Il giorno mar, 05/09/2006 alle 18.46 +0000, theUser BL ha scritto: > I think three different OpenSource implementations would be the worst case > scenario, if Sun makes its Java OpenSource. > Ans I also think, that Suns sees so like I. And I think they want to make it > OpenSource, to have _not_ three different implementations. Hi! My own opinions follow. The different implementation would not be that bad, as they help to remove fictitious barriers. There are examples in which we have to follow bugs in the RI otherwise we would have not the same behaviour (it's a bug or a feature, then?). We would eventually focus on other things, as well. Gcj does native compilation of java code. Cacao would be a good candidate to fit into the small devices market (think about Nokia or Motorola, we would finally have Java on the 770, for example). This is not that bad, after all. Why we are not done that already? Because with Sun Java (we talk about an implementation, here) being Open Source, the whole game would now be "official". Why Sun want to Open Source Java with a GPL compatible (at least, a community compatible) license? Just look at .Net and Mono. With m$ windoze that is a complete application server (!) for .Net. What is the point to have Java, then? It would became "just another technology" in few years... We could give it a better integration in our environments, which is where real and serious development is done (i.e. server market, distributed applications, grid computing, it wasn't the net the computer?). We could integrate it and make it a standard... > And in which part is the GNU Classpath implementation better then Suns > implementation? (from the technical point of view, not from the license > side) ? From a technical point of view? Roman replied to that already, just take a look at our Gnome/Cairo integration, or give a try to my preferences backend, just to say what we are doing in the desktop area. I would not call this "better then Sun", but sure is what it was needed and never come. > You can not compare the GNOME/KDE situation or the > Linux/*BSD/HURD/OpenSolaris situation with the Java situation. It is > completely different. > To want a GNOME/KDE merger is like wanting a Java/.NET merger. We have this. In the desktop area it is called freedesktop. This is what allows me to use kopete, k3b and amarok under gnome. This allow me to use services like dbus. In the Linux/*BSD/HURD/OpenSolaris is a set of specifications, like Posix (just to make a name out of the heap, I'm a old school boy). In the .Net/Java world there is project Tango (the "official" project) or IKVM (more or less, run Java on top of .Net). > So lets look at the Browser-situation: [...] Just to make it short, this is what a standard is made for. All the problems with the web are when you don't follow the standards, i.e. when you don't run you site under tidy. > Until today GNU Classpath makes sence, because it is an OpenSource > Java-implementation and Suns Java isn't OpenSource. Remember that we are talking about _one_ implementation. > So in parts GNU Classpath is not only a implementation of what the JCP > defines, its a rewrite of that, what Suns have done. To be compatible. So where is the fear about having different implementations? IBM java and BEA java are also based on Sun Java code, to be compatible. In what we would be different? > But until Sun makes its Java implementation OpenSource, then the situation > is different. > The advantage of GNU Classpath over Suns Java is the license. After Suns > Java is OpenSource, this advantage no longer exists. The advantage of [Free JVM] + Classpath over Sun Java is that Classpath is designed from the ground up to be part of a free os, but can be ported easily to virtual everything. > An additional problem would be that, what already with the browsers exists. > Developer would try its programs not only on Suns implementation, they also > must try it with GNU Classpath and Apache Harmony --- write once, test > thrice. Ok, so why care about writing programs in java that need to be run on OSX, Linux and Windows? With different laf? Why care of writing in java at all, if the 90% pc of the planet use Windows that has already .Net and VB? Are you trying to say that you never write a program in java and test it on different platform _and_ java implementations (I usually test it at _least_ under java 1.4.2 and 1.5, and even, sure, Classpath, unless I need special features like generics, of course)? Said that, I think that the very first thing we will do will be port, to Sun Java, freetype and the gtk peer, to free it even more. Do you think this is a bad thing? > It isn't enough, that the JCP exists and defindes how Java have to look > like. For the web existing also the W3C and the browser-engines are all > different. > > Until a special point all three Java-implementations will be equal. But > especially if new things would be implemented, it would inhibits the > evolution of Java. > A chain is only so strong like it flimsiest limb. > And the newest features of Java will only be of all developers used, if the > last Java-implementation have included it. You are mixing apple and oranges here. No one never has said we can't write up our own java extensions. Just ask yourself why we are following the JCP specifications (indirectly developing our implementation around what is done by the RI). Take a look at mauve. At least, AFAICT this was always the goal of Classpath. I can't speak for harmony, though (but be careful, "they" told me "they" want to conquer the world :) > So I think, that - if Sun makes its Java OpenSource - it would be a bad > thing, if then GNU Classpath and Apache Harmony still exists. Research.. How many different pc you have? And phones? They all share the same standards... Is up to us to avoid mistakes. > An additional questions would be: Which distribution would including a GNU > Classpath based Java, when Suns reference-implementation is already > OpenSource. Just look at what I said early. In any case, the main reason to have a gcj based implementation is the native code vs the interpreted code. It will make sense until a certain point. Then simply things will be dropped when, and if, there will be no more use, why bother? People that will be sad at that point will be just around 100: those who put efforts in creating and packaging the (actual) free implementation. You don't have nothing to loose. > LessTif also still exists and the most distribution are including OpenMotif > instead. And that though OpenMotif isn't OpenSource. It can only be used on > OpenSource operating systems without paying. And only for OpenSource-systems > the license is similar to OpenSource - but not OpenSource. > > Greatings > Patrick -- alias theuserbl Be relaxed, it is not that bad to have different points of view (no pun intended) :) And the FLOSS movement is really good at keeping standards alive. Mario -- Lima Software, SO.PR.IND. s.r.l. http://www.limasoftware.net/ pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org Please, support open standards: http://opendocumentfellowship.org/petition/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Questa =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente
