"In fact, the majority of problems reported from home users have been from IE users that have had their computers taken over by spyware and the like thanks to the great security of IE. It would save most companies tons of money in support if they did "standardize" on Mozilla."
You don't seem to read what you write so let me point out how you disprove your own statements.
"When we develop web apps, they are standards compliant and do work on Mozilla, IE, and other browsers so there is no need to "standardize on IE""
"When we develop web apps, they are standards compliant and do work on Mozilla, IE, and other browsers so there is no need to "standardize on IE""
So much for no reason to standardize on Mozilla. In fact that sounds like a pretty good reason to do so. If you're not developing using.Net and using MS specific extensions to tie into your backend applications you don't need IE.
I'm not saying standardizing on Mozilla is bad. I like Mozilla. But having a bunch of geeks flaunt how much better it is means nothing. If it's not being adopted by the general public or corporate community then all it is is a decent web browser for the relatively few people that choose to run a linux desktop.
Being good isn't good enough, you have to be popular too.
"They are more of the sites that average Joe user goes to, so they are not getting accurate stats since many power users and geeks are not counted."
That's the point. Joe User makes up the majority of computer users. Also most companies have standardized on IE, after Netscape stopped being a stable alternative.
When your fortune 500 company standardizes it's web browser to Mozilla on the desktop, then you can come back and claim some sort of victory.
"He also said IBM is struggling for differentiation and that Sun has offered many technologies, such as Network File System and the OpenOffice office applications, under a General Public License while IBM has not offered technologies under a GPL. IBM has a problem in that the main beneficiary of its Linux demand generation is Red Hat and not IBM, according to Schwartz. "
"JessLeah is totally wrong on this point: the reason that the GNU Java projects are not "Java proper" is not that Sun didn't make them, but that they are immature and don't completely implement that Java spec. I think this may help explain why RMS is so sore (and unfair) on this point: GNU Java kind of sucks, even after many years of work, his "free software" baby isn't winning in the Java world, and nobody really cares except GNU... so there's a bit of sour grapes."
I'm trying to find a sound file of a hammer hitting the nail on the head. I can't find one... so just use your imagination.
The people actually working on the GNU java stuff don't want Sun to open source Java. they want to prove that they can do it themselves with out their help and do it better. There was a post on one of the previous slashdot threads by one of the developers indicating that.
The reality though is that most of the open source projects don't get to where they are based on a large community of volunteer developers. The big gains in open source software have been by corporations donating money and paying their developers to work on open source solutions. I'm not saying this is bad, but it should be recognized.
Maybe RMS is still just ticked off at Gosling over emacs.
Ok, I'll bite. Sun is in the application server market, they have their own product. Is it one of the big names? No, it's not. Would they like that to change? I am certain they would.
That's my point. They do have competing products but they don't use their control of Java to hurt their competition and make their products better.
Do you honestly think that BEA and other application server makers won't scream blue murder ?
Again I think that's the point I'm making. Sun isn't trying to kill competition. Other companies might if Java was open sourced. That doesn't just hurt sun, that hurts Java and the developer community.
The community *could* get more involved in contributing extensions and patches to how Java works.
They can already do this through the JCP. Individual membership in the JCP is free.
Who else can be trusted to take the helm of such a commercially valuable piece of intellectual property ? Who would resist the temptation to subvert it to their own ends?
It's marked flaimbait because "Sun is setting" is just wishful thinking by the linux community. Sun has a lot of things going for it.
They've hit hard times for a lot of different reasons. Companies come back. Novell kinda did, Apple did.
Sun has a lot of stuff going for it and they are finally starting to listen to their customers more. Better integration with MS, no more bickering with MS, more support of Linux and open source, more options in commodity hardware, bringing back solaris x86.
Another anology could be that Java could be what's keeping them from hemoraging even more. Release Java, and Sun could be in worse shape. It's a difficult decision they have to make but they're the ones that have to make it. They've been good to the Java developer community and whether they GPL java or not, they're track record indicates that they will take the needs of the developer community into account.
