luckily, the two recent ones are only temps. He still needs those meddlesome people in Congress for lifetime appointments.
Avoid The Faux News Channel, and you may learn that "The battle is over a relatively small number of judges. Since President Bush took office in January 2001, the Senate has confirmed 173 of his judicial nominees. But Democrats have used filibusters to block six nominees, including Judge Pickering and Mr. Pryor, to the appeals court, the level just below the Supreme Court."
Seems to me that the Democrats have handed the Republicans nearly every judge they've asked for. Talk about a rubber stamp.
Microsoft denounces OS yet they contribute... Odd.
It isn't odd. It's Microsoft gingerly stepping on to the bandwagon, one pinky toe at a time. This was predicted by/. posters, so it shouldn't be such a surprise. Naturally, like Oracle, they contribute tech that has a higher chance of locking you into their game; or, at least has some chance of benefiting them rather than society. I'm not faulting them for it, they're a business after all, and a publically traded business is about profit at everything else's expense. At the same time, they can show the guberment and their clients that they're such nice guys, and gain whatever points.
What MacroShaft doesn't understand is that they will eventually be selling off their proprietary product divisions after much devaluation, or they will dominate as Open Source versions of that product. Whether they domeinate, depends on how soon they Open Source their products. The later they do it, the less likely they will dominate. It wouldn't surprise me that when the Open Sourcing starts, that they'll select an unsatisfactory license the first time around, and will have to change it at least once. If their major products are Open Sourced, I don't think they'll end up using the CPL.
To recap, they'll either have to sell or Open Source (as in Freedom). They really have little choice in the matter. You can't fight the public, and you can quote me on that.
I took a look at the pictures of the building, and just discovered that money, even $280 million worth, can't buy taste. The thing is hideous. No wonder Stallman is upset; dementia emanates from the exterior in waves. Who knows how it would affect your personality day after day. It wouldn't surprise me if Bill Gates, knowing Stallman would end up in it, secretly demanded the most mentally disturbing and Nega-Feng-Shui design possible.
Multinational corporations have an unfair advantage over that of ordinary national corporations, local businesses and the average citizen. They've claimed independence from their country of origin, while retaining most of the rights of citizens (and often paying fewer taxes than the citizens).
They have clearly stated goals of profit over any other motive, including the health (physically and economically) of their country of origin. No one should delude themselves into thinking that if there were a choice between the survival of a multinational corporation and the survival of its country of origin that sentiment would play a role. Do any corporate charters begin with "I pledge allegiance..."? Companies are legally obligated to their stockholders. Chances are most citizens of the company's country of origin are not stockholders, and hence are not of concern. So, anything that would increase their ability to produce profit for their stockholders, who are a minority of citizens/non-citizens, up to and including the loss of employment for citizens of their country of origin, is fair game. No further thought is legally required.
That's one company. Now, imagine every single multinational corporation thinking and behaving the same way. Thoughtlessly, a group pushing like a herd to lobby for the original country's loss of employment becomes part of business. Each only has their small group of citizens and non-citizen shareholders to consider. Be damned with the rest. However, if all lobby for the same right to outsource/offshore employment without hindrance or thought of consequences, and continue to operate with all the benefits of an national corporation, quite a large swathe of citizens who hold and don't hold stock in each others companies lose employment. It would be an unthinking, uncaring, profit motivated push by entire industries that are the sum of the multinationals; without malice, but also without consideration to the citizenry who has made it all possible for them. In reality, all corporations are nothing more that mindless appetite. However, given a chance to support one over the other, a citizen would be wise to support the one whose fate and fortunes are tied to that of the citizen's and his country, rather than a multinational whose appetites know no borders, and whose behaviors are not bound by the laws of their country of origin and often lead to misery within other borders.
This is why multinationals should be treated as foreign companies. This is under the assumption that there are checks to curb foreign companies from abusing and wreaking havoc on the domestic market. Multinationals are not obligated to consider the financial health or welfare of the citizens of their country of origin. This new arrangement will allow companies that still behave as if they are privileged to operate within the infrastructure, protection, and market of the country of their origin to compete fairly against the multinationals (who've offshored their labor) within the local market (playing field). And, in that way, other foreign companies can also compete fairly against the multinationals within the market of the multinational's country of origin. Up to this point, the country of origin protected multinationals as citizens and as national corporations.
