＞> ＞I don't understand this argument. If our J2SE implementation
is
＞> ＞feature-comparable to the one from Sun, IBM or BEA, why would
we
＞> need
＞> ＞to add Eclipse onto it?
＞>
＞> As a demonstrator： "just test it" [TM].
＞Then test it! We don't have to distribute it too :)
Well, the point is to /convince/ less passionate people. I have seen enough
freeware/opensource sites that shave a zero cost tomorrow, but which soft as
of today is not up to what is said should work (mind you, I am bearded, and
I never shaved in 10 years). Having just one or two bundles to begin to
"just play with it" (with some screenshots) IMHO is really the simplest way
to convince people of practical usability.
-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:33 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
On May 23, 2005, at 10:09 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
> ＞I don't understand this argument. If our J2SE implementation is
> ＞feature-comparable to the one from Sun, IBM or BEA, why would we
> need
> ＞to add Eclipse onto it?
>
> As a demonstrator： "just test it" [TM].
Then test it! We don't have to distribute it too :)
> Also, as I said before, if its entry level for developers is high
> (****
> configuration with Eclipse or some other candidate, the lazy
> effect, you
> see), then we are digging our grave, because the best way to have
> other
> projects bundle with the VM is to help them play with it in the
> first time.
>
> Regards,
>
> RB
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:49 AM
> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://
> jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
>
>
> On May 23, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> ＞It would be great if people would bundle Harmony with stuff (and
>> plan
>> ＞to do it w/ Geronimo when that time comes), bit it's way out of
>> scope
>> ＞for *this* project to get into the business of reditributing
>> software
>> ＞from outside of the ASF.
>>
>> Hum... I still think there is a minimum distribution effort to be
>> done (call
>> that marketing if you want) to get people to actually test the VM,
>> as in the
>> beginning it might be very, very, very unlikely that absolutely
>> everything
>> runs out of the box as replacement for J2SE 5 or 6... So we will
>> need to
>> help them try it out.
>>
>
> Yes! And this is classic behavior for OSS projects - once you have
> something useful, you go out and proselytize, helping other projects
> see the value, and use it.
>
> So you go out and get Eclipse to bundle with it, you get Geronimo to
> bundle with it, you get JBoss to bundle with it, you get JOnAS to
> bundle with it, you get Tomcat to bundle with it, you get....
>
> And then you learn from their bundling efforts and make the thing
> even easier to use in that way.
>
> But distributing Eclipse or JBoss from here? No....
>
>
>> Just think of it in OS terms as a
>> micro-bootable-live-CD-to-demo-it-actually-works-on-useful-cases (a
>> stuff
>> for decision makers). Bundling with 1 or 2 apps we/the ASF did not
>> write is
>> not to be covered by NIH syndrome in my opinion, but rather a way
>> to prove
>> it actually works to decision makers. (After all, mono bundles mono
>> with
>> monodevelop [or rather monodevelop with mono, I think], and Sun
>> bundles
>> Netbeans with J2SE...)
>>
>
> I'd prefer we don't re-distribute other people's software unless part
> of the distribution for which the Apache project provides top-line
> value.
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
>>
>> To come back to more soft-only concerns, IMHO providing
>> distributors with
>> the minimum tool they need to polish the VM-to-VM discrepancies and
>> external
>> developers the minimum tools they need to test their soft on the
>> Harmony VM
>> (and get a chance to actually do something - not just: 'it does not
>> work' -
>> if it does not work the way they planned it) might be a big ROI,
>> comparatively small effort.
>>
>
> That's an entirely different kettle of fish, and I support that.
>
>
>>
>> A VM without the bare minimum support tools might appear a bit
>> useless to
>> many people (and also impractical to test with an ergonomic, long-
>> lasting
>> experience of beautiful-looking piece of software). If you take,
>> say, the
>> FreeBSD case, you don’t have much choice for instance for the VM
>> you use
>> with your favorite IDE, so that ipso facto you stick with the VM
>> you get in
>> stock (because the other VMs might be good, but if it’s a
>> nightmare to
>> reconfigure it all to use your VM of choice with your favorite
>> IDE...), just
>> like IE sticks with many win$ users.
>>
>
> I don't understand this argument. If our J2SE implementation is
> feature-comparable to the one from Sun, IBM or BEA, why would we need
> to add Eclipse onto it?
>
>
>>
>> As a use case, if I want to test a piece of software, well I would
>> like it
>> to be kind of "download it and play".
>>
>
> Yes! So we go out there and get everyone to bundle with our J2SE
> distribution. We go there, do the work, and help them. :)
>
> geir
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