He says "if done carefully". Open sourcing Java isn't just a simple matter of replacing the license.txt file. There is a lot at stake and you don't want this to be the thing that kills Java.
Of course if it doess all the OS zealots will say "see they did it too late".
I don't see Gosling's comments as as strong a call to open source java as other's do.
He's saying there could be a good thing.
The rest of Sun thing it could be a good thing too that's why they were looking into it. It's neither an easy decision to make nor an easy one to implement.
Basically, they want to be able to have more control of it and Sun, or anyone else to have less.
The reason for this is that IBM is the big money maker in the Java/J2EE Space. It is fighting strong competition from BEA and now JBoss, maybe soon to be Jonas and Geronimo.
I think it's a credit to Sun that while they help build and manage the standards, they are not the big players providing the solutions that are being sold in that space.
They would like to sell more of their Java middleware components and are working towards it but they are not dependant on that to make (lose) money. The fact that they haven't made changes to the specification to favor their products over any one else's products speaks volumes. They have said they were going to open the standards so that others may benefit and everyone will compete on other merits while offering a lot of common features. The market proves they've kept their word.
I don't see IBM doing the same. Look at Mark Fluery's comments on how IBM forked a version of Axis back into a proprietary product. They did the same with other products they worked on. JetSpeed I believe is one.
They get the open source developers to help build the application, help people get buy in, then they take the codebase in house and work on it from there making improvements and selling it for mucho dinero.
That's not a bad thing, and is allowed under the license. The OS community has a good base to start building based on the initial investment by IBM. It's just something that isn't acknowledged by others.
With the JCP, the new arrangements with the Apache Group, Java keeps getting more and more open (with a little 'o').
Sun IS doing good things with Java and for the java developer community. They are making it easier for people to contribute back to java. Sun has a lot of things it needs to do in other areas but they really are doing a good job with Java. If it ain't broke why fix it?
One of the reasons's Java/J2EE is doing so well is because of the competition in the marketplace. Different vendors bring different things to market. Some wind up becoming standards, some get coppied from others. It works out to the advantage of the user community who relies on these different technologies to do their jobs.
Whether IBM will do this, we really don't know. They have more of an incentive to do this as JBoss is cutting into some of their installations. We do know that Sun isn't.
I don't see this argument working in the real world. Most people don't make their money tinkering with the internals of linux or gnu software. They make their money building things that run on top of these.
The OS and supporting software needs to be transparent as you say. It shouldn't want or need to be tinkered with. It should just work.
Developers jobs are hard enough building their own products, having to make the platform work right too doesn't make sense.
That's not to say that Linux doesn't fit many needs right out of the box because it does. A lot of it due to the people working on various distros.
There are some applications that need to scrape as much performance out of their systems as possible. They can directly modify and add extensions to the kernel to get the results they want. This is a great benefit of having open source software.
Just like there's some people that buy a car because they can add a whole bunch of aftermarket parts to it, the vast majority buy a car to get them from point A to point B and hope they never have to open the hood.
The commercial software and support provides this for them and their willing to pay for it. The biggest problem with the OSS community is that they don't see the benefits of proprietary software and wish they didn't exist.
The downside is that many (not all) OSS projects don't hold a candle to their proprietary versions. People should switch to OSS based on principles not only technical superiority. OSS doesn't have the market on technical merit (at least not yet) in most cases. People buy into OSS software because it's good enough and it's cheap (this is how microsoft got it's foot in the door).
Most people don't really care about the politics surrounding OSS. They want the tools they need to do their job and they want them as cheap as possible. If OSS doesn't fit their requirements then they will go with a proprietary system.
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.
This is the type of Microsoft-esque mentality that's going to eventually hurt the OSS community. For a group that talks about Freedom so much they sure like to dictate what other people do or say and if they don't lash out against them.
According to Sun. Of course they're going to say that. They can't say it makes them profit, because it clearly doesn't.
