> He just said "they care less for you than Sun". I think this is a > well-founded statement. Basically Sun open sourced every single asset > they owned (with very few exceptions). OTOH I don't see Google open > sourcing any of its services (the search engine, GAE, GMail and the > other bazillion ones). I think they would be crazy if they did. But > the point is that they aren't doing that.
I think they cared equally little about me actually! In my book, caring != open sourcing and commercial != evil. How would Google open source a service? > He's not fantasizing about the past; he's only trying to point out a > criterion to judge Google (and Oracle) more obiectively, keeping in > mind the experience from the past. It's the experience from the past, Sun's goodwill, that's the reason for the big backlash against Oracle - so I think past experience is very much being kept in mind. But the fact remains that Sun failed at driving their core business which ended up eventually hurting Java and developers using it. Sun claimed that the Java division was profitable, yet did not offer something as obvious as cheap and easy hosting a la GAE to match LAMB and IIS stacks. Sun was not evil, but perhaps a bit naive. Is Google evil for borrowing from the ecosystem it helped Sun build? The jury is still out on that, I tend to not think so though and just call them pragmatic. /Casper -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
