cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <>
Subject Re: [wanna laught?] Microsoft invented XML
Date Tue, 16 May 2000 05:55:19 GMT

Could not have said it any better, and probably not have the strength either.

I am pro-Java and pro-OpenSource, and I don't see a paradox in that. SUN is my
*guarantor* that Java will not be run over by MS and possibly IBM and others,
creating a dozen inoperable versions, all with their "enhancements" and
Write-Once-Run-Everywhere is THE THING, and anyone who doesn't get that, should
go back and hack C++ on  a dozen Unices.


Robin Green wrote:

> >The point here is that no other company in the world, including
> >Microsoft, has done more to *crush* Java than SUN.
> ??? !!!
> In what ways have Sun "crushed" it? It doesn't look very "crushed" to me.
> They must have spent millions on all the products and APIs they have
> developed for it - many of which they give away free of charge.
> If they had cancelled all further development - yes, that would be crushing
> it. If they had written Solaris-only APIs - yes, that might be described as
> crushing it. But they evidently have not.
> >There were some very
> >smart people initially involved with Java.  Then the laywers and
> >marketing guys got involved and screwed things up.
> Um, a technically superior product often fails without sufficient marketing
> (dare I say it, even overhyped marketing at times). Remember OS/2?
> No? Exactly! ;)
> Okay, word of mouth can do a lot. Sometimes marketing is unnecessary. But
> marketing doesn't necessarily "screw up" a product, either. Where is your
> evidence that marketing or lawyers have "screwed up" Java?
> >The point is that with the lawsuit against MS SUN has basically said
> >that they don't want anyone to innovate in the Java space.
> Nonsense. They have implied no such thing. What about Pizza, what about GJ,
> GCJ, TowerJ? You can literally embrace and extend Java, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T
> opinion, that Microsoft deliberately broke RMI etc. to put a dent in Write
> Once Run Anywhere, and deliberately made their J++ documentation misleading
> to obscure the fact that J++ is designed to generate hard-to-port,
> Windows-bound code. Even if the latter is not legally actionable, the intent
> is clear, at least to me.
> Kevin, this is really weird. Are you trying to claim that Microsoft was
> wonderfully "innovative" with J++? "Innovate in the Java space" - that
> sounds like marketroid speak to me.
> >  This has not
> >been a good thing for Java.
> >
> >The point is that if SUN were to pick a good license, maybe require the
> >code to be republished, then MS would have had to release the code and
> >then their embrace and extend philosophy wouldn't have worked.
> Why wouldn't it have worked? Publishing the source code doesn't guarantee
> compatibility.
> Nor does open sourcing it, either. Only enforced, non-open-source contracts
> can do that, as far as I can see, because the open source definition does
> not allow the imposition of compatibility requirements (see Clause 4), IMHO.
> [IANAL.] Sun have gone almost as far as they can with the SCSL, in my view.
> > > Which OpenSource project has
> > > ever gone to court over licenses, how about Sun, and how many times has
> > > MS (and others) ignored licenses, to crush opponents?
> >
> >Open Source wouldn't change this fact. If SUN has an Open Source JVM and
> >someone broke the license they would have the right and will to sue.
> If it enforced compatibility it wouldn't be open source, technically and
> practically.
> Having a mishmash of Java VMs, all with different features, would be a
> disaster. Okay, there are different versions of the platform, but with
> versions 1.0 to 1.3 at least you know where you stand, and you have 99.9%
> backward-compatibility.
> Getting Cocoon to work with different bad implementations of different
> Servlet APIs is bad enough - if Java was a non-standardised platform it
> could be orders of magnitude worse! Let's not regress to ugly
> implementation-specific hacks.
> > > Those questions should be asked before requesting Java to become
> > > OpenSource. After all, Open Source is a method to improve code, and you
> > > are free to do so, and your work could be for the gain of all others.
> >
> >If you don't believe in Java and Open Source, why are you here?
> Bzzt, non sequiter. "Believing in Open Source" does not equate to believing
> that everything should be open source.
> I suggest we bring this discussion to a quick close; it is not very relevant
> specifically to cocoon.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

View raw message