** Reply to message from Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:44:38 -0700
> 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? really, I think I still have the source from their first JVM on one of my old computers. That's right, it was downloadable when it was first released in 95'ish timeframe. > > > 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. That is still being pretty darn open and hundreds of times more open than Microsoft. Microsoft, BTW, is still having problems publishing APIs for many of its products after failed anti-trust lawsuits in both the US and Europe. Over 5 years going and still having problems getting out that which will let others interoperate. Clue, because they are not open and don't intend to be. > > > 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. Why not your or your customer or anyone they feel will be effecting in considering open standards and open source costly and dangerous? > > > 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. Yes, believe it or not, they've shown that if you give them the power, they will restict your choice. Is that really that difficult to see? never mind, I really don't care to know. -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
