Hi guys, here is text of what I'll put up somewhere. Thought I'd get some feedback here first. It's meant to piss IBM supporters off -- don't take it personally. I make some unsubstantiated claims but wtf everybody else is :-) Cheers, Sid --------------------------------------------------------------------- In an open letter to Sun, http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-openlet IBM offers to work with Sun on an open-source implementation of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). Here is how the letter came about. o IBM had/have been bleating for a while that Sun should open-source the Sun JVM. o Some open source enthusiasts had/have been doing the same - i.e. bleating*. o Analysts and journalists just repeat what the different factions say. Some seem to conflate the language, the virtual machine and the runtime libraries. It was after an insistent journalist (enraptured by IBM's self-professed commitment to an "open-source Java") repeated the call (at a public event) that someone from Sun asked: why does IBM not open-source its own version of the JVM? i.e. why are the buggers haranguing Sun? IBM jumped at this with the open letter mentioned above. In short: they will gladly work with Sun on a common open-source implementation of a JVM if both Sun and IBM offered resources including source code (to their respective JVMs). Excuse me IBM, who asked you to open-source Sun's JVM? I'd like you to open-source /yours/ please. IBM have been veritably shouting their desire for an open source JVM but they are not willing to open source their own implementation. They will if Sun does the same (that's what it boils down to). This smacks of hypocrisy at least and hidden agendas. Why bring Sun into it? Why not BEA or Oracle or ... the open source community? The strength of the present arrangement is that the specs are there for all to see, vendors implement their own JVMs (and they have) and the consumer chooses one or more implementations based on what he requires and his estimation of the competing JVMs. This leads to a thriving industry with high quality JVMs. It gives me choice and I like that. Great. So what's the problem? Simple: IBM's JVM just can't compete with Sun's. Both of them are free for us to download and use. Try them yourself. Yep, IBM can't even give its JVM away. Whose JVM do you have running on your machine? Now Sun's JVM is a beautiful thing! And it is Sun's JVM that will take hardware customers from IBM to Sun. For the same money, Sun's JVM running on Solaris and Sun hardware will outperform the corresponding offering from IBM -- I reckon. And IBM knows it too. My conclusion: IBM are telling fibs, really obvious ones too. Hey whattup IBM? Cat got ya source? ------------------------------------------------------------------- * we have lots of sheep in New Zealand.
Now Sun's JVM is a beautiful thing! And it is Sun's JVM that will take hardware customers from IBM to Sun. For the same money, Sun's JVM running on Solaris and Sun hardware will outperform the corresponding offering from IBM -- I reckon. And IBM knows it too.
My conclusion: IBM are telling fibs, really obvious ones too.
I'm not so sure about the current state of affairs but certainly in JDK 1.3 days IBM's JVM and Jikes compiler were often quoted as being faster and better than Sun's respectively. Regards -- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com
s swami wrote:
Great. So what's the problem? Simple: IBM's JVM just can't compete with Sun's. Both of them are free for us to download and use. Try them yourself. Yep, IBM can't even give its JVM away. Whose JVM do you have running on your machine?
I have IBM's JVM running on my machine at home. The last release of the Sun JVM for Linux on PowerPC (a Blackdown version) was 1.3.1 and that didn't even have a JIT compiler. IBM open-sourcing their JVM would get us JIT compiler source for x86 and PowerPC, open-sourcing Sun's would only get you JIT compilers for x86 and Sparc.
My note can be found on the web here: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~j_gauss/ibm.html I left my claim about IBM's motives in. Thanks for the comments. Cheers, Sid.
Sid Your arguments seem emotional, poorly founded, irrational overreactions stemmed from unrealistic and idealistic goals, and you would be best to drop the subject. If you really want to help, do some real research into what IBM is doing give them real-world reasons to do what you ask, things that managers will respond to. This isn't a personal attack and I apoligise if this is the way I come across. I really think you're overreacting here, try to approach the situation pragmatically. Best Regards James ----- Original Message ----- From: "s swami" <sns(a)paradise.net.nz> To: <sns(a)paradise.net.nz>; "Waikato Linux Users Group" <wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [wlug] IBM and the JVM
My note can be found on the web here:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~j_gauss/ibm.html
I left my claim about IBM's motives in.
Thanks for the comments.
Cheers, Sid.
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
Snip
Now Sun's JVM is a beautiful thing. And it is Sun's JVM that will take hardware customers from IBM to Sun. When it comes to heavy lifting, for the same money, Sun's JVM running on Solaris and Sun hardware will outperform the corresponding offering from IBM -- I reckon. And IBM knows it too. And the gulf will only widen.
Snip
The opposite is happening. Sun is shrinking and IBM is gaining, stop dreaming, live the real world. IBM is doing more than anyone else in and for Open Source/Linux. Sun in the Desktop they released are closed sourcing Linux and do not even mention in the copy I bought that it is Linux or that it is GPL. It reads like the Solaris license. Scott McNealy is Bill Gates's new buddy and they both do not like what Linux is doing to their own market. Why you write this irrational slander onto a Linux list is beyond me. As I said ... stop dreaming. Why would anyone buy Sun hardware these days if they spend a third of the money for the same performance for an IBM system. Andreas
On Thursday 01 July 2004 20:50, Andreas Girardet wrote:
Snip
Now Sun's JVM is a beautiful thing. And it is Sun's JVM that will take hardware customers from IBM to Sun. When it comes to heavy lifting, for the same money, Sun's JVM running on Solaris and Sun hardware will outperform the corresponding offering from IBM -- I reckon. And IBM knows it too. And the gulf will only widen.
