... That may be related to the fight that Oracle is having with the Java community, and the fact that Apple has now taken sides in it. ...
Oracle is not in a fight with the Java community, unless you consider Google the Java community, or the Java community are stupid enough that they do. And, Apple isn't involved in that in any way, so they haven't taken any sides, other than to insure that Java continues to move forward on the Mac platform, now that there is a cooperative partner to work with.
Oracle is not in a fight with the Java community, unless you consider Google the Java community, or the Java community are stupid enough that they do. And, Apple isn't involved in that in any way, so they haven't taken any sides, other than to insure that Java continues to move forward on the Mac platform, now that there is a cooperative partner to work with.
Perhaps you haven't been reading the news lately. Apache and Oracle are in a huge fight, and the Apache group is one of the biggest creators of Java libraries on the planet. At this point Apache is recommending a "No confidence" vote for the whole JCP process for JDK7, which would effectively dismantle the project.
Nope, didn't see that coming at all. LOL Steve and Larry are too good of friends to not have talked about this before Apple's announcement regarding Java. I also had the same thoughts about OS X Server and virtualization. And let's not forget Apple's huge new server farm. Anyone know who's providing the big iron for that? Over a decade ago Ellison was promoting the concept of thin clients with everything running in the cloud (although it wasn't called the cloud back then). He wanted everything running on Oracle servers and users only have lightweight clients (MacBook Air, anyone?) Not to mention potential implications of the recently discussed Apple patent to easily hand tasks back and forth between computers.
Lot's of possibilities...
Yeah! What you said!
I would add:
1) the iPad, with or without kb station as an Agile client -- when connected, the LAN or cloud does the heavy-lifting, when not, the device has self-contained capabilities.
2) an A4 based blade server in several configurations for:
2.1) standalone home media server
----- stream local content and apps to AppleTV, iPad, iPod Touches, iPhones
----- OTA setup and synch of these devices
----- serve, cache and stage local files to Macs, PCs and iPads
----- Staged backup ala TimeMachine, locally and synced with cloud
2,2) standalone SMB version as above
----- web server running XAMP stack
2.3) rack mounted version for enterprise
----- provide mobile iDevices as above
----- interface Servers running OS X Server for Mac specific network processing, e.g FCP Server
----- interface Servers running non - OS X apps, e.g Oracle apps, IBM apps
Excellent to hear that Apple isn't going to abandon or block Java on OS X for the time being. While on the decline, it's still useful for many things.
This is excellent news indeed, but was more or less inevitable because Java is far, far too important for there not to be a first class implementation on the Mac. People who say it's on the decline or not relevant are thinking very narrowly, from the point of consumer applications, perhaps a few games or trivial browser applets, for which native iPhone or Cocoa are a very viable alternative.
The real importance of Java is for professional, educational, scientific, engineering and server-based enterprise applications. Even if those markets aren't as important to Apple as the consumer market, it still wouldn't be anyone's interest if universities and labs the world over started telling all their staff and students to sell their Mac Books and buy Linux or Windows laptops instead, because that was the only way they could run the software they need. Likewise the huge number of developers who choose to buy Macs for their professional work, because they can use it for developing server applications, but then develop great iPhone apps in their spare time because they've already got the hardware for it.
Perhaps you haven't been reading the news lately. Apache and Oracle are in a huge fight, and the Apache group is one of the biggest creators of Java libraries on the planet. At this point Apache is recommending a "No confidence" vote for the whole JCP process for JDK7, which would effectively dismantle the project.
Yes, I apparently did miss that. Briefly, what exactly are the claims and counterclaims?
But to summarize, when Oracle sued Google and partnered with IBM, they also indirectly attached the Apache group. Android's Java-esque API is largely derived from Apache's work, and Google was the biggest contributor to their open implementation. The Eclipse Foundation also appears to be coming down on the side of Google/Apache rather than Oracle/IBM. Apple just apparently threw their hat into the Oracle/IBM ring. If the JCP process falls apart, though, it will become more or less a "proprietary with source available" license rather than the Free/Open Source Software license we have now, making it harder to integrate Java into the huge middleware infrastructure out there now...
Oracle's making quite a mess of things, and it's unclear how it's going to fall out.
True Open Source contributors and Academics don't have enough say.
It's a gawdaful bunch of whining. Apache can take their toys and go home trying to kill the JCP, but when they get there they will still be developing Java software. JCP or not.
