Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Simon Phipps on the Process of Opening Java 152

Posted by timothy
from the sniff-the-air-from-the-vacuum-can dept.
twofish writes "Simon Phipps, the chief open-source officer at Sun Microsystems, has reaffirmed Sun's commitment to Open Source in an interview with computerworld. The focus of the interview is Simon's efforts to fully open source Java. He points out that many problems need to be resolved before Java can be open sourced — ownership, legal, access, encumbrances and relationships with Java licensees. It took Sun a full five years to solve these issues with Solaris. However Simon predicts that it won't take anything near this amount of time to complete the task with Java. Of course, one of the other concerns for OS Java is the resulting incompatible versions and breaking of the Java WORA model (Gosling himself has always been particularly concerned about incompatible forks resulting in the introduction of an open source version of Java) and this opens up additional problems for the open source Java model."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Simon Phipps on the Process of Opening Java

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:08PM (#15771151)
    Gosling himself has always been particularly concerned about incompatible forks resulting in the introduction of an open source version of Java)
    So hold onto the trademark, the same way the Mozilla foundation do, and only let implementations that pass a rigorous testsuite use it.
    • Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sterno (16320) on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:17PM (#15771220) Homepage
      It is fair to say that down the line even when they do opensource it, Sun's version will be the defacto standard. Figure if they and IBM work together on new versions, there's a pretty good guarantee that there won't be any major forks. Sure, there will be forks, but invariably those forks won't be what the average corporate server is running on, etc. Since it's open source, any of the good changes from those forks can be rolled back into the main Sun standard.

      I can understand Sun's fear as Java has been a huge part of their business, but I think as long as they keep pushing the standard forward forks will be irrelevant.
      • Re:Exactly (Score:3, Informative)

        by beemishboy (781239)
        Not that IBM is waiting to fork it, but one of the primary companies Sun worries about forking is IBM - looking at Eclipse with its SWT instead of Swing for instance.
      • Re:Exactly (Score:4, Informative)

        by fm6 (162816) on Monday July 24, 2006 @02:49PM (#15771877) Homepage Journal
        It is fair to say that down the line even when they do opensource it, Sun's version will be the defacto standard.

        You're somewhat misinformed. Sun's implementation has never been a basis for determining what's "standard". That's because Sun's implementation, like every other Java implementation (and there are quite a few [dwheeler.com]) is required to adhere to a written specification [sun.com].

        People (including everybody at Sun) often say "Java" when they mean "Sun's Java implementation". That can be misleading. When you talk about "open sourcing Java" you're really talking about open sourcing a particular implementation of Java.

        • People (including everybody at Sun) often say "Java" when they mean "Sun's Java implementation". That can be misleading. When you talk about "open sourcing Java" you're really talking about open sourcing a particular implementation of Java.

          I agree with that.

          And that is my problem with Open-sourcing Java.

          There are many Open-Source Java projects out there. GNU and Apache each have their own.

          So why is everyone clamouring for Sun's implementation? I believe the problem is that we haven't found a suitable

          • As with any OS project owner, Sun has the option of not using submitted changes. And I have no doubt they will reject many.

            The big danger to this Java implementation is that Sun is losing money hand over fist. If they can't afford to pay people to work on the JDK, that project is dead, whether its OS or not. No doubt Sun is hoping that they'll get some free development effort in exchange for opening up the JDK. But if the JDK dies for lack of work, it will be because Sun doesn't have the money to hire pro

          • Here's at least part of the reason (I think) everyone wants Sun to make their implementation of Java, free software:-

            http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html [gnu.org]
          • I doubt that it will stagnate the state of the art, and Java is regarded as the highest authority in Java. I am surprised to see how many Java fans there are here on /. considering the flames I have gotten in the past when I write about how cool Java is.
        • That's because Sun's implementation, like every other Java implementation (and there are quite a few) is required to adhere to a written specification.

