Mike Ajemian wrote:
> > Let me suggest a motive that makes sense. Inprise makes IDEs. IDEs
> > include debuggers...Connect the dots.
>
> This was the point, Einstein. Inprise relies on its brand. I didn't
> think I had to spell this out to the nth degree (I mean, who in this
> discussion doesn't know about ownership of Java and the JDK?).
Yes, Inprise relies on branding an IDE. Just like Red Hat (to use your
earlier example) relies on branding a distribution, some tools, and user
support. But Red Hat doesn't brand the kernel or anything else about
Linux. Inprise's JBuilder is a cross-platform product that runs on any
Java platform; why would they want to dilute their brand by going into
the Linux JDK business? Where's the motive? What's the payoff? If JDKs
are a business they want to own, why don't they have one for a big
market like Windows?
Looking back on the notes that have comprised this conversation, you've
described some motives that have me scratching my head: that Inprise
wants to be in the Linux JDK business, that a "decision was made pretty
high up" (your words) to deliberately piss off the Blackdown community,
that the "poor communications" argument is spin-doctoring. All pretty
serious stuff, but I still haven't seen any evidence. Why would
companies that depend on a) spending money wisely, b) maintaining user
good will, and c) supporting their core brands make such decisions? Are
they run by lunatics?
I'm sorry to keep hammering on the communications thing, but there is a
lot of experience in this group to support it. When I tried to contact
Blackdown about including the Blackdown JDK with my book (a simple
enough question), it took me many attempts to get an answer. My other
book-related queries were ignored completely. A look through past mail
turns up many similar experiences: developers willing to sign the SCSL
but unable to participate, questions about schedule and availability
that were never answered, and so on. How about that JDK1.2.2... did you
know it was coming? As far as I can tell, nobody else outside of
Blackdown did (and, BTW, JBuilder3 requires 1.2.2).
To quote Einstein (where did I see his name recently? :-), "Things
should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." I've
presented a simple explanation supported by facts and experience. I'm
ready to hear your simple explanation.
Nathan
Mike Ajemian wrote:
>
> > Well, there doesn't seem to be any dispute that Inprise contacted
> > Blackdown repeatedly and was ignored.
>
> Really? I thought this was in dispute.
>
> > I'm sorry you object to the term "conspiracy theory", but one of my
> > criteria for using the term is when I see motives being assigned that
> > make absolutely no sense.
>
> Hmmm. Usually, when I see things that somebody has written that make
> no sense to me, I ask for clarification. I guess I could call people
> crackpots in my own way, but that probably wouldn't make people keen
> on corresponding with me more than a couple of times.
>
> It's not unusual for people to write something that doesn't get their
> message across the first or second time around. Calling people names
> is a sure-fire way to piss them off, since the attempt to impune their
> credibility is real.
>
> > Let me suggest a motive that makes sense. Inprise makes IDEs. IDEs
> > include debuggers...Connect the dots.
>
> This was the point, Einstein. Inprise relies on its brand. I didn't
> think I had to spell this out to the nth degree (I mean, who in this
> discussion doesn't know about ownership of Java and the JDK?). Do
> yourself a favor and ask a few questions of somebody *before* you
> flame them or start calling them names.
>
> cheers,
> Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