A citizen of the same country of origin as the multinational isn't able to behave as a multinational, although the multinational has nearly all the rights of the citizen. The citizen isn't able to determine where work will be located in the world, but a multinational can. So, citizens too are at a disadvantage towards as they are competing against multinationals in regards to jobs or at least their locations. However, if multinationals were to be treated as any other foreign company (again, assuming that there are checks that stop foreign companies from playing unfair in the domestic market), their advantage over citizens and national/local companies would be less important. When a citizen purchases products, it will be as if a
Why do most people assign to malevolence what can easily be assigned to stupidity?... Did MS change the JVM because they wanted to corrupt it? Or was it simply that they did not have the technical expertise to write it without corrupting it?
If a snake were to accidently sink its fangs into my arm, I might find it in my dying heart to forgive it. Then, just before I close my eyes, I find out that this accident has been happening to other people ever since the snake was a little critter. What am I supposed to think? It's a snake.
Solaris and Linux would each gain each other's best features that would be technically feasable to clone. However, Linux can already do or will eventually do what Solaris can. If it doesn't now, it will soon - it's inevitable. Marketwise, Sun would continue to lose their high-end hardware business, but their low-end commodity hardware business would continue to grow.
Sun would be better off GPL'ing their hardware, and Java than Solaris. If they could manage to get other people to pay them for certification services as Sun Certified Hardware and Java, they'll be the defacto standard for high-end computing. As their GPL'd hardware designs are improved through a similar process as the JCP, they will remain cutting edge. I doubt any other hardware manufacturer would hesitate to obtain a certification, since their competitors would be doing the same (VIA, AMD, Intel, HP, IBM, Motorola, TI, Cisco...etc). New design, new certification. But, all the R&D costs would be shared across the planet. Sun needs to start sniffing out those industry wide alliances right now to confirm if there are those willing to obtain cutting edge tech in such a manner to support administration costs of certifications.
Imagine universities and government contractors all over the planet able to improve Sun's designs and the best ones that match specific types of jobs are submitted for fabrication approval status under a community process.
Keep in mind, this is only worthwhile to Sun if their high-end hardware revenue stream continues to dwindle as it has, and they continue to post losses. They've remade themselves before, from workstations to servers to software company to desktops. Now, they also need to become a standards body to continue. A publically held clearing house of research and development, whose profit is based on building and servicing commodity hardware/software, and the integrity of their community and certification process. Their GPL'd hardware would eat into the profits of proprietary systems as Linux is doing to Solaris.
This is the type of Microsoft-esque mentality that's going to eventually hurt the OSS community.
I have to admit, I don't understand what you mean by "Microsoft-esque". Please elaborate.
For a group that talks about Freedom so much they sure like to dictate what other people do or say
One reason why Freedom is so great is because you can tell people who supposedly care about your opinions what to do. They don't have to do it, which is the other reason why Freedom is so great. However, you also don't have to continue your relationship if its not going your way. Anyone who continues doing so is either a sycophant, or a stooge.
and if they don't lash out against them.
How is making choices and choosing tools lashing out? At the very least, it shows concern for the relationship when an unhappiness is communicated from one party to the other. If it falls on deaf ears, is that the complainant's fault? At least an attempt was made, and often in plenty of time to fix the problem. It would be hypocritical to their own ideals for Open Source proponents to continue to lock their code using a proprietary language/platform when a reasonable alternative matures to the point of practical use.
It's typical of corporate pushers to limit freedom of choice (unprofitable otherwise) and bemoan the situation when one appears, whether by design or by nature, with the potential to be more attractive and closer to the hearts of those they've up to that point held sway over.
Some of the licenses Sun sells will not be valid anymore if Java is GPL'd.
Not true. If people/corporations want Java, they'll use products that are called Java. Very much like if people/corporations want Linux, they'll use products that are called Linux. Anyone who doesn't deal with the owner of the Java name and trademark will have to sell and train people in a product they can't name as everyone else knows it. It's an uphill battle. Find me a corporation that will use a Linux OS that isn't called Linux. You can't do it.
One of the main things is certification and testing to be called Java. If it is GPL'd people can choose to call it something other than Java. They don't have to pay Sun anything. Call it WebsphereVM and WebsphereEE and IBM can do anything they want with the language and Sun gets nothing for it.