          What you're pointing at as a "written specification" of "Java" is a book on the Java language. Standardizing the Java language isn't the problem, standardizing the libraries is. There are specifications for the Java libraries. Conformance of new implementations is checked via a test suite. As far as I know, no implementation besides Sun's and its license
          • by fm6 (162816)
            Let's say you're right. (I'm not absolutely sure you are, but I'm too lazy to argue the point, which isn't really important.) The fact remains that Sun's implementation is still not a "de facto standard". The standard is the written specification, which includes not just a language specification, but also a VM spec (included in the document I pointed to — the title is misleading) and also the API Specification [sun.com]. When any Java provider violates these specs, they get in trouble. Not just from Sun's lawye
    • by jd (1658) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:29PM (#15771312) Homepage Journal
      • The "red book" that defined the CD standard was the main reason CDs were as interchangable as they were. DVDs, which have no such rigorous standard to meet, tend to be less predictable.
      • IPv6 hasn't got an "official" centrally-run test suite, but such suites for the purpose of certification do exist.
      • C follows standards, rather than official regression tests, so you do get a lot more variation in quality and interchangability. In general, though, it demonstrates that simply defining a central standard is adequate for basic stuff.
      • POSIX used a mix of standards and official testing, and had a big impact on the interoperability of Unix systems - though nowhere near as much as seems to have been hoped.
      • Standards and tests by committee seem to be a Very Bad Idea. CORBA and SQL followed this road and have resulted in guaranteed inefficiency - apparently for the purpose of promoting the "extended" packages released by the vendors who created the standards in the first place.


      If the process is followed - hey, that's great, but is needs to be done right if it is to be worth the doing.

      • The "variation in quality and interchangeability" of C has less to do with the fact that it's based on a standard than the fact that the standard in question doesn't fully specify anything worth doing.
    • by Brandybuck (704397) on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:32PM (#15771331) Homepage Journal
      To play devil's advocate, I think what they're worried about is another J++, where someone (Microsoft) creates an almost-but-not-quite Java, and then you end up with "write once run nowhere else". I don't necessarily agree with that worry, but I strongly suspect that's what's in Sun's head.
      • "write once run nowhere else"

        sure, which is only slightly different from the current truth: "write once, debug everywhere"

        • sure, which is only slightly different from the current truth: "write once, debug everywhere"

          It's not that I disbelieve you, but could you give me examples where you've needed to do something platform specific with code written for J2SE or J2EE? I have written several very large Java apps (both standalone and web applications) but never had issues with running the resulting code on different platforms. Heck, the last system I worked on ran out of the box on Solaris, Windows, Linux and NetBSD. The only t

          • Try working with Java Sound and Java Media Framework and you'll find quite a few platform hacks needed. In addition try doing non trivial stuff with applets that talk to javascript and lots of threads and you'll hit platform specific problems too.

            Cheers

            Rich.
      • by Bogtha (906264) on Monday July 24, 2006 @02:13PM (#15771599)

        I think what they're worried about is another J++, where someone (Microsoft) creates an almost-but-not-quite Java

        Which of these two scenarios do you think is most likely to cause that situation?

        • People who object to Sun's non-open license create a from-scratch implementation of Java, or
        • People take Sun's open-source Java and use it directly.

        It seems fairly obvious to me that forcing people to create another Java implementation instead of letting them use the "canonical version" as they wish is far more likely to bring about another J++ situation.

        • by Tim C (15259)
          People who object to Sun's non-open license create a from-scratch implementation of Java

          But they can't call it Java, as that's a trademark owned by Sun, and so merely have a runtime that's nominally compatible with Java.

          In that situation there is a danger that people will start using it in preference to the real Java, as "it's practically the same, only better (in $ways)", but then that's a danger posed by .NET or any other similar technology.
      • If J++ were created with an GPL-like opensouced java, it would be easy to port J++ to run in linux and firefox, which was the whole point of making J++ incompatible.

        It's not Microsoft trying to kill java like with J++. They want their java to continue being theirs. They dont want to give it away.

    • Which is exactly what Sun already does with the Java Compatibility Kit [sun.com]. There are, in fact, a fair number of third-party Java implementations that are released on this basis. And one famous lawsuit was filed agains a certain company [uakom.sk] that released an incompatible version of Java.

      However, there have always been issues with the JCK, with claims that it is too complicated and inconsistent. Also, once everybody has access to the Java Development Kit source, you can expect to see a lot of forks. Enforcing compa

    • Unfortunately the fact that Mozilla trademarks things up the wazoo did not stop Debian from forking XULRunner to make it more "UNIXy". Ultimately trademarks must be supported with lawsuits if they are to be effective and unsurprisingly there isn't much appetite for suing open source projects that badly fork a codebase.
    • So hold onto the trademark, the same way the Mozilla foundation do, and only let implementations that pass a rigorous testsuite use it.

