| 1 |
On Monday 22 March 2004 22:49, Marc Giger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:36:01 +0100 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Patrick Lauer <gentoo@×××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Offlist to keep the noise down. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 21:17, Marc Giger wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > I really don't understand what people have against Java?!? Is it |
| 9 |
> > > because of Sun and its license? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Not only that, there are different not fully compatible JVM's around. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Hehe, that's the reason why Sun is so conservative with the license. |
| 14 |
> They tried to avoid the incompatibilites. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'd like to point out that Sun has this opinion because they are clueless. |
| 17 |
Java has failed to deliver on it's promise in no small account because there |
| 18 |
is no assurance that Sun won't use it's monopoly to fend off competitors. In |
| 19 |
fact if there is one thing we do know it's that Sun purposely has made java |
| 20 |
run bad on Linux and Windows to benefit their own platform in the past. We |
| 21 |
all have been warned by McNealy for companies like MS who can suddenly kill a |
| 22 |
platform by dropping support for it. Sun is trying to be an MS albeit I'd |
| 23 |
rather trust Bill then Scott if it came down to it. At least MS doesn't |
| 24 |
pretend to do it for the masses. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
When McNealy is done running Sun into the ground maybe they will realize that |
| 27 |
open sourcing the java vm is the only way they can get it accepted because it |
| 28 |
is surely the only way it can fullfill it's promise of working on any OS, |
| 29 |
regardless of where Sun heads. Originally java was about choice, now it's |
| 30 |
about control. Customers are tired of control but Sun isn't catching on. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Me. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives