Doug wrote:
Let's see, Sun has had their JVM out and licensed it for over 10 years now.
Just how many law suits has that brought them over this period of time?
Hard to say, since they didn't release the source until very recently.
Do you know how many patents from >10 years ago are just being litigated
today?
They have worked with the open source and open standards market for
years and years and they have a definition of _open_ which every developer
I know has, but is not the same definition Microsoft has.
Bull. Sun's definition of "open" was, for many many years, "we'll give
you the API to use it without an NDA." See, for example, "OpenWindows"
under Solaris. Sun open sourced exactly that which they thought would
break MS's monopoly use of Intel hardware. According to Sun's
traditional definition, Java was "open" the day they released it.
Do you trust Microsoft and question Sun and the recently open sourced
Java JVM?
No. Nor do I worry that Microsoft is going to sue some vague open source
collective for implementing the standards they've published.
Mono and all that
Microsoft created stuff is a major threat to developers who care about
having a choice in the platforms they develop for.
Heh. "Let's give people a choice in the platforms they develop for by
... *not* using Mono"? I'm not sure I understand how providing fewer
platforms leads to more choice.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
