Women in Technology

Hear us Roar



Article:
  Will You See Open Source J2EE Implementations?
Subject:   Why is Sun opposing open source J2EE implementations, as evidenced by their current licensing policies and positioning? What do you think of Mike's take
Date:   2001-10-22 19:18:27
From:   dschalk1
The question is loaded. Maybe policy maker's at Sun are not opposing open source J2EE implementations. Maybe they are currently not overriding their bean counters and concerned stock holders, and are refusing to subsidize the certification process. That would explain the JBoss situation. And, by the way, I think Sun should help JBoss get certified and I encourage them to do so. IBM, BEA, et al., would just have to get over it.


With respect to Lutris, I think the most plausible explanation is that top management betrayed the trust of many good people working for Lutris by milking the open source community for all they could get and then ripping them off. After apparently perpetrating this brazen highway robbery, it looks as though Lutirs dishonestly tried to shift the blame onto Sun.


-- David Schalk

Main Topics Newest First

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.

  • iPlanet - Sun motive for blocking open source J2EE?
    2001-11-11 07:19:49  dschalk1 [View]

    The Java Pro "Guide to Application Servers" says the Enterprise Pro Edition of Sun-Netscape Aliance's App Server, iPlanet, costs $39,995 per processor. No wonder Sun doesn't want us to use their reference J2EE implentation commercially. This might also explain why Sun isn't working with the Apache Foundation and JBoss to develop even a simple robust EJB container. It doesn't matter much anyway. The JBoss group is doing fine on its own.

    I am still very impressed by Sun's support for open source, free software. Some of the free software at the Sun site and the Apache Foundataion site is very useful and instructive. Media Framework and Struts, for example, come to mind. So why does Sun sit idly by while Lutris defames it by saying Sun destroyed open source Enhydra, when the facts indicate that Lutris stole open source Enhydra.

    Sometimes it seems that the lights are on, but nobody is at home in the Palo Alto headquarters. I bought a Sun Blade workstation last Spring, snapped in some cheap Crucial RAM chips and installed two 50 gigabite IBM hard drives. I am using the "workstation" as an experimental server. I love it.

    Here is the disturbing part: Sun implied that only their 15 gigabite Maxtor hard drives would work. I asked a salesman, and he admitted that other modern hard drives would probaly work, but Sun gave its Maxtor's a special "tweak" which he could not describe. Say what? A secret tweak! Sun also wanted me to buy extended RAM from them at around four times the market rate, because they certify that it works, or something. I got the sense that greedy people were trying to nickel and dime me, and that Sun was worried that some of us might use their $995.00 work stations as servers, rather than paying top dollar for official "servers." The future of Java, and possibly the future of Sun, depends on the good will of developers. Why do they do this dumb stuff?

    I am glad Sun did not release Java to a standards committee. API's are prolifereting and being fine tuned under Sun's stewardship far more efficintly than they would be under a committee whose members would include Microsoft stooges. As a strong supporter of Sun, I ask that a Sun representative (how about a mean lawyer) denounce Lutris for their lible and slander regarding the death of open source Enhydra. Demand a retraction! I and thousands of independent networking application developers around the world could use the reassurance that Sun has not written us off.

    -- David Schalk