[TriLUG] This is not good

[William Sutton]

OTOH, IIRC, open source efforts like gcj were trying to be Java 
compatible.  Where Microsoft went wrong was in trying to hijack the Sun 
standard.  Also, I don't think Sun is/was as scared of open source efforts 
as they were of a company with a proven track record of taking other 
people's work and breaking the standards in favor of their own proprietary 
version.

William Sutton

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Michael Kimsal wrote:

> Interestingly, though, Sun never 'went after' open source efforts (to my
> knowledge) like gcj.  The 'open source' java packages get bundled on linux
> distros to the point where you can type "java" on the command line and get
> something that sort of looks like Java, but doesn't run most packages.
> Perhaps things are a bit better these days, but I always thought that 'out
> of the box' experience did as much harm to the name 'Java' as anything MS
> ever did.
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM, William Sutton <william at trilug.org> wrote:
>
>> What happened was a case of Microsoft's SOP of embrace-and-extend.  They
>> licensed the right to package Java with their development tools, and then
>> proceeded to extend and change the API they published, even to the point of
>> breaking the existing Sun API.  Sun sued, claiming they owned Java and that
>> Microsoft couldn't just change the APIs and still call it Java. Microsoft
>> claimed (iirc) that anybody could use the language and so anyone should be
>> able to do so.  The judge ruled in favor of Sun, so Microsoft took its
>> marbles and went home.  Presently they came back with C#, into which they
>> put the features they liked from Java, plus a few of their own.
>>
>> William Sutton
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Christopher L Merrill wrote:
>>
>>  Greg Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> Didn't we already go round and round on this dance with J++ back in the
>>>> day?  Or was the problem with J++ was that MS was trying to commercialize
>>>> a
>>>> fork of a open source project?  It was a while ago.. details are fuzzy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Java wasn't open source then. M$ licensed it and then allegedly violated
>>> the
>>> terms of the license.  MS called it Java, but it wasn't quite Java.  I
>>> don't
>>> remember the details beyond that.
>>>
>>> The pseudo-java being used in Android (Google, again) might also be
>>> considered a fork by some. Or the pre-cursor to one.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
>>> Chris Merrill                           |  Web Performance, Inc.
>>> chris at webperformance.com                |  http://webperformance.com
>>> 919-433-1762                            |  919-845-7601
>>>
>>> Website Load Testing and Stress Testing Software & Services
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
>>> --
>>> TriLUG mailing list        :
>>> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>>> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>>>
>>>  --
>> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Kimsal
> http://jsmag.com - for javascript developers
> http://groovymag.com - for groovy developers
> 919.827.4724
> --
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>