      Sure, then what you are asking for is a battle of trademarks.

      MS forks and names its product 'J++'. They keep it just compatible enough that it segments the Java development community. This isn't far-fetched since that's what they were doing with the original J++.

      Now good luck going against Microsoft, who has more money in the bank than many 'developed' nations and ha

      • "MS forks and names its product 'J++'. They keep it just compatible enough that it segments the Java development community."

        J++ didn't segment the Java development community, if it had been allowed to continue it would have brought Windows developers in the Java world. Instead Sun sued MS and doomed Java to the minor leagues of desktop development.
  • by MarkByers (770551) on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:10PM (#15771169) Homepage Journal
    I have a Java client on my webserver and half the mails I get are because the Java client doesn't work on people's computer. Usually this is because they have some old version of Microsoft's Java Runtime installed, which only supports Java 1.1 (badly).

    What a mess! I can't really see how opening it up will make it any worse than it already is today.
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:16PM (#15771216)

      Usually this is because they have some old version of Microsoft's Java Runtime installed, which only supports Java 1.1 (badly). What a mess! I can't really see how opening it up will make it any worse than it already is today.

      Okay so MS broke the law and released an intentionally broken JVM to try and kill Java as a dev platform. The courts stopped them, but you're still dealing with the mess with a few remaining legacy systems from that time. You don't see how giving MS an opportunity to bundle a new broken version on every computer sold in the world could make things worse?

      • Back then, MS's JVM was one of the best ones available. However, that distinction may not mean much since most JVM's blew the goat...
      • If someone is already willing to break the law to get what they want, making new laws probably won't stop them either.
        • If someone is already willing to break the law to get what they want, making new laws probably won't stop them either.

          The law acts, but very slowly especially when big money is involved. In this case MS was stopped after most of the damage was done. Changing the licensing may give them an opportunity to do it again. With the current licensing, the courts have already spoken and doing it would result in immediate punishment for violating the court order.

          • the courts have already spoken and doing it would result in immediate punishment for violating the court order.

            Oh, sorry I didn't realise you get an immediate punishment if you violate a court order. You mean like the immediate punishment that Microsoft gets when they break agreements made under the Anti Trust ruling?

            If Microsoft wanted to mess up Java again, they are powerful enough to do that whether the courts like it or not. Open Source or not Open Source, it makes no difference (as long as they retain
            • If Microsoft wanted to mess up Java again, they are powerful enough to do that whether the courts like it or not. Open Source or not Open Source, it makes no difference (as long as they retain the trademark and control of the standards of course).

              This makes no sense. Sun retains the trademark, and control of the standards, which is precisely why Microsoft can't mess up Java.

              Personally I think Java is already badly enough messed up that Microsoft no longer need to be afraid of it.

              Microsoft are definitely af
    • Write-Once, Debug Everywhere.
    • I wonder at times if Sun really messed up by challenging Microsoft. If Sun had allowed J# to continue as it was the java runtime updates would more than likely be included in every windows update package.
      • by bharlan (49602)
        You must be thinking of J++, since J# appeared much later with .NET, long after the contract lawsuit.

        J++ wasn't java. Byte code from J++ included new non-optional instructions, violated the specification, and thus could not run on any VM but Microsoft's. Microsoft's VM did not support 1.1 features for handling native code. How would Sun have benefited from a non-java VM pretending to be java?

    • In my experience, the WORA model was broken from the beginning.

      The majority of "interesting" Java applications I've seen were restricted to a single platform for various reasons, mostly because they apparently (somehow) were making platform-specific system calls. (I don't know the exact details of this, all I DO know is that there are plenty of Java applications out there that are restricted to a single platform for whatever reason. I may be wrong about the reasons, but the fact is that WORA failed on the
      • I don't know the exact details of this, all I DO know is that there are plenty of Java applications out there that are restricted to a single platform for whatever reason. I may be wrong about the reasons, but the fact is that WORA failed on the desktop

