[TriLUG] This is not good

[Michael Kimsal]

That's sort of what I figured.  Still, it didn't create a very good
impression of 'java' for many linux newbs.


On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM, William Sutton <william at trilug.org> wrote:

> OTOH, IIRC, open source efforts like gcj were trying to be Java compatible.
>  Where Microsoft went wrong was in trying to hijack the Sun standard.  Also,
> I don't think Sun is/was as scared of open source efforts as they were of a
> company with a proven track record of taking other people's work and
> breaking the standards in favor of their own proprietary version.
>
> William Sutton
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Michael Kimsal wrote:
>
>  Interestingly, though, Sun never 'went after' open source efforts (to my
>> knowledge) like gcj.  The 'open source' java packages get bundled on linux
>> distros to the point where you can type "java" on the command line and get
>> something that sort of looks like Java, but doesn't run most packages.
>> Perhaps things are a bit better these days, but I always thought that 'out
>> of the box' experience did as much harm to the name 'Java' as anything MS
>> ever did.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM, William Sutton <william at trilug.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  What happened was a case of Microsoft's SOP of embrace-and-extend.  They
>>> licensed the right to package Java with their development tools, and then
>>> proceeded to extend and change the API they published, even to the point
>>> of
>>> breaking the existing Sun API.  Sun sued, claiming they owned Java and
>>> that
>>> Microsoft couldn't just change the APIs and still call it Java. Microsoft
>>> claimed (iirc) that anybody could use the language and so anyone should
>>> be
>>> able to do so.  The judge ruled in favor of Sun, so Microsoft took its
>>> marbles and went home.  Presently they came back with C#, into which they
>>> put the features they liked from Java, plus a few of their own.
>>>
>>> William Sutton
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Christopher L Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>>  Greg Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Didn't we already go round and round on this dance with J++ back in the
>>>>> day?  Or was the problem with J++ was that MS was trying to
>>>>> commercialize
>>>>> a
>>>>> fork of a open source project?  It was a while ago.. details are fuzzy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Java wasn't open source then. M$ licensed it and then allegedly violated
>>>> the
>>>> terms of the license.  MS called it Java, but it wasn't quite Java.  I
>>>> don't
>>>> remember the details beyond that.
>>>>
>>>> The pseudo-java being used in Android (Google, again) might also be
>>>> considered a fork by some. Or the pre-cursor to one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> Chris Merrill                           |  Web Performance, Inc.
>>>> chris at webperformance.com                |  http://webperformance.com
>>>> 919-433-1762                            |  919-845-7601
>>>>
>>>> Website Load Testing and Stress Testing Software & Services
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> --
>>>> TriLUG mailing list        :
>>>> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>>>> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>
>>> TriLUG mailing list        :
>>> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>>> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Kimsal
>> http://jsmag.com - for javascript developers
>> http://groovymag.com - for groovy developers
>> 919.827.4724
>> --
>> TriLUG mailing list        :
>> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>>
>>  --
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>



-- 
Michael Kimsal
http://jsmag.com - for javascript developers
http://groovymag.com - for groovy developers
919.827.4724