Sun is a public company. They can't just easily lie about things like this. I didn't say Sun as a whole is breaking even, I said they said Java pretty much breaks even. Meaning they get enough revenue from Java to pay for their expenses.
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?
Some of the licenses Sun sells will not be valid anymore if Java is GPL'd. 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. Some of the arguments people are making is that Sun's specifications change too quickly for people to be able to keep up. Two seconds later they say that Sun should release control so that people like IBM can make the changes to the Java that would help them because the process is too slow. What people don't understand is that Sun is maintaining control so that people don't go in and make changes and defeat the whole purpose of having an open standard. Right now it's really nice to be able to develop an application using Tomcat and know that it should deploy on other application servers that conform to that specification.
As far as the speed goes. Keep in mind. Many corporate J2EE/Java users don't migrate to the new specifications and implementations right away. They have a lot of applications written to a previous spec and take time to thoroughly test their apps before deploying a new version. Many people are at least 1 spec version behind. Standardizing on a platform is usually a long process in the corporate world. The point is, developing an OSS version to a previous spec isn't that bad a thing.
If IBM can't kill RedHat (and RedHat is 100% reliant on Linux, and IBM isn't yet), how would IBM kill Sun?
Why would IBM want to kill RedHat? RedHat didn't steal major sales away from IBM. They helped them sell hardware. IBM puts RedHat on it's mainframes, on it's powerpc boxes, on it's as400 boxes, on it's intel boxes. Sun's servers eat into IBM's powerpc boxes, as400 boxes and mainframe business. The comparison you make isn't valid. AIX had already lost in most cases to Solaris.
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.
I agree that it's the license that makes the difference but probably not in the same way you think it does. The BSD license and BSD development is (maybe was) very apolitical. There wasn't much of an agenda other than to create a very good, free version of Unix. A lot of commercial Unix code comes from BSD as do other OS's including the Linux Kernel. The difference between the licensing that makes one more popular is that the GPL is very political and has other agendas. Not everyone can code new enhancements but everyone can mouth off for a cause. It's not so much a better product that m
All this is based on the assumption that Sun isnt' making money off of Java and that it is a financial drain. According to Sun, Java pretty much breaks even.
It also helps them sell more hardware, software and services.
Open Sourcing Java will give IBM a big advantage, and savings and would hurt Sun's revenues. 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.
What the OSS community should do is embrace Java more. Java is more established in more places where linux would like to be. Positioning linux as a platform for J2EE deployment of certain sized applications.
"Sun is out for what it can get, and seems to be willing to stomp on any of its friends if that will gain it a bit of extra cash and promote its proprietary methods."
I'm sorry.. but who's stomping on who?
Also, do you think IBM makes money on Linux? Linux is used to help make their other offerings cheaper. Their closed, propriatary, lotsa zero's at the end of that check please stuff. Just to mention one company.
Show me a big open source project that is thriving under the GPL that didn't get money , developers, code or anything along those lines from some "closed source" company.
"You won't get done; the process that Sun has created ensures that."
(Insert Sarcasm here):
Oh I see... unlike all the other open source projects that aim to recreate popular closed source commercial applications of any fair complexity. None of them have to worry about playing catch up. Just like The Gimp matches Photoshop feature for feature within days of any new Photoshop release. Just like Mono has been able to completely implement the.Net framework. Just like Linux has been able to match the scalability and threading capabilities of commercial unixes.
(End sarcasm)
Don't blame Sun just because, like many other projects, OSS constantly has to play catchup. That's one of the problems with certain OSS projects. It takes a lot of money to be able to do good R&D, run around in circles every once in a while trying to innovate rather than copy. (Though there are some good examples of OSS software that does this, it's not the norm.)
Hell most OSS software projects wouldn't even be as advanced as they are today if it weren't for these commercial software and hardware companies like Sun, IBM, Novell, and more donating tons of money, developers, previously closed source code, etc.
That's one of the attitudes that really ticks me off about the OSS community, or anyone that copies rather than creates. They don't give enough credit to the people they are copying or acknowledge all the resources being given to them.
So Sun builds it's linux desktop, adds proprietary code to it and makes a dirt cheap linux desktop. How is this different than all the other companies that build proprietary stuff onto other open source projects and sell them?
If it isn't clear to everyone yet that the OSS community has it in for Sun because Linux want's to take over the market share that sun has, all these open letters, articles, etc. should be proof of that. Call me silly, but if some company had donated so much money and code to my community and I dissagreed with what they were doing I would bring it up with them directly instead of in a public way to try and discredit them.
Is everyone profitting from open source development except open source developers?
Why is it that so many companies can come up with business models that deal with open source software but most open source software relies on "donations"?
Not trying to be cute. I've wondered about this before.
I've been messing around with JSC for a little bit. While it's not something I can use for any real project yet it does have a lot of potenntial. The one thing I did like was that you can easily go between the gui and the source code and a change in one will automatically reflect a change in the other. So I don't understand your argument.
Also remember this isn't a production release and it has some features missing as well as some bugs. Over all I think it's pretty cool. Definately the kind of tool that would work perfectly for corporate intranet developers.
I've recently started using an ide instead of a regular text editor. I have to say I really like Netbeans. It does a lot more out of the box than eclipse. With eclipse I had to download a bunch of different tools. THe ones that actually seemed like they would be useful weren't free. Netbeans gets you up and running with everything you need to develop web applications.
Speed isn't that much of a problem anymore with Tiber beta and the 3.6 beta netbeans. When 4.0 NB comes out things will be even better with the ant based project system.
JSC is based on the Netbeans platform. It doesn't look much like netbeans at first but that's the point of the Netbeans paltform. It's very customizable.
Ah. Thanks, that clears up a lot. I couldn't remember everything but yeah you nailed it. And yeah. I guess I was a bit confused between the requirements of a rtos and a trusted os.
For your info, the rumors about Trusted Solaris' end of life are just that, rumors. Apparently Sun's plans regarding Trusted Solaris are to skip from Trusted Solaris 9 directly to Trusted Solaris 10. Some of the features of Trusted Solaris will be integrated into plain Solaris 10. They're also looking to cut the release time between a regular Solaris version and the Trusted verions from 1 year to about 6-9 months. Don't the tests to get a certification take about a year anyway? So people looking to use Trusted Solaris 10 will probably still have a long wait after Solaris 10 comes out.
I'm really surprised that without Trusted NT getting a decent rating that it would have been chosen as the only platform for deploying applications in IT-21. BSOD has a whole new meaning when you're dead in the water like the Yorkshire was a few times. That was pretty odd. Though how IT-21 started out as a switch to more Sun equipment until that guy retired (sorry bad with names) and then they switched to NT 4.0 which wasn't even C2 certified. At the time microsoft was pushing hard to get their servers into the military and we all paid the price for the money that was wasted on projects that had so many problems.
On a side note, I hear that the WMD detector is Run on NT which might be why we haven't found any:)
Slashdot Mirror
Have a look at www.rackabelsystems.com. They use a lot of these. They can fit two servers in a 1u space, back to back.
"In fact, the majority of problems reported from home users have been from IE users that have had their computers taken over by spyware and the like thanks to the great security of IE. It would save most companies tons of money in support if they did "standardize" on Mozilla."
"When we develop web apps, they are standards compliant and do work on Mozilla, IE, and other browsers so there is no need to "standardize on IE""
"When we develop web apps, they are standards compliant and do work on Mozilla, IE, and other browsers so there is no need to "standardize on IE""
So much for no reason to standardize on Mozilla. In fact that sounds like a pretty good reason to do so. If you're not developing using .Net and using MS specific extensions to tie into your backend applications you don't need IE.
I'm not saying standardizing on Mozilla is bad. I like Mozilla. But having a bunch of geeks flaunt how much better it is means nothing. If it's not being adopted by the general public or corporate community then all it is is a decent web browser for the relatively few people that choose to run a linux desktop.
Being good isn't good enough, you have to be popular too.
