Testing Mono's compatibility

[Joshua Zeidner]

On 9/14/06, Jeff Garland <jeff at crystalclearsoftware.com> wrote:
> Joshua Zeidner wrote:
> > On 9/14/06, Jeff Garland <jeff at crystalclearsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> >    I am familiar with the two sides of this debate... but I never
> > really considered it worthwhile to familiarize myself with the legal
> > codes of the JCP.  Exactly what rights does Sun reserve over the JCP?
> > How is it possible for them to exert control over Java?
>
> I haven't read the JCP either.  I *have* heard from a couple people involved
> in it a huge frustration with Sun at some point in the past...the comment
> being that Sun held a veto over everyone else and that stopped discussion of
> certain directions they thought were valuable. But this is second hand rumor
> that may now be obsolete.  That said, I'm certain that somehow Sun still
> claims Java as a business asset.  What can they practically do with this
> *ownership*?  I don't know.  What would happen if another company bought them?
>   I don't know.  15 years ago if you asked me I would have said there's little
> or no chance the VAX platform could go away....but it did.  Maybe this is all
> just FUD.  Of course with fully open and standard technologies no such FUD can
> exist because no corporation can claim ownership.

 Hello Jeff,

  Your claims do not sound implausible given what Sun has done in the
past.  My impression is that Sun is having some serious solvency
problems, and a lot of their recent moves show signs of desperation.
You can't sell a sick horse.

>
> >   I do consider most of Joseph Sinclair's points to be true.  Sun has
> > certainly been the most progressive company in their approach to OSS(
> > mainly due to necessity ).  For those who are not involved with Java,
> > JCP is like the *Java Parliament*.
>
> I don't think Sun has been 'progressive'.  They've tried to catch the wave
> lately because their options are limited -- they need to make their platform
> more attractive somehow.  Get developers interested.  I doubt it will work.

  I tend to agree...

>
> >  Getting back to the original topic, Microsoft/.NET has nothing that
> > even resembles JCP.  In comparing .NET and Java for the PLUG audience,
> > Java is clearly more OSS friendly.  I find Microsoft's dealings with
> > ECMA to be suspect, possibly an attempt to make .NET OSS in name.  The
> > only way I would accept a Microsoft product as OSS would be in their
> > adoption of the GPL.
>
> What MS has done is different.  JCP might be better overall than having an
> ECMA standard -- I don't know.  Both result in some sort of written standard
> that can be implemented. But, in the end, neither of these technologies is as
> open or unencumbered as the other technologies discussed in this thread.

  Actually I have been getting involved with PHP as of late.  It has
certainly grown up, it now supports OOP( in Perl kind of way ).  My
past experiences with salty PHP developers has kept me away from this
crowd for years.  The atmosphere has changed considerably.  Ruby is
attractive in some aspects, but it still gives the appearance of a
multi-level marketing scheme.  The cheese is a bit too think in the
Ruby world for my tastes.  But as you note, things change and I keep
my eyes open.

>
> And just to be clear, I don't have any problem with Sun or MS -- they can do
> whatever they want.  If people want to use their platforms or code, that's
> perfectly fine.

  If you are a career developer, your choice of platform is an
investment.  Its not unlike investing in real estate, so I understand
why these arguments get heated and personal.  The more open languages
are great( Python, Perl, etc. ), but the economics rarely allow for as
many out-of-the box features( that work ) than technologies that are
directly endorsed and supported by capital structure.  The ability to
estimate value in this sense is something that every good developer
brings to the table.

  Thanks for the comments...

  Sincerely,

   Joshua Zeidner



>  I've written plenty of code in Java myself.  I just prefer to
> write portable code using open standards and steer away from these
> technologies when I have the option to.
>
> Jeff
>

-- 
.0000. communication.
.0001. development.
.0010. strategy.
.0100. appeal.

JOSHUA M. ZEIDNER
IT Consultant

++power; ++perspective; ++possibilities;
( 602 ) 490 8006
jjzeidner at gmail.com