If IBM were to try to sell something perceived to be outside an established standard, all that would happen is that every competing vendor would use that as part of their advertising campaign. You can imagine where IBM's mindshare would go regarding a product they couldn't even name as everyone else knows it. Specially considering there are and will be free alternatives that are certified under the JCP. It'll never happen (actually it did with J2EE, but once everyone else [JBoss] was published to follow the standard, all vendors, including IBM, scrambled to match the reference standard).
Think about C or C++, which wasn't under any license, just a late-to-market standard. When competing vendors developed their tools, did they call it Visual D? Or, Visual Age for E? No, they called it C because misrepresenting the product would've been a waste of marketing/training effort and money. And, the competition would've creamed them. No one would buy it. If IBM decided to go on their own, and skip calling it Java (because Sun owns the name/trademark), they couldn't even claim Java compatibility.
Come to think of it, this also actually happened with Java prior to J2EE. It was earlier in its life when the specs were published and it was the new kid on the block. HP decided they were going to make their own cleanroom implementation and simply not bother with licensing the name or getting it certified. Guess what? Nobody came to the party. They eventually relented and got a Sun license. If Java were GPL'd, it would simply be cheaper to work with Sun and the JCP
All this is based on the assumption that Sun isnt' making money off of Java and that it is a financial drain.
Actually, that's only part of it. The other assumption is that Sun is about to be on the flipside of the community because they're thwarting its will, and a reasonable replacement is on its way.
According to Sun, Java pretty much breaks even.
According to Sun. Of course they're going to say that. They can't say it makes them profit, because it clearly doesn't. Admitting that it's a loss would just add blood to the water while there are two big sharks, one white and the other blue, and a whole school of barracuda doing laps around them. Last I checked, Wallstreet wasn't too happy on their recent losses. Even if they do break even, what's to celebrate? The only thing I can think of is the name brand, and they wouldn't lose that either way.
It also helps them sell more hardware, software and services.
I agree. And, they wouldn't lose that either since they are the only ones who own the name.
Open Sourcing Java will give IBM a big advantage, and savings and would hurt Sun's revenues.
IBM is a Java licensee. They can use the name and technology just about anyway Sun can for marketing and production purposes. You can even get certified as a IBM Java programmer, just as you can as a Sun Java programmer. What advantage would it give IBM if the code is GPL/LGPL'd and any changes they make would be available for Sun to incorporate?
IBM would love to pry Java away from sun so they could kill off a company that is eating into their midrange and mainframe market.
If IBM can't kill RedHat (and RedHat is 100% reliant on Linux, and IBM isn't yet), how would IBM kill Sun? Again, this is a misunderstanding that most people have. If Linux's license was BSD, IBM could close their version of the code and make a better version(more accurate to say they could add a selling feature), and gain a minor advantage that could kill off the smaller competition (a few would survive, as some would be able to do something similar as IBM). Of course, I'm describing the Unix Wars of the 80's and 90's. However, the GPL would've made that impossible. Which is why despite being over a decade older (more mature, stable code), and having corporate backing nearly two decades longer(more development and marketing funding), BSD is losing marketshare and mindshare to Linux. The funny thing is that BSD is also Open Source and has been in IT's eyes much longer. What's the differentiating factor? The license. Linux is thriving and growing over BSD and its proprietary variants. The same effect would occur with Java. Now, mind you I'm not claiming the GPL is better than any other license, I'm only stating that if you want a particular effect to occur, this license has proven to be the surest one to cause it.
What the OSS community should do is embrace Java more.
They've done so, and will do so. That is until something similar arrives that is closer to the spirit of what makes them happy. Open Source folks are different from the run of the mill IT folks in that they have a vision of how things should be. Whereas other IT folks are people who don't have a particular vision (at least a unifying one) of how things should be. If history tells us anything, those who are willing to act on their vision, are the ones who write the history books. If Java doesn't allow itself to be embraceable by Open Source folks, but something comes along that does (as did GNU/Linux). Then, I believe that the Open Source folks will write a new chapter in their history.
Java is more established in more places where linux would like to be.
I can tell you from first hand experience in working at a couple of the largest entertainment companies in the world (both in Cali.), that where there was Sun/OS-Solaris or HP/UX or AIX or IRIX, there is now Linux. These companies are Microsoft houses, even as once they wer
Sun,Open Source Java or it may share Pascal's fate
on
Should Sun Just Fold Now?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I don't know if Java is a relevant source of income to Sun. I would think rather that it's a drain. It may be that the only value Sun gets from Java is brand name recognition. That in itself is worth a great deal, as it helps you sell other things that aren't a drain. However, that is only true if a competitor doesn't come along to duplicate and improve the Java technology with a catchy, if familiar, name to developers. Also, it wouldn't help if they do you one better and actually establish the clone as an official standard. If the clone should become a standard, it's entirely plausible that Open Source implementations would arise, giving developers Java without the name.
What would be even worse is that if those Open Source guys happen to decide to use the same bullet-proofing that allows the Linux juggernaut to currently cause havoc with Sun's UNIX businesses. You know that killer app that isn't an app, but a license called the GPL. We know the GPL eats competing proprietary licenses for appetizers, and the products attached to them as entrées. I think Sun's main competitor (now bosom-buddy) called it a virus, and are clearly afraid of it as they're the next course on the menu.
No, as long as those things don't happen, Sun should be able to continue on as it has for the past several years without worrying about their product being usurped from under them, and under a different name. No point heading off the disaster as long as such clearly ridiculous fantasies don't come to pass. Even if it would really cost them nothing (just save them a bunch on development and administration cost), and they would still be able to retain the brand name (the only value Java adds to Sun) while Open Sourcing Java.
If they GPL/LGPL'd it, their fears of permanent forking and the product being locked into proprietary platforms would all vanish. And, similar to Linus, they retain brand name, copyright,trademarks and control over the name. The JCP process would remain the defacto standard.
It wold be liking having the wait for the network union to show up to plug you network cable into the wall before you can use it and god forbid you plug it in yourself.
You don't need unions for that to happen. Most large corporations have separations of responsibilities. If a desktop support person were to start messing with the switches that the network guys are responsiblie for, he can expect a reprimand. The same goes with a network person messing with a PC that a desktop support person is responsible for. The network guy can expect to catch hell. The reasons for these rules should be self-evident. If they aren't to you, then you haven't worked in a large enterprise environment where they've learned painfully over the years that sloppy rules (where everybody gets to touch everyone else's responsibilities) ultimately leads to inefficiencies (too many chefs in the kitchen) and lack of problem ownership (the blame game) which inevitably translated to unhappy clients.
My logic may very well be flawed, but you have yet to disprove it. In addition, you have only offered evidence of my contetion that those who oppose unions don't offer any alternative of value.
What may be bothersome to some people is that unions are democratic, and where there's democracy, there's dialogue. Opposing viewpoints will engender friction. See this as an example of a union who's members are of varied skillsets and backgrounds. There's friction in un-democratic organizations such as corporations as well, but they are usually handled by NDAs, firings, and executive coups. Very feudalistic.
The fact is, you as an individual are up against an organized machine called the corporation. You have little hope of fair treatment or consideration other than what laws you can manage to have passed at state or federal levels. As those levels are heavily lobbied by, that's right, organized machines you're pretty much hosed standing by yourself. On the other hand, if you find fellows of a similar mind, and you should all decide that your jobs and way of life are worth fighting for, you could have a Tea Party.
People go to college to make a career for themselves, and so that they may earn income (many hope to make themselves wealthy). This is under the assumption that no one is going to hand them income for free. Bill Gates went to college because he had nothing better to do. He was already rich. So, whether Bill hates college dropouts or loves them is beside the point. He didn't need to finish college, and willingly walked away from Harvard (a school many would give their right-arm to attend). Financially, he was already at the point where college was supposed to take him to. However, his financial state was entirely based on inheritance and allowances, which was probably not too appealing and motivated his future business coups. I wouldn't be surprised if M$ recruiters use Gate's lack of a college degree as an excuse to encourage others not to get one in order to become MicroSerfs.
I disagree, I think the need for a Union has materialized. We didn't ask for the situation, but it dug us out of our private cubby-holes and flashed lights in our eyes. We're a little stunned from temporary blindness, but we'll eventually get around to forming something resembling one.
For those who oppose unions, they are unable to offer a reasonable alternative. And, for those who despise unions, too late. You're already part of the biggest one, and pay your dues bi-monthly. In return, you're protected by one of the strongest armies in the world, can vote in your Union's elections, and have perks such as public parks and beaches to de-stress in. If you should lose your job, the Union even provides temporary income to hold you over until another is found.
By law, every year, the corrupt head of the organization (unfortunately, often a corporate flunky) has to give a State of the Union Address to tell you how he will be commiting future crimes against the rest of the world. Is it any wonder that we have to have a Union to protect us from the larger corporate-controlled Union?