But to summarize, when Oracle sued Google and partnered with IBM, they also indirectly attached the Apache group. Android's Java-esque API is largely derived from Apache's work, and Google was the biggest contributor to their open implementation.
Android's Java-esque API and the way it uses the Dalvik VM as a replacement to the Java VM is the crux of the lawsuit.
Before Oracle ever bought Sun, Sun had claimed that Google's Android leached off Java-the-language without implementing the whole Java stack (and without licensing the mobile Java VM). Jonathan Schwartz (aka: the pony-tailed wonder) raised the issue with Eric Schmidt, and was told to pound sand because Sun didn't have the resources by that time to go after Google. Google wanted to leverage Java-the-language because they they needed a language everyone already knew; nobody was going to want to pick up some Google-invented language and Google knew it (they actually focus-grouped it, LOL).
So Google is "open" when it comes to leeching off of other people's work for their own gain, but not "open" when it comes to paying licensing fees to the company that incubated the technology they appropriated.
Note that Eric Schmidt wasn't an innocent bystander in all of this. People either forget or, in the case of most tech journalists and bloggers, willingly overlook the fact that Eric Schmidt cut his baby teeth at Sun and went on to lead the Java team and eventually became CTO at Sun. He knew exactly what he was doing, trying to weasel out of paying licensing fees to Sun for the use of Java in a mobile device and implementing the mobile Java VM as the license requires.
The only reason that Sun didn't sue Google because they knew the negative publicity (deserved or not) would impact their ability to find a buyer. They slow-played their hand, hoping that would be a diamond-in-the-rough to a potential buyer. Which is exactly were we came in with Oracle filing this lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga
The Eclipse Foundation also appears to be coming down on the side of Google/Apache rather than Oracle/IBM. Apple just apparently threw their hat into the Oracle/IBM ring. If the JCP process falls apart, though, it will become more or less a "proprietary with source available" license rather than the Free/Open Source Software license we have now, making it harder to integrate Java into the huge middleware infrastructure out there now...
Oracle's making quite a mess of things, and it's unclear how it's going to fall out.
Well there are obviously two camps. Oracle/Sun and IBM are the companies with a track record of monetizing Java, so they have a vested interest in preventing Java from becoming fragmented. The pony-tailed open sores crowd have a vested interests in "sticking it to the man" and Google supports them because it suits Google, not because it helps any sort of "Open Java" initiatives; the more fragmented Java becomes, the better things are for Google. It's a pretty safe bet that Apple wants to let everyone else hash this out; they certainly don't want to be in the position of having to support multiple versions of a Java VM (esp. an Andoid mutant), and since they can get Oracle or OpenJDK to take that on, I'm sure Apple has no problem supporting the Oracle position at this time. (FWIW, Apache is free to develop as many of their own mutant JVM variants for OSX as they'd like.)
Given all the facts, I'm not sure whether Oracle is making a mess of things or not, but I agree it's not clear how this will all eventually shake out.
Android's Java-esque API and the way it uses the Dalvik VM as a replacement to the Java VM is the crux of the lawsuit.
Before Oracle ever bought Sun, Sun had claimed that Google's Android leached off Java-the-language without implementing the whole Java stack (and without licensing the mobile Java VM). Jonathan Schwartz (aka: the pony-tailed wonder) raised the issue with Eric Schmidt, and was told to pound sand because Sun didn't have the resources by that time to go after Google. Google wanted to leverage Java-the-language because they they needed a language everyone already knew; nobody was going to want to pick up some Google-invented language and Google knew it (they actually focus-grouped it, LOL).
So Google is "open" when it comes to leeching off of other people's work for their own gain, but not "open" when it comes to paying licensing fees to the company that incubated the technology they appropriated.
Note that Eric Schmidt wasn't an innocent bystander in all of this. People either forget or, in the case of most tech journalists and bloggers, willingly overlook the fact that Eric Schmidt cut his baby teeth at Sun and went on to lead the Java team and eventually became CTO at Sun. He knew exactly what he was doing, trying to weasel out of paying licensing fees to Sun for the use of Java in a mobile device and implementing the mobile Java VM as the license requires.
The only reason that Sun didn't sue Google because they knew the negative publicity (deserved or not) would impact their ability to find a buyer. They slow-played their hand, hoping that would be a diamond-in-the-rough to a potential buyer. Which is exactly were we came in with Oracle filing this lawsuit.