        Are you sure that it's a pure Java application or do these applications make calls to native code of some sort? If they are calling an OS specific resource, the problem is in the development. We could throw in that the developer had some reason that forc
      • by jilles (20976) on Monday July 24, 2006 @02:28PM (#15771720) Homepage
        I don't know about your definition of interesting but most of the java stuff I work with on a daily basis works unmodified on the three big desktop platforms (and probably everything else that runs java 1.5) and does so for the ten or so years I've been developing Java. This stuff combined is probably several million lines of code. Also all of the stuff I write in Java is 100% crossplatform, barring the odd jdk bug that somehow fell through the 60000 or so unit tests they unleash on the jdk nowadays (just a disclaimer, can't recall ever encountering one). In my previous company we developed on windows, had staging servers running linux and deployed more or less blindly to our customer sites running windows 2000, 2003, various flavours of linux and even some sun machines. Worked every time. Portability was never an issue. Not even having to test for portability issues is a huge time and cost saver.

        A good example of a portable J2ME app is opera mini which exists in only two variants the both of which work across pretty much all java capable phones except maybe for the really crappy ones, such as your Palm based one (blame Palm, not Sun). J2ME is a modular specification which unfortunately leads to the interesting situation that the more of the modules your app uses the less portable it becomes. Pretty much all of the modules are optional and with MIDP 1.0 many vendors added loads of vendor specific APIs as well. Many applications written for that mixed bag of standard and non standard extensions are not portable.

        MIDP 2.0 mostly removes the need for vendor specific APIs (though many vendors still ship them). Upcoming MIDP 3.0 is even better apparently. of course many games need to make assumptions about device specifics (e.g. screen size, number of colours, keyboard layout) which unfortunately leads to many portability issues. These problems are hard to solve and currently J2ME seems the best solution the market has come up with. Most device specific binaries of J2ME apps merely include some minor modifications, optimizations and packaging. I agree that testing for all that is a major PITA for developers. If you have a better solution that works for non trivial applications across the thousands of different brands and types of mobile phones, get some venture capital and get rich!
        • J2ME apps aren't portable because every implementation has its own unique combination of bugs. The many vendor-specific APIs don't help, but the shoddy quality of the phones themselves are the root cause of the fragmentation.
        • Have you ever written code which uses the java.net.NetworkInterface class? Thats a core part of the language, and its pretty damn easy to get code which runs completely differently on Windows and Linux simply because they are going to provide different NetworkInterface implementations (and frankly, a different number of NetworkInterfaces).
          • Honestly, I haven't.

            Then again, that's why you have the static method getByInetAddress().

            If you don't know the IP address you want, you "can use getNetworkInterfaces()+getInetAddresses() to obtain all IP addresses for this node." (Quoted because it's in the Javadoc for getNetworkInterfaces().)

            It's a moot point. If you're messing with NetworkInterfaces, the end user should know which one they want, or you should ask them which NetworkInterface you want it to bind to during some sort of first time initializ
      • There is a game I bought and installed on every single phone I've owned, and the same jar file has worked flawlessly: Gravity Defied [codebrew.se].

        So, it's possible. You just have to work at it.

        (not representing the company, just a happy customer)

    • I love how the only thing some people tend to associate Java with, are poorly implemented applets.
    • I have a Java client on my webserver and half the mails I get are because the Java client doesn't work on people's computer. Usually this is because they have some old version of Microsoft's Java Runtime installed, which only supports Java 1.1 (badly). What a mess! I can't really see how opening it up will make it any worse than it already is today.

      Tell me about it!

      I have a Windows program on my webserver and half the mails I get are because the program doesn't work on people's computer. Usually th

    • by Decaff (42676) on Monday July 24, 2006 @02:59PM (#15771965)
      I have a Java client on my webserver and half the mails I get are because the Java client doesn't work on people's computer. Usually this is because they have some old version of Microsoft's Java Runtime installed, which only supports Java 1.1 (badly).

      What a mess! I can't really see how opening it up will make it any worse than it already is today.


      Guess what! I have some Linux software that won't run on the 1.0.x kernel or with really early versions of libc. By the same reasoning this must surely mean that Linux is broken and you can't write the same code for different platforms.