In reality, he may simply have grown tired of heading the group, and decided to publicize whatever points he could as he exited. A parting shot for his political leanings (things he cares about) while he still had a forum to be heard in.
If you look at the transcript, he's protesting. His arguments don't hold water if taken literally (should we all stop doing/using something simply because our enemy does/uses the same advantage? No.). But, as a platform of protest, it makes perfect sense if what you're trying to do is get your fellow geeks' attention to your cause. Despite the poor execution, I'd vote him in as President over shrub any day for simply being cognizant.
You're also less desirable without a degree by other companies (try to get a perm job with Amgen straight off the street without a degree), and less likely to get promoted from within M$ to a high level position. Sad that M$ practices employee lock-in as well vendor lock-in. This is not a healthy practice for a company in America to Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
I hadn't realized that there were doubts as to who is the quote's author. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Franklin never said anything of the sort.
I'd say you'd need to do more research before claiming that. A discussion in a newsgroup is not unlike a discussion on Slashdot, with an identical force of authority. In other words, show me proof he didn't say it.
In the meantime, I'll use the quote without attribution until I learn who actually said it. Thanks again.
= 9J =
I've got nothing against Microsoft Users... it's just their Overlord I can't stand.
= 9J =
Please, remove the tin foil, and Google to verify the numbers reported by the New York Times if you have trouble swallowing them.
= 9J =
I've got nothing against Microsoft Users... it's just their Overlord I can't stand.
= 9J =
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
-- Benjamin Franklin
= 9J =
On the flip side.
= 9J =
Yup, Apparently so. Luckily, the two recent ones are only temps. He still needs those meddlesome people in Congress for lifetime appointments.
Avoid The Faux News Channel, and you may learn that "The battle is over a relatively small number of judges. Since President Bush took office in January 2001, the Senate has confirmed 173 of his judicial nominees. But Democrats have used filibusters to block six nominees, including Judge Pickering and Mr. Pryor, to the appeals court, the level just below the Supreme Court."
Seems to me that the Democrats have handed the Republicans nearly every judge they've asked for. Talk about a rubber stamp.
= 9J =
Come, Mister Taliban, tally me banana...
= 9J =
It isn't odd. It's Microsoft gingerly stepping on to the bandwagon, one pinky toe at a time. This was predicted by /. posters, so it shouldn't be such a surprise. Naturally, like Oracle, they contribute tech that has a higher chance of locking you into their game; or, at least has some chance of benefiting them rather than society. I'm not faulting them for it, they're a business after all, and a publically traded business is about profit at everything else's expense. At the same time, they can show the guberment and their clients that they're such nice guys, and gain whatever points.
What MacroShaft doesn't understand is that they will eventually be selling off their proprietary product divisions after much devaluation, or they will dominate as Open Source versions of that product. Whether they domeinate, depends on how soon they Open Source their products. The later they do it, the less likely they will dominate. It wouldn't surprise me that when the Open Sourcing starts, that they'll select an unsatisfactory license the first time around, and will have to change it at least once. If their major products are Open Sourced, I don't think they'll end up using the CPL.
To recap, they'll either have to sell or Open Source (as in Freedom). They really have little choice in the matter. You can't fight the public, and you can quote me on that.
= 9J =
That's the Java section. /. won't run without it.
= 9J =
= 9J =
They have clearly stated goals of profit over any other motive, including the health (physically and economically) of their country of origin. No one should delude themselves into thinking that if there were a choice between the survival of a multinational corporation and the survival of its country of origin that sentiment would play a role. Do any corporate charters begin with "I pledge allegiance..."? Companies are legally obligated to their stockholders. Chances are most citizens of the company's country of origin are not stockholders, and hence are not of concern. So, anything that would increase their ability to produce profit for their stockholders, who are a minority of citizens/non-citizens, up to and including the loss of employment for citizens of their country of origin, is fair game. No further thought is legally required.
That's one company. Now, imagine every single multinational corporation thinking and behaving the same way. Thoughtlessly, a group pushing like a herd to lobby for the original country's loss of employment becomes part of business. Each only has their small group of citizens and non-citizen shareholders to consider. Be damned with the rest. However, if all lobby for the same right to outsource/offshore employment without hindrance or thought of consequences, and continue to operate with all the benefits of an national corporation, quite a large swathe of citizens who hold and don't hold stock in each others companies lose employment. It would be an unthinking, uncaring, profit motivated push by entire industries that are the sum of the multinationals; without malice, but also without consideration to the citizenry who has made it all possible for them. In reality, all corporations are nothing more that mindless appetite. However, given a chance to support one over the other, a citizen would be wise to support the one whose fate and fortunes are tied to that of the citizen's and his country, rather than a multinational whose appetites know no borders, and whose behaviors are not bound by the laws of their country of origin and often lead to misery within other borders.
This is why multinationals should be treated as foreign companies. This is under the assumption that there are checks to curb foreign companies from abusing and wreaking havoc on the domestic market. Multinationals are not obligated to consider the financial health or welfare of the citizens of their country of origin. This new arrangement will allow companies that still behave as if they are privileged to operate within the infrastructure, protection, and market of the country of their origin to compete fairly against the multinationals (who've offshored their labor) within the local market (playing field). And, in that way, other foreign companies can also compete fairly against the multinationals within the market of the multinational's country of origin. Up to this point, the country of origin protected multinationals as citizens and as national corporations.
A citizen of the same country of origin as the multinational isn't able to behave as a multinational, although the multinational has nearly all the rights of the citizen. The citizen isn't able to determine where work will be located in the world, but a multinational can. So, citizens too are at a disadvantage towards as they are competing against multinationals in regards to jobs or at least their locations. However, if multinationals were to be treated as any other foreign company (again, assuming that there are checks that stop foreign companies from playing unfair in the domestic market), their advantage over citizens and national/local companies would be less important. When a citizen purchases products, it will be as if a
If a snake were to accidently sink its fangs into my arm, I might find it in my dying heart to forgive it. Then, just before I close my eyes, I find out that this accident has been happening to other people ever since the snake was a little critter. What am I supposed to think? It's a snake.
= 9J =
Sun would be better off GPL'ing their hardware, and Java than Solaris. If they could manage to get other people to pay them for certification services as Sun Certified Hardware and Java, they'll be the defacto standard for high-end computing. As their GPL'd hardware designs are improved through a similar process as the JCP, they will remain cutting edge. I doubt any other hardware manufacturer would hesitate to obtain a certification, since their competitors would be doing the same (VIA, AMD, Intel, HP, IBM, Motorola, TI, Cisco...etc). New design, new certification. But, all the R&D costs would be shared across the planet. Sun needs to start sniffing out those industry wide alliances right now to confirm if there are those willing to obtain cutting edge tech in such a manner to support administration costs of certifications.
Imagine universities and government contractors all over the planet able to improve Sun's designs and the best ones that match specific types of jobs are submitted for fabrication approval status under a community process.
Keep in mind, this is only worthwhile to Sun if their high-end hardware revenue stream continues to dwindle as it has, and they continue to post losses. They've remade themselves before, from workstations to servers to software company to desktops. Now, they also need to become a standards body to continue. A publically held clearing house of research and development, whose profit is based on building and servicing commodity hardware/software, and the integrity of their community and certification process. Their GPL'd hardware would eat into the profits of proprietary systems as Linux is doing to Solaris.
= 9J =
I have to admit, I don't understand what you mean by "Microsoft-esque". Please elaborate.
For a group that talks about Freedom so much they sure like to dictate what other people do or say
One reason why Freedom is so great is because you can tell people who supposedly care about your opinions what to do. They don't have to do it, which is the other reason why Freedom is so great. However, you also don't have to continue your relationship if its not going your way. Anyone who continues doing so is either a sycophant, or a stooge.
and if they don't lash out against them.
How is making choices and choosing tools lashing out? At the very least, it shows concern for the relationship when an unhappiness is communicated from one party to the other. If it falls on deaf ears, is that the complainant's fault? At least an attempt was made, and often in plenty of time to fix the problem. It would be hypocritical to their own ideals for Open Source proponents to continue to lock their code using a proprietary language/platform when a reasonable alternative matures to the point of practical use.
It's typical of corporate pushers to limit freedom of choice (unprofitable otherwise) and bemoan the situation when one appears, whether by design or by nature, with the potential to be more attractive and closer to the hearts of those they've up to that point held sway over.
Some of the licenses Sun sells will not be valid anymore if Java is GPL'd.
Not true. If people/corporations want Java, they'll use products that are called Java. Very much like if people/corporations want Linux, they'll use products that are called Linux. Anyone who doesn't deal with the owner of the Java name and trademark will have to sell and train people in a product they can't name as everyone else knows it. It's an uphill battle. Find me a corporation that will use a Linux OS that isn't called Linux. You can't do it.
One of the main things is certification and testing to be called Java. If it is GPL'd people can choose to call it something other than Java. They don't have to pay Sun anything. Call it WebsphereVM and WebsphereEE and IBM can do anything they want with the language and Sun gets nothing for it.
If IBM were to try to sell something perceived to be outside an established standard, all that would happen is that every competing vendor would use that as part of their advertising campaign. You can imagine where IBM's mindshare would go regarding a product they couldn't even name as everyone else knows it. Specially considering there are and will be free alternatives that are certified under the JCP. It'll never happen (actually it did with J2EE, but once everyone else [JBoss] was published to follow the standard, all vendors, including IBM, scrambled to match the reference standard).
Think about C or C++, which wasn't under any license, just a late-to-market standard. When competing vendors developed their tools, did they call it Visual D? Or, Visual Age for E? No, they called it C because misrepresenting the product would've been a waste of marketing/training effort and money. And, the competition would've creamed them. No one would buy it. If IBM decided to go on their own, and skip calling it Java (because Sun owns the name/trademark), they couldn't even claim Java compatibility.
Come to think of it, this also actually happened with Java prior to J2EE. It was earlier in its life when the specs were published and it was the new kid on the block. HP decided they were going to make their own cleanroom implementation and simply not bother with licensing the name or getting it certified. Guess what? Nobody came to the party. They eventually relented and got a Sun license. If Java were GPL'd, it would simply be cheaper to work with Sun and the JCP
You mean like this?
= 9J =
Actually, that's only part of it. The other assumption is that Sun is about to be on the flipside of the community because they're thwarting its will, and a reasonable replacement is on its way.
According to Sun, Java pretty much breaks even.
According to Sun. Of course they're going to say that. They can't say it makes them profit, because it clearly doesn't. Admitting that it's a loss would just add blood to the water while there are two big sharks, one white and the other blue, and a whole school of barracuda doing laps around them. Last I checked, Wallstreet wasn't too happy on their recent losses. Even if they do break even, what's to celebrate? The only thing I can think of is the name brand, and they wouldn't lose that either way.
It also helps them sell more hardware, software and services.
I agree. And, they wouldn't lose that either since they are the only ones who own the name.
Open Sourcing Java will give IBM a big advantage, and savings and would hurt Sun's revenues.
IBM is a Java licensee. They can use the name and technology just about anyway Sun can for marketing and production purposes. You can even get certified as a IBM Java programmer, just as you can as a Sun Java programmer. What advantage would it give IBM if the code is GPL/LGPL'd and any changes they make would be available for Sun to incorporate?
IBM would love to pry Java away from sun so they could kill off a company that is eating into their midrange and mainframe market.
If IBM can't kill RedHat (and RedHat is 100% reliant on Linux, and IBM isn't yet), how would IBM kill Sun? Again, this is a misunderstanding that most people have. If Linux's license was BSD, IBM could close their version of the code and make a better version(more accurate to say they could add a selling feature), and gain a minor advantage that could kill off the smaller competition (a few would survive, as some would be able to do something similar as IBM). Of course, I'm describing the Unix Wars of the 80's and 90's. However, the GPL would've made that impossible. Which is why despite being over a decade older (more mature, stable code), and having corporate backing nearly two decades longer(more development and marketing funding), BSD is losing marketshare and mindshare to Linux. The funny thing is that BSD is also Open Source and has been in IT's eyes much longer. What's the differentiating factor? The license. Linux is thriving and growing over BSD and its proprietary variants. The same effect would occur with Java. Now, mind you I'm not claiming the GPL is better than any other license, I'm only stating that if you want a particular effect to occur, this license has proven to be the surest one to cause it.
What the OSS community should do is embrace Java more.
They've done so, and will do so. That is until something similar arrives that is closer to the spirit of what makes them happy. Open Source folks are different from the run of the mill IT folks in that they have a vision of how things should be. Whereas other IT folks are people who don't have a particular vision (at least a unifying one) of how things should be. If history tells us anything, those who are willing to act on their vision, are the ones who write the history books. If Java doesn't allow itself to be embraceable by Open Source folks, but something comes along that does (as did GNU/Linux). Then, I believe that the Open Source folks will write a new chapter in their history.
