Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Java Programming Software

Java Evangelist Leaves Sun After MS Settlement 360

Posted by simoniker from the shifting-into-shade dept.
aeoo writes "The Register says that Rich Green, the vice president of developer platforms and the major public voice for Java is 'quitting Sun in disgust' due to the recent settlement between Sun and Microsoft. The article hints that there may be more to follow. On the other hand, there is an article at eWeek with a different slant, saying that Rich Green tendered his resignation prior to the settlement. What impact, if any, will this have on open sourcing Java? It looks like Sun is still considering it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Java Evangelist Leaves Sun After MS Settlement More

Java Evangelist Leaves Sun After MS Settlement

Comments Filter:

  • Time Will Tell (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dolo666 ( 195584 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:31PM (#8772218) Journal
    Having a billion plus dollars of cash infusion should be even more of a reason for Java to take up more Open Source Development and support this nicely flowering community of adept programmers, testers and beneficiaries. However, a sneaky Dogbert spy might infiltrate the contract Sun signed, causing Sun to breach contract if they support Open Source (Microsoft likely didn't do this but it would not surprise me at all if they did, because I've never known Bill Gates to part with any money without getting something in return). Time will indeed tell if this settlement spells doom for Sun's human capitol, although if I'm right about Dogbert, then it likely will result in some really rich seedling startups being formed in wake of Sun's slow demise.

    • Not just time... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Allen Zadr ( 767458 ) <Allen.Zadr@g m a i l . com> on Monday April 05, 2004 @04:06PM (#8772599) Journal
      As I said repeatedly in the story earlier today:

      Sun is a Hardware vendor first and a Software vendor second.

      That said, it makes little sense for Sun to loose the Marketing benefit of Sun Java (as it gains no money, it's value to Sun is in the feel-good name recognition it's provides).

      Sun sells Linux hardware along with Solaris hardware. Sun StarOffice and OpenOffice is funded by