Well there are obviously two camps. Oracle/Sun and IBM are the companies with a track record of monetizing Java, so they have a vested interest in preventing Java from becoming fragmented. The pony-tailed open sores crowd have a vested interests in "sticking it to the man" and Google supports them because it suits Google, not because it helps any sort of "Open Java" initiatives; the more fragmented Java becomes, the better things are for Google. It's a pretty safe bet that Apple wants to let everyone else hash this out; they certainly don't want to be in the position of having to support multiple versions of a Java VM (esp. an Andoid mutant), and since they can get Oracle or OpenJDK to take that on, I'm sure Apple has no problem supporting the Oracle position at this time. (FWIW, Apache is free to develop as many of their own mutant JVM variants for OSX as they'd like.)
Given all the facts, I'm not sure whether Oracle is making a mess of things or not, but I agree it's not clear how this will all eventually shake out.
Nice write up. While I think that Oracle certainly is out to monetise Java as much as they can, they Apache libraries are very heavily used and can't just be discounted with a contemptuous "Open Sores" comment (unless that was a typo). The Apache libraries are generally of very high quality as well, and the contributors mainly don't want Oracle trying to make money off their hard work by limiting them into not being able to make a free VM implementation on whatever platform they please.
I hope they come to an agreement soon, as this fight is not good for the Java community.
Comments
Perhaps Apple is considering purchasing Oracle.
I suspect 142.72B might be a bit steep even for Apple but they make a great fit working together.
While on the decline, it's still useful for many things.
Java in the enterprise is still very prominent. it's only in the consumer market where there isn't as much traction.
... That may be related to the fight that Oracle is having with the Java community, and the fact that Apple has now taken sides in it. ...
Oracle is not in a fight with the Java community, unless you consider Google the Java community, or the Java community are stupid enough that they do. And, Apple isn't involved in that in any way, so they haven't taken any sides, other than to insure that Java continues to move forward on the Mac platform, now that there is a cooperative partner to work with.
Oracle is not in a fight with the Java community, unless you consider Google the Java community, or the Java community are stupid enough that they do. And, Apple isn't involved in that in any way, so they haven't taken any sides, other than to insure that Java continues to move forward on the Mac platform, now that there is a cooperative partner to work with.
Perhaps you haven't been reading the news lately. Apache and Oracle are in a huge fight, and the Apache group is one of the biggest creators of Java libraries on the planet. At this point Apache is recommending a "No confidence" vote for the whole JCP process for JDK7, which would effectively dismantle the project.
Nope, didn't see that coming at all. LOL Steve and Larry are too good of friends to not have talked about this before Apple's announcement regarding Java. I also had the same thoughts about OS X Server and virtualization. And let's not forget Apple's huge new server farm. Anyone know who's providing the big iron for that? Over a decade ago Ellison was promoting the concept of thin clients with everything running in the cloud (although it wasn't called the cloud back then). He wanted everything running on Oracle servers and users only have lightweight clients (MacBook Air, anyone?) Not to mention potential implications of the recently discussed Apple patent to easily hand tasks back and forth between computers.
Lot's of possibilities...
Yeah! What you said!
I would add:
1) the iPad, with or without kb station as an Agile client -- when connected, the LAN or cloud does the heavy-lifting, when not, the device has self-contained capabilities.
2) an A4 based blade server in several configurations for:
2.1) standalone home media server
----- stream local content and apps to AppleTV, iPad, iPod Touches, iPhones
----- OTA setup and synch of these devices
----- serve, cache and stage local files to Macs, PCs and iPads
----- Staged backup ala TimeMachine, locally and synced with cloud
2,2) standalone SMB version as above
----- web server running XAMP stack
2.3) rack mounted version for enterprise
----- provide mobile iDevices as above
----- interface Servers running OS X Server for Mac specific network processing, e.g FCP Server
----- interface Servers running non - OS X apps, e.g Oracle apps, IBM apps
.
p.s. the one thing that puzzles me is why it wasn't announced earlier, which would have avoided all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth.
It happened pretty quickly considering that Oracle just recently acquired Java in the Sum Microsystems deal.
Perhaps Apple is considering purchasing Oracle.
Other way 'round
Logical. as ORCL has 1/2 the market cap as APPL.
.