Java is more established in more places where linux would like to be.
I can tell you from first hand experience in working at a couple of the largest entertainment companies in the world (both in Cali.), that where there was Sun/OS-Solaris or HP/UX or AIX or IRIX, there is now Linux. These companies are Microsoft houses, even as once they wer
I don't know if Java is a relevant source of income to Sun. I would think rather that it's a drain. It may be that the only value Sun gets from Java is brand name recognition. That in itself is worth a great deal, as it helps you sell other things that aren't a drain. However, that is only true if a competitor doesn't come along to duplicate and improve the Java technology with a catchy, if familiar, name to developers. Also, it wouldn't help if they do you one better and actually establish the clone as an official standard. If the clone should become a standard, it's entirely plausible that Open Source implementations would arise, giving developers Java without the name.
What would be even worse is that if those Open Source guys happen to decide to use the same bullet-proofing that allows the Linux juggernaut to currently cause havoc with Sun's UNIX businesses. You know that killer app that isn't an app, but a license called the GPL. We know the GPL eats competing proprietary licenses for appetizers, and the products attached to them as entrées. I think Sun's main competitor (now bosom-buddy) called it a virus, and are clearly afraid of it as they're the next course on the menu.
No, as long as those things don't happen, Sun should be able to continue on as it has for the past several years without worrying about their product being usurped from under them, and under a different name. No point heading off the disaster as long as such clearly ridiculous fantasies don't come to pass. Even if it would really cost them nothing (just save them a bunch on development and administration cost), and they would still be able to retain the brand name (the only value Java adds to Sun) while Open Sourcing Java.
If they GPL/LGPL'd it, their fears of permanent forking and the product being locked into proprietary platforms would all vanish. And, similar to Linus, they retain brand name, copyright,trademarks and control over the name. The JCP process would remain the defacto standard.
= 9J =
You don't need unions for that to happen. Most large corporations have separations of responsibilities. If a desktop support person were to start messing with the switches that the network guys are responsiblie for, he can expect a reprimand. The same goes with a network person messing with a PC that a desktop support person is responsible for. The network guy can expect to catch hell. The reasons for these rules should be self-evident. If they aren't to you, then you haven't worked in a large enterprise environment where they've learned painfully over the years that sloppy rules (where everybody gets to touch everyone else's responsibilities) ultimately leads to inefficiencies (too many chefs in the kitchen) and lack of problem ownership (the blame game) which inevitably translated to unhappy clients.
= 9J =
= 9J =
My logic may very well be flawed, but you have yet to disprove it. In addition, you have only offered evidence of my contetion that those who oppose unions don't offer any alternative of value.
What may be bothersome to some people is that unions are democratic, and where there's democracy, there's dialogue. Opposing viewpoints will engender friction. See this as an example of a union who's members are of varied skillsets and backgrounds. There's friction in un-democratic organizations such as corporations as well, but they are usually handled by NDAs, firings, and executive coups. Very feudalistic.
The fact is, you as an individual are up against an organized machine called the corporation. You have little hope of fair treatment or consideration other than what laws you can manage to have passed at state or federal levels. As those levels are heavily lobbied by, that's right, organized machines you're pretty much hosed standing by yourself. On the other hand, if you find fellows of a similar mind, and you should all decide that your jobs and way of life are worth fighting for, you could have a Tea Party.
= 9J =
= 9J =
For those who oppose unions, they are unable to offer a reasonable alternative. And, for those who despise unions, too late. You're already part of the biggest one, and pay your dues bi-monthly. In return, you're protected by one of the strongest armies in the world, can vote in your Union's elections, and have perks such as public parks and beaches to de-stress in. If you should lose your job, the Union even provides temporary income to hold you over until another is found.
By law, every year, the corrupt head of the organization (unfortunately, often a corporate flunky) has to give a State of the Union Address to tell you how he will be commiting future crimes against the rest of the world. Is it any wonder that we have to have a Union to protect us from the larger corporate-controlled Union?
= 9J =
If you look at the transcript, he's protesting. His arguments don't hold water if taken literally (should we all stop doing/using something simply because our enemy does/uses the same advantage? No.). But, as a platform of protest, it makes perfect sense if what you're trying to do is get your fellow geeks' attention to your cause. Despite the poor execution, I'd vote him in as President over shrub any day for simply being cognizant.
= 9J =
= 9J =