That's the point. Joe User makes up the majority of computer users. Also most companies have standardized on IE, after Netscape stopped being a stable alternative.
When your fortune 500 company standardizes it's web browser to Mozilla on the desktop, then you can come back and claim some sort of victory.
That's funny, considering that OneStat statistics are based on numerous websites and the statistics you cited are only for W3Schools.com.
Why not post links to apple.com's statistics and proclaim that Safari is the most popular web browser out there?
The numbers presented by OneStat are inline with what I've seen in my own, and other, non computer oriented websites.
in fact
According to http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10I'm trying to find a sound file of a hammer hitting the nail on the head. I can't find one... so just use your imagination.
The people actually working on the GNU java stuff don't want Sun to open source Java. they want to prove that they can do it themselves with out their help and do it better. There was a post on one of the previous slashdot threads by one of the developers indicating that.
The reality though is that most of the open source projects don't get to where they are based on a large community of volunteer developers. The big gains in open source software have been by corporations donating money and paying their developers to work on open source solutions. I'm not saying this is bad, but it should be recognized.
Maybe RMS is still just ticked off at Gosling over emacs.
There is nothing stopping people in the Free software community from using, Java now.
Mozilla people sure have a weird way of defining success. Here's some Reality
They've hit hard times for a lot of different reasons. Companies come back. Novell kinda did, Apple did.
Sun has a lot of stuff going for it and they are finally starting to listen to their customers more. Better integration with MS, no more bickering with MS, more support of Linux and open source, more options in commodity hardware, bringing back solaris x86.
Another anology could be that Java could be what's keeping them from hemoraging even more. Release Java, and Sun could be in worse shape. It's a difficult decision they have to make but they're the ones that have to make it. They've been good to the Java developer community and whether they GPL java or not, they're track record indicates that they will take the needs of the developer community into account.
Of course if it doess all the OS zealots will say "see they did it too late".
I don't see Gosling's comments as as strong a call to open source java as other's do.
He's saying there could be a good thing.
The rest of Sun thing it could be a good thing too that's why they were looking into it. It's neither an easy decision to make nor an easy one to implement.
The reason for this is that IBM is the big money maker in the Java/J2EE Space. It is fighting strong competition from BEA and now JBoss, maybe soon to be Jonas and Geronimo.
I think it's a credit to Sun that while they help build and manage the standards, they are not the big players providing the solutions that are being sold in that space.
They would like to sell more of their Java middleware components and are working towards it but they are not dependant on that to make (lose) money. The fact that they haven't made changes to the specification to favor their products over any one else's products speaks volumes. They have said they were going to open the standards so that others may benefit and everyone will compete on other merits while offering a lot of common features. The market proves they've kept their word.
I don't see IBM doing the same. Look at Mark Fluery's comments on how IBM forked a version of Axis back into a proprietary product. They did the same with other products they worked on. JetSpeed I believe is one.
They get the open source developers to help build the application, help people get buy in, then they take the codebase in house and work on it from there making improvements and selling it for mucho dinero.
That's not a bad thing, and is allowed under the license. The OS community has a good base to start building based on the initial investment by IBM. It's just something that isn't acknowledged by others.
With the JCP, the new arrangements with the Apache Group, Java keeps getting more and more open (with a little 'o').
Sun IS doing good things with Java and for the java developer community. They are making it easier for people to contribute back to java. Sun has a lot of things it needs to do in other areas but they really are doing a good job with Java. If it ain't broke why fix it?
One of the reasons's Java/J2EE is doing so well is because of the competition in the marketplace. Different vendors bring different things to market. Some wind up becoming standards, some get coppied from others. It works out to the advantage of the user community who relies on these different technologies to do their jobs.
Whether IBM will do this, we really don't know. They have more of an incentive to do this as JBoss is cutting into some of their installations. We do know that Sun isn't.
The OS and supporting software needs to be transparent as you say. It shouldn't want or need to be tinkered with. It should just work.
Developers jobs are hard enough building their own products, having to make the platform work right too doesn't make sense.
That's not to say that Linux doesn't fit many needs right out of the box because it does. A lot of it due to the people working on various distros.
There are some applications that need to scrape as much performance out of their systems as possible. They can directly modify and add extensions to the kernel to get the results they want. This is a great benefit of having open source software.
Just like there's some people that buy a car because they can add a whole bunch of aftermarket parts to it, the vast majority buy a car to get them from point A to point B and hope they never have to open the hood.
The commercial software and support provides this for them and their willing to pay for it. The biggest problem with the OSS community is that they don't see the benefits of proprietary software and wish they didn't exist.
The downside is that many (not all) OSS projects don't hold a candle to their proprietary versions. People should switch to OSS based on principles not only technical superiority. OSS doesn't have the market on technical merit (at least not yet) in most cases. People buy into OSS software because it's good enough and it's cheap (this is how microsoft got it's foot in the door).
Most people don't really care about the politics surrounding OSS. They want the tools they need to do their job and they want them as cheap as possible. If OSS doesn't fit their requirements then they will go with a proprietary system.
This is the type of Microsoft-esque mentality that's going to eventually hurt the OSS community. For a group that talks about Freedom so much they sure like to dictate what other people do or say and if they don't lash out against them.
According to Sun. Of course they're going to say that. They can't say it makes them profit, because it clearly doesn't.
Sun is a public company. They can't just easily lie about things like this. I didn't say Sun as a whole is breaking even, I said they said Java pretty much breaks even. Meaning they get enough revenue from Java to pay for their expenses.
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?
Some of the licenses Sun sells will not be valid anymore if Java is GPL'd. 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. Some of the arguments people are making is that Sun's specifications change too quickly for people to be able to keep up. Two seconds later they say that Sun should release control so that people like IBM can make the changes to the Java that would help them because the process is too slow. What people don't understand is that Sun is maintaining control so that people don't go in and make changes and defeat the whole purpose of having an open standard. Right now it's really nice to be able to develop an application using Tomcat and know that it should deploy on other application servers that conform to that specification.
As far as the speed goes. Keep in mind. Many corporate J2EE/Java users don't migrate to the new specifications and implementations right away. They have a lot of applications written to a previous spec and take time to thoroughly test their apps before deploying a new version. Many people are at least 1 spec version behind. Standardizing on a platform is usually a long process in the corporate world. The point is, developing an OSS version to a previous spec isn't that bad a thing.
If IBM can't kill RedHat (and RedHat is 100% reliant on Linux, and IBM isn't yet), how would IBM kill Sun?
Why would IBM want to kill RedHat? RedHat didn't steal major sales away from IBM. They helped them sell hardware. IBM puts RedHat on it's mainframes, on it's powerpc boxes, on it's as400 boxes, on it's intel boxes. Sun's servers eat into IBM's powerpc boxes, as400 boxes and mainframe business. The comparison you make isn't valid. AIX had already lost in most cases to Solaris.
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.
I agree that it's the license that makes the difference but probably not in the same way you think it does. The BSD license and BSD development is (maybe was) very apolitical. There wasn't much of an agenda other than to create a very good, free version of Unix. A lot of commercial Unix code comes from BSD as do other OS's including the Linux Kernel. The difference between the licensing that makes one more popular is that the GPL is very political and has other agendas. Not everyone can code new enhancements but everyone can mouth off for a cause. It's not so much a better product that m
It also helps them sell more hardware, software and services.
Open Sourcing Java will give IBM a big advantage, and savings and would hurt Sun's revenues. 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.
What the OSS community should do is embrace Java more. Java is more established in more places where linux would like to be. Positioning linux as a platform for J2EE deployment of certain sized applications.
Anyone know if those parking meters discussed a few days ago will have a giant penguin painted on the side of them?
I'm sorry.. but who's stomping on who?
Also, do you think IBM makes money on Linux? Linux is used to help make their other offerings cheaper. Their closed, propriatary, lotsa zero's at the end of that check please stuff. Just to mention one company.
