Free Java advocacy (was Re: Improving Java for Linux)
alk at pobox.com
Fri Nov 7 15:09:53 PST 1997
Quoth Jim Pick on , 7 November:
: That's not what Sun is proposing. Sun is proposing that their JavaSoft
: division should actually be certified as a standards body. That's really,
: really bizarre. ISO has done this before with consortiums - but never
: with a division of a private company.
That is very weird. I may have been excessive in some of my replies,
if this is the case. Please understand, though, how I might desire
a clearer understanding of the basis for such a statement, however; as
it is very weird indeed. I shall examine the web sites you mentioned
before commenting on this subject again.
: That's what I'm trying to say. I don't think JFC or JavaBeans are
: necessary for "minimal java execution".
I don't understand JavaBeans, so I won't comment, but I do think
that JFC is going to be necessary in the very near future, because
AWT just isn't up to par for writing GUI apps.
: Take a look at the JFC and JavaBeans APIs. They're HUGE.
Every viable GUI API is huge. See MFC, PowerPlant, MOTIF.
: At this
: point, the 20 or so hackers who have done real work on free Java
: implementations have only got a fraction of the base JDK cloned.
: Overall, it's a small percentage of APIs that Sun has available
: (or planned) for Java.
One should make a clear distinction between the platform APIs
and the layered APIs.
: They have threatened to sue literally hundreds of people who were using
: the Java name.
Certainly true. I don't see that as a related issue, however.
: I just find it funny (hilarious even) that Sun is trying
: to bully Microsoft into pushing their APIs.
Well, they did sign a contract to do it.
: The rhetoric is important. Otherwise people will just blindly follow
: Sun's lead, and trap themselves in a proprietary situation.
You seem to be arguing in favor of a proprietary situation, where the
property is public domain. I don't think that's much better than a
proprietary situation where the property is private domain. I want
a standardized environment, which I think is better than either.
Whether the standard is de facto or de jure is much less important to
me than the fact that it is *open*, in fact only serves the end of
insuring that it is open, and no other.
More information about the kaffe