      Of course this is nonsense, and isn't what WORA is about, and certainly shouldn't have been rated 'insightful'. WORA does not include some kind of time machine facility to allow software written to current VM and language and library specifications to work on 10-year old VMs and old libraries. The idea is, of course, that if you write for Java 1.4.2, your software will run on any Java 1.4.2 VM (or later) on any platform.

  • Quit the talking (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alphager (957739) <florian...haas@@@gmail...com> on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:11PM (#15771175) Homepage Journal
    or at least talk about some facts. All we hear from Sun is blabla about how they will open-source parts of Java in one or two years. What i want to know: -Which parts of Java? -WHICH LICENSE ?
  • by Burdell (228580) on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:15PM (#15771207)
    There are many open source programming languages already (perl, python,
    etc.), and they don't seem to have a problem with forking or
    compatibility.

    If Sun fosters a good development community, there shouldn't be a
    problem.
    • ever used perl for win32? There were differences between it and unix' perl versions.

      And it's naive to think that python or Perl are good examples. There was such huge energy behind Java in the commercial world that Microsoft made a clone. You better believe J++ would come back again if Sun gave a half a chance for it to sneak back in.
      • ever used perl for win32? There were differences between it and unix' perl versions.

        I have. The only imcompabilities I encountered were the obvious ones (executables being marked by filename ~= ".*\.exe$" instead of an attribute and very slow fork(), e.g.). Other than that, perl does a far better job at it than Java ever has at being crossplatform.

        Of course, Java is a big mess of a language. The only good thing to say about Java is that it is an improvement over Fortran. In some ways, anyway :).

    • There are many open source programming languages already (perl, python, etc.), and they don't seem to have a problem with forking or compatibility.

      And how long has Perl6 been in development?

      Sure there hasn't been a fork. That's because there aren't enough resources to development even the main branch!

      Perl, Python are large scale under-funded open-source projects and thus highlight what I believe to be one of the main reasons not to open-source Java just now.

      We haven't answered the question of who will

    • There are many open source programming languages already (perl, python,
      etc.), and they don't seem to have a problem with forking or
      compatibility.


      They certainly do. Perl 6 will have incompatibilities with Perl 5. Future versions of Python and Ruby are certainly likely to not be backward compatible in many ways. There may be good reasons - not guaranteeing compatibility can allow a language to evolve faster, but to claim that there are no problems with compatibility is simply wrong.
  • JavaPosse discussion (Score:4, Informative)

    by tcopeland (32225) * <tom@tho m a s l e e c o p e land.com> on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:17PM (#15771226) Homepage
    The JavaPosse [javaposse.com] had some notes on this a while back and they seem to keep an eye on the issue. That podcast definitely worth listening to once or twice a week to keep up with the latest news.
  • by Jonboy X (319895) <jonathan.oexner@NOsPaM.alum.wpi.edu> on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:17PM (#15771227) Journal
    Simon Phipps, the chief open-source officer at Sun Microsystems, has reaffirmed Sun's waning commitment to Open Source in an interview with some dude in bar over the weekend. "Sun tried the free-software thing. The end result was: Dirty hippies can run Solaris on their crappy little x86 boxes for free, and our stock is still circling the drain. Sun learned their lesson, and my job is rapidly being deprecated. I'll be folding sweaters at the Gap before Thanksgiving."
  • Solaris - solved? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kripkenstein (913150) on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:20PM (#15771249) Homepage
    It took Sun a full five years to solve these issues with Solaris.

    Solved? We should be so lucky. Things are far from solved. If Sun had released Solaris under the GPL, that would be good and done. Instead, it's under their own CDDL, which isn't easily compatible with the far-more-common GPL. This leads to issues for interesting projects like GNU/Solaris [gnusolaris.org] (Nexenta), which should have been quickly welcomed by the Open Source community. Instead, Sun's choice of the CDDL makes things complicated where they shouldn't be.

    So, in short, I would not say that Sun 'solved' these 'problems' with Solaris, and I sincerely hope they do a better job with Java.
    • > Instead, it's under their own CDDL, which isn't easily compatible with the far-more-common GPL.

      Compatible with GPL == Relicensed under GPL.