Excellent to hear that Apple isn't going to abandon or block Java on OS X for the time being. While on the decline, it's still useful for many things.
This is excellent news indeed, but was more or less inevitable because Java is far, far too important for there not to be a first class implementation on the Mac. People who say it's on the decline or not relevant are thinking very narrowly, from the point of consumer applications, perhaps a few games or trivial browser applets, for which native iPhone or Cocoa are a very viable alternative.
The real importance of Java is for professional, educational, scientific, engineering and server-based enterprise applications. Even if those markets aren't as important to Apple as the consumer market, it still wouldn't be anyone's interest if universities and labs the world over started telling all their staff and students to sell their Mac Books and buy Linux or Windows laptops instead, because that was the only way they could run the software they need. Likewise the huge number of developers who choose to buy Macs for their professional work, because they can use it for developing server applications, but then develop great iPhone apps in their spare time because they've already got the hardware for it.
Other way 'round
Logical. as ORCL has 1/2 the market cap as APPL.
.
lol. I considered turning my sentence around to read that Oracle could buy Apple after reading it to myself.
Perhaps you haven't been reading the news lately. Apache and Oracle are in a huge fight, and the Apache group is one of the biggest creators of Java libraries on the planet. At this point Apache is recommending a "No confidence" vote for the whole JCP process for JDK7, which would effectively dismantle the project.
Yes, I apparently did miss that. Briefly, what exactly are the claims and counterclaims?
Exactly!
Apple likes to wake you up before it kisses you -- except the server gambit was a bit over the top.
'cause I'm a million miles away
and at the same time
I'm right here in your
picture frame
Yes, I apparently did miss that. Briefly, what exactly are the claims and counterclaims?
Here are some links...
http://www.itworld.com/legal/127051/...acle-over-java
http://infoworld.com/d/developer-wor...uture-java-866
But to summarize, when Oracle sued Google and partnered with IBM, they also indirectly attached the Apache group. Android's Java-esque API is largely derived from Apache's work, and Google was the biggest contributor to their open implementation. The Eclipse Foundation also appears to be coming down on the side of Google/Apache rather than Oracle/IBM. Apple just apparently threw their hat into the Oracle/IBM ring. If the JCP process falls apart, though, it will become more or less a "proprietary with source available" license rather than the Free/Open Source Software license we have now, making it harder to integrate Java into the huge middleware infrastructure out there now...
Oracle's making quite a mess of things, and it's unclear how it's going to fall out.
Your open isn't open enough for me.
True Open Source contributors and Academics don't have enough say.
It's a gawdaful bunch of whining. Apache can take their toys and go home trying to kill the JCP, but when they get there they will still be developing Java software. JCP or not.
But to summarize, when Oracle sued Google and partnered with IBM, they also indirectly attached the Apache group. Android's Java-esque API is largely derived from Apache's work, and Google was the biggest contributor to their open implementation.
Android's Java-esque API and the way it uses the Dalvik VM as a replacement to the Java VM is the crux of the lawsuit.
Before Oracle ever bought Sun, Sun had claimed that Google's Android leached off Java-the-language without implementing the whole Java stack (and without licensing the mobile Java VM). Jonathan Schwartz (aka: the pony-tailed wonder) raised the issue with Eric Schmidt, and was told to pound sand because Sun didn't have the resources by that time to go after Google. Google wanted to leverage Java-the-language because they they needed a language everyone already knew; nobody was going to want to pick up some Google-invented language and Google knew it (they actually focus-grouped it, LOL).
So Google is "open" when it comes to leeching off of other people's work for their own gain, but not "open" when it comes to paying licensing fees to the company that incubated the technology they appropriated.
Note that Eric Schmidt wasn't an innocent bystander in all of this. People either forget or, in the case of most tech journalists and bloggers, willingly overlook the fact that Eric Schmidt cut his baby teeth at Sun and went on to lead the Java team and eventually became CTO at Sun. He knew exactly what he was doing, trying to weasel out of paying licensing fees to Sun for the use of Java in a mobile device and implementing the mobile Java VM as the license requires.
The only reason that Sun didn't sue Google because they knew the negative publicity (deserved or not) would impact their ability to find a buyer. They slow-played their hand, hoping that would be a diamond-in-the-rough to a potential buyer. Which is exactly were we came in with Oracle filing this lawsuit.
