> > But who speaks for JCP? Those who chose to be involved.
> While you offer a nice brochure view of the JCP, the other side is that > the JCP is a large company dominated organisation which conducts its > business behind closed doors and has a high cost to effective entry. High cost ? Last I checked you could be a voting member for a nominal fee. You could be on a single expert comittee for free. Any fees are the bare minimum for the administration of the site and services in my opinon. Source: http://www.jcp.org/en/participation/membership commercial entities: $5000 educational/non-profit organizations: $2000 individuals: $0 existing licensees: $0 If your company or institution cannot afford those fees than they have bigger problems to deal with. > An individual can join one project without having to pay ridiculous sums > [for the individual] and the individual cannot join a project which is to > do with their work for their company [due to an effective NDA in the > registration]. That is the fault of the company, not the JCP. If the company doesnt want you giving out their intellectual property than you probably wont be able to submit it to the JCP. The jcp intellectual rights rules are there because if some bozo joined and submitted intellectual property from microsoft for example, the JCP could get sued for releasing it in a JSR. The way it is, you give the JCP rights to the info. In which case only people microsoft can sue are the errant employees. > Projects appear to stagnate in the JCP and others appear to fast track > through due to Java?Sun?JCP's marketing needs. Thats the bitch of a democracy. Things are voted on in the JCP. If oyu loose the vote *shrug* campaign harder next time. > Do the JCP have official PR people to show why the JCP is not the dark > picture it is often portrayed as? Hmm never seen it protrayed that way. Im sure some have that opinion but it isnt common enough to qualify as "often". > Or is it a loose federation. In which > case, should the ASF be picking up those threads as a spokeperson for the > JCP Hmm, that would be tough. Sort of like speaking for the entire United Nations. Dissenters are abounds. > and explaining just why the ASF and Doug Lea are able to stop the huge > corporates from turning Java into some system designed to make them money > and not a better future for Java. *Yanks the soapbox out from under his feet.* Your view on things is rediculously naive. If you think one person or one company can "stop the huge coporates" than you need a reality check. The thing that stops them is popular opinion. If they try to do somethign lame, he JCP smacks them in the teeth for it. Life is grand. The JCP does have its issues but they are of a different nature than you percieve. The drive to open source the JDK is being driven not by an attempt to stop the corporations but by a growing belief that Sun doesnt have the resources needed to handle all of the changes in java. > To those of us who have not seen the insides of the JCP, it looks like a > large, probably political and argumentative body of powerful entities. So join it. Whats stopping you? > While it may be a good thing compared to Microsoft's dictatorship, it's > almost definitely less efficient, and not the open system it should be. Yes, and Saddam Hussein has a more efficient government than the USA. When he wants somethign done it gets done. Great isnt it ? No putting up with squabbling representatives or bickering debates. No one able to criticise your work and beat it to a pulp. Lets all move to Iraq. Microsoft does what it wants and when it wants. (notice the period) When .NET is 2 years old and starts to show the defects and missing features we have seen in the JDK, microsoft will fix it when they get good and damn well ready to. Further, if you think they arent doing .NET to dive their sales of windows than we will have to upgrade you from naive to stupid. Microsoft has shown *REPEATEDLY* to be an unethical company that believes it is above the law. There was a rumor going around recently when the government suddenly put kid gloves on after the verdict against microsoft. The rumor was somethign to the effect that microsoft had a behind the doors word with DOD and the pentagon and the rest of the government threatening to revoke all of their windows licenses if they tried to break up the company. Now I dont know if that is true, but I wouldnt put it past them. You have a choice. Go to .NET and leave your business, economic and personal future to your trust in Microsoft. Alternatively you could stick with an admitedly flawed but still functional and respected process in java. Pick number 1 and you risk proving Orwell correct. No thanks. > > Hen > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Robert Simmons wrote: > > > JCP is the Java community process. A federation of hundreds of companies that > > produces standards (such as EJB) for the Java community. Anyone can be a > > member and your vote counts. JCP is what Java has that .NET never will and > > that is why .NET will win. > > > > -- Robert > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 3:12 AM > > Subject: Re: nice > > > > > > > > > > Interesting points. > > > > > > Who runs the JCP? Is Apache just a member, or an actual runner? If so, is > > > it Apache's role to comment in anyway on the current disatisfaction with > > > the hidden-ness of the JCP? Or is that the JCP themselves [if such exists] > > > role? > > > > > > [Apache's role, along with all the other top-level members of the JCP]. > > > > > > Hen > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://rasmussen.homeip.net:8088/fileblog/blog/computers/java/culture#jcp_mys > > tery > > > > > > > > -Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