      It's the GPL that is incompatible with any other license.
    • The GPL v3 is specifically targetting the power of the corporation to retain its own product. I can respect the ideological war that the FSF seems to want to pick with the rest of the world, and they aren't entirely wrong, but surely you can see why most corporations, especially for a language level product, would want to craft their own open source license instead of using a license which is progressively making more audacious legal claims... ones that will likely not hold up in court.
    • by Petersko (564140)
      "Solved? We should be so lucky. Things are far from solved. If Sun had released Solaris under the GPL, that would be good and done. Instead, it's under their own CDDL, which isn't easily compatible with the far-more-common GPL. This leads to issues for interesting projects like GNU/Solaris (Nexenta), which should have been quickly welcomed by the Open Source community. Instead, Sun's choice of the CDDL makes things complicated where they shouldn't be. "

      Sun solved "their" problems. I highly doubt they to
  • other open languages (like phyton) don't have forks because a fork wouldn't do any good to the forker. major application server suppliers could make a lot of profit with a vendor lock implemented with gradual non conformities with its JVM. and a open source implementation of the JVM wouldn't make any difference for the non religious free/open source zealot.
  • Simon Phipps the Process of Opening Java
    Should be rather a slow one with a lot of hard disk churning, if experience is any guide. (I kid, of course. The modern JVM is more wonderful than Natalie Portman, and requires considerably less grits.)
  • by CherniyVolk (513591) on Monday July 24, 2006 @01:47PM (#15771423)

    Please.... someone, tell me why there needs to be an "officer"--much less a "cheif"--within a corporate environment. Aside from convention, what practical use would such a high paying position render? Management? Bah, the realities of management... is a given with shuttles exploding on international television and multi-billion dollar corporations such as Enron, to the everyday corporate life of meaningless and unproductive meetings setting deadlines, project goals and planning... it's all crap, and never useful.

    But, even if it's "management"... it's interesting that a corporation would feel the need for such heirarchy to "manage" any aspect of a system which itself, has no such structure.
  • Honestly (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Rorian (88503)
    I really like Java the way it is now - One single download of the OFFICIAL JRE and you can run pretty much anything that any website can throw at you, run a multitude of Java-based programs and you never really have to worry about having the right libraries etc. cause it's all _just there_ (with the exception of some applications which do require free java libraries.. most of the good applications manage to bundle everything in one neat package though).

    Open Source Java would be nice because you'd never rea
  • Sun should really quit beating this dead horse. Java isn't "Write once, run anywhere", now (especially in embedded systems). Releasing an open-source Java implementation isn't going to change that.
  • Of course, one of the other concerns for OS Java is the resulting incompatible versions and breaking of the Java WORA model.

    Excuse me? Where does the interview mention WORA? It doesn't, because WORA has been dead for years. And it was never more than an advertising slogan.

    The word you want is "compatibility", which is an issue with Java, as it is with every other language or platform.

  • by Kunta Kinte (323399) on Monday July 24, 2006 @03:10PM (#15772039) Journal

    My main concern with Java being Open-Sourced is that Sun may lose its incentive to continue funding Java development.

    Java is not Python nor Perl. Even then, how long has Perl6 been in development? "It's ready when it's ready" is not good enough to much of the corporate world.

    People asking for Java to be open-sourced believe that this will increase the amount of resources put into Java. I'm not so sure.

    • The coporate world already operates under a "its ready when its ready" system, they just dont realize it.

      They either get the first version that is grossly inadequate, or they wait till the real version is finally released (after being delayed 4-5 times)

      The time frame is the same, the facts are just spun a bit differently.
    • Even then, how long has Perl6 been in development? "It's ready when it's ready" is not good enough to much of the corporate world.

      The corporate world can deal with it, or it can fund development. As a multi-year volunteer on Perl 6 design and implementation, I can proudly say that the corporate world's opinion doesn't matter unless it's willing to do something about it.

  • I have been tracking the "opensource Java" for quite sometime. One thing I could not understand is why all the hype behind SUN's implementation of Java ??

    Java is an open standard, anyone can go and implement his own pet implementation of Java, except that but for few major sharks (SUN, IBM, BEA...) no ne has quite been able to get a production quality implementation out of the door!

    So why is everyone after SUN's goat ? SUN's JDK/JRE are just damn ONE of the many implementations of Java that exist. Where is
  • by jamesjw (213986) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @01:24AM (#15774246) Homepage

    I've already opened Java
    And I can tell you the lid reads "WARNING: HOT CONTENTS"

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!

Working...