Show me a big open source project that is thriving under the GPL that didn't get money , developers, code or anything along those lines from some "closed source" company.
(Insert Sarcasm here):
Oh I see... unlike all the other open source projects that aim to recreate popular closed source commercial applications of any fair complexity. None of them have to worry about playing catch up. Just like The Gimp matches Photoshop feature for feature within days of any new Photoshop release. Just like Mono has been able to completely implement the .Net framework. Just like Linux has been able to match the scalability and threading capabilities of commercial unixes.
(End sarcasm)
Don't blame Sun just because, like many other projects, OSS constantly has to play catchup. That's one of the problems with certain OSS projects. It takes a lot of money to be able to do good R&D, run around in circles every once in a while trying to innovate rather than copy. (Though there are some good examples of OSS software that does this, it's not the norm.)
Hell most OSS software projects wouldn't even be as advanced as they are today if it weren't for these commercial software and hardware companies like Sun, IBM, Novell, and more donating tons of money, developers, previously closed source code, etc.
That's one of the attitudes that really ticks me off about the OSS community, or anyone that copies rather than creates. They don't give enough credit to the people they are copying or acknowledge all the resources being given to them.
So Sun builds it's linux desktop, adds proprietary code to it and makes a dirt cheap linux desktop. How is this different than all the other companies that build proprietary stuff onto other open source projects and sell them?
If it isn't clear to everyone yet that the OSS community has it in for Sun because Linux want's to take over the market share that sun has, all these open letters, articles, etc. should be proof of that. Call me silly, but if some company had donated so much money and code to my community and I dissagreed with what they were doing I would bring it up with them directly instead of in a public way to try and discredit them.
OS, the new FUD machine.
Why is it that so many companies can come up with business models that deal with open source software but most open source software relies on "donations"?
Not trying to be cute. I've wondered about this before.
Also remember this isn't a production release and it has some features missing as well as some bugs. Over all I think it's pretty cool. Definately the kind of tool that would work perfectly for corporate intranet developers.
I've recently started using an ide instead of a regular text editor. I have to say I really like Netbeans. It does a lot more out of the box than eclipse. With eclipse I had to download a bunch of different tools. THe ones that actually seemed like they would be useful weren't free. Netbeans gets you up and running with everything you need to develop web applications.
Speed isn't that much of a problem anymore with Tiber beta and the 3.6 beta netbeans. When 4.0 NB comes out things will be even better with the ant based project system.
JSC is based on the Netbeans platform. It doesn't look much like netbeans at first but that's the point of the Netbeans paltform. It's very customizable.
My butcher announced that not a day goes buy that someone doesn't ask him about porter house.
The issue with JBoss was that while JBoss is an opensourced project there is also a coprorate entity that develops it and makes money off of it.
Sun never refused to certify them, they just refused to certify them for free. Why shouldn't jboss have to pay wihile bea, ibm oracle and others have?
you must be one of those people.
For your info, the rumors about Trusted Solaris' end of life are just that, rumors. Apparently Sun's plans regarding Trusted Solaris are to skip from Trusted Solaris 9 directly to Trusted Solaris 10. Some of the features of Trusted Solaris will be integrated into plain Solaris 10. They're also looking to cut the release time between a regular Solaris version and the Trusted verions from 1 year to about 6-9 months. Don't the tests to get a certification take about a year anyway? So people looking to use Trusted Solaris 10 will probably still have a long wait after Solaris 10 comes out.
I'm really surprised that without Trusted NT getting a decent rating that it would have been chosen as the only platform for deploying applications in IT-21. BSOD has a whole new meaning when you're dead in the water like the Yorkshire was a few times. That was pretty odd. Though how IT-21 started out as a switch to more Sun equipment until that guy retired (sorry bad with names) and then they switched to NT 4.0 which wasn't even C2 certified. At the time microsoft was pushing hard to get their servers into the military and we all paid the price for the money that was wasted on projects that had so many problems.
On a side note, I hear that the WMD detector is Run on NT which might be why we haven't found any :)