Snip
The opposite is happening. Sun is shrinking and IBM is gaining, stop dreaming, live the real world. IBM is doing more than anyone else in and for Open Source/Linux.
Please, I didn't say that IBM is shrinking and Sun is gaining -- now that would be the opposite to what you assert.
Sun in the Desktop they released are closed sourcing Linux and do not even mention in the copy I bought that it is Linux or that it is GPL. It reads like the Solaris license.
What does this have to do with Java on Linux? Nobody can close-source Linux. Wow talk about irrational! (below)
Scott McNealy is Bill Gates's new buddy and they both do not like what Linux is doing to their own market. Why you write this irrational slander onto a Linux list is beyond me.
What does this have to do with Java on Linux? If you look at my replies to your assertions, you will notice that you might be the one sounding irrational. Please do not use emotional terms like "slander" -- they are boring.
As I said ... stop dreaming. Why would anyone buy Sun hardware these days if they spend a third of the money for the same performance for an IBM system.
Check out the latest java benchmarks for Java 1.5.
Andreas
Nice to hear from you Andreas. Are you still working for IBM? If you are, why don't they open-source their JVM given their alleged predilection to. Why are they trying to get the "shrinking" Sun to do it? Sid.
<someone wants an open source JVM> Who cares. .NET/Mono are MUCH better than java anyway - don't waste your time worrying about an open source JVM, just use mono which already is OSS, and have a better development experience to boot. :-)
Orion Edwards wrote:
<someone wants an open source JVM>
Who cares. .NET/Mono are MUCH better than java anyway - don't waste your time worrying about an open source JVM, just use mono which already is OSS, and have a better development experience to boot. :-)
Some of us don't want to use Mono for fear of Microsoft waiting until it's entrenched and turning around and enforcing their patents on it. Java has a much better library of existing open-source applications (eg the Apache Jakarta project). Also pronouncing ".NET" as "dot net" is stupid and will probably be seen as a turning point in the downfall of the English language. Regards, Jon
* Jonathan Purvis <jon(a)purvis.co.nz> [2004-07-01 23:48]:
Also pronouncing ".NET" as "dot net" is stupid and will probably be seen as a turning point in the downfall of the English language.
Clearly, it should be pronounced "dot enn ee tee". Regards, -- Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
I am interested to give in Mono a try but I am a tad concerned about the fact that the technology comes from MS. MS aren't renowned for creating fantastic APIs. Witness the Win32 API. I'm also concerned that MS will patent everything and crush Mono before it becomes really useful. I also don't like the fact that the bins and stuff end in .exe, .dll and other DOS-isms. Regards On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 09:35, Orion Edwards wrote:
<someone wants an open source JVM>
Who cares. .NET/Mono are MUCH better than java anyway - don't waste your time worrying about an open source JVM, just use mono which already is OSS, and have a better development experience to boot. :-)
-- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com
Aha my troll got some bites I see :-) Microsoft did the unexpected with .NET, the framework (it's API) is just as nice and in many cases a whole lot nicer than java's. A complete turnaround from Win32. The GUI stuff in mono is still scratchy I hear, but the general stuff (ie: you want to write a server or a daemon or something) is top notch. ASP.net is also VERY nice from a web development POV, and mono does a reasonable job of getting it running on linux. Anyway, give mono a spin (or if you're on windows, get the .net framework sdk) and you'll probably find you agree with me that it's quite cool. Quoting Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeper.co.nz>:
I am interested to give in Mono a try but I am a tad concerned about the fact that the technology comes from MS. MS aren't renowned for creating fantastic APIs. Witness the Win32 API. I'm also concerned that MS will patent everything and crush Mono before it becomes really useful. I also don't like the fact that the bins and stuff end in .exe, .dll and other DOS-isms.
Regards
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 09:35, Orion Edwards wrote:
<someone wants an open source JVM>
Who cares. .NET/Mono are MUCH better than java anyway - don't waste your time worrying about an open source JVM, just use mono which already is OSS, and have a better development experience to boot. :-)
-- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 14:43, Orion Edwards wrote:
Aha my troll got some bites I see :-)
Nip nip.
Microsoft did the unexpected with .NET, the framework (it's API) is just as nice and in many cases a whole lot nicer than java's. A complete turnaround from Win32.
Which is very surprising.
The GUI stuff in mono is still scratchy I hear, but the general stuff (ie: you want to write a server or a daemon or something) is top notch.
Which sort of GUI stuff? WinForms or GTK#?
ASP.net is also VERY nice from a web development POV, and mono does a reasonable job of getting it running on linux.
Hmm. I think I'll stick to PHP and Java thanks.
Anyway, give mono a spin (or if you're on windows, get the .net framework sdk) and you'll probably find you agree with me that it's quite cool.
Maybe when I have an iota of time. What will probably push me in that direction is when/if I ever want to write a GTK+/GNOME app for Linux. So far I've avoided that little den of wolves. Regards -- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com
* Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeper.co.nz> [2004-07-02 11:25]:
Maybe when I have an iota of time. What will probably push me in that direction is when/if I ever want to write a GTK+/GNOME app for Linux.
Gtk2-Perl is completely and absolutely lovely. Regards, -- Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
participants (7)
-
A. Pagaltzis -
Andreas Girardet -
James Spooner -
Jonathan Purvis -
Oliver Jones -
Orion Edwards -
s swami