The Eclipse Foundation also appears to be coming down on the side of Google/Apache rather than Oracle/IBM. Apple just apparently threw their hat into the Oracle/IBM ring. If the JCP process falls apart, though, it will become more or less a "proprietary with source available" license rather than the Free/Open Source Software license we have now, making it harder to integrate Java into the huge middleware infrastructure out there now...
Oracle's making quite a mess of things, and it's unclear how it's going to fall out.
Well there are obviously two camps. Oracle/Sun and IBM are the companies with a track record of monetizing Java, so they have a vested interest in preventing Java from becoming fragmented. The pony-tailed open sores crowd have a vested interests in "sticking it to the man" and Google supports them because it suits Google, not because it helps any sort of "Open Java" initiatives; the more fragmented Java becomes, the better things are for Google. It's a pretty safe bet that Apple wants to let everyone else hash this out; they certainly don't want to be in the position of having to support multiple versions of a Java VM (esp. an Andoid mutant), and since they can get Oracle or OpenJDK to take that on, I'm sure Apple has no problem supporting the Oracle position at this time. (FWIW, Apache is free to develop as many of their own mutant JVM variants for OSX as they'd like.)
Given all the facts, I'm not sure whether Oracle is making a mess of things or not, but I agree it's not clear how this will all eventually shake out.
to everyone who said i was full of crap when i said this was in the works, "i told you so!"
bravo
Perhaps Apple is considering purchasing Oracle.
Will not happen...
lol. I considered turning my sentence around to read that Oracle could buy Apple after reading it to myself.
Oracle did make bids for Apple on several occasions back in the 90's.
Android's Java-esque API and the way it uses the Dalvik VM as a replacement to the Java VM is the crux of the lawsuit.
Before Oracle ever bought Sun, Sun had claimed that Google's Android leached off Java-the-language without implementing the whole Java stack (and without licensing the mobile Java VM). Jonathan Schwartz (aka: the pony-tailed wonder) raised the issue with Eric Schmidt, and was told to pound sand because Sun didn't have the resources by that time to go after Google. Google wanted to leverage Java-the-language because they they needed a language everyone already knew; nobody was going to want to pick up some Google-invented language and Google knew it (they actually focus-grouped it, LOL).
So Google is "open" when it comes to leeching off of other people's work for their own gain, but not "open" when it comes to paying licensing fees to the company that incubated the technology they appropriated.
Note that Eric Schmidt wasn't an innocent bystander in all of this. People either forget or, in the case of most tech journalists and bloggers, willingly overlook the fact that Eric Schmidt cut his baby teeth at Sun and went on to lead the Java team and eventually became CTO at Sun. He knew exactly what he was doing, trying to weasel out of paying licensing fees to Sun for the use of Java in a mobile device and implementing the mobile Java VM as the license requires.
The only reason that Sun didn't sue Google because they knew the negative publicity (deserved or not) would impact their ability to find a buyer. They slow-played their hand, hoping that would be a diamond-in-the-rough to a potential buyer. Which is exactly were we came in with Oracle filing this lawsuit.
Well there are obviously two camps. Oracle/Sun and IBM are the companies with a track record of monetizing Java, so they have a vested interest in preventing Java from becoming fragmented. The pony-tailed open sores crowd have a vested interests in "sticking it to the man" and Google supports them because it suits Google, not because it helps any sort of "Open Java" initiatives; the more fragmented Java becomes, the better things are for Google. It's a pretty safe bet that Apple wants to let everyone else hash this out; they certainly don't want to be in the position of having to support multiple versions of a Java VM (esp. an Andoid mutant), and since they can get Oracle or OpenJDK to take that on, I'm sure Apple has no problem supporting the Oracle position at this time. (FWIW, Apache is free to develop as many of their own mutant JVM variants for OSX as they'd like.)
Given all the facts, I'm not sure whether Oracle is making a mess of things or not, but I agree it's not clear how this will all eventually shake out.
Nice write up. While I think that Oracle certainly is out to monetise Java as much as they can, they Apache libraries are very heavily used and can't just be discounted with a contemptuous "Open Sores" comment (unless that was a typo). The Apache libraries are generally of very high quality as well, and the contributors mainly don't want Oracle trying to make money off their hard work by limiting them into not being able to make a free VM implementation on whatever platform they please.
I hope they come to an agreement soon, as this fight is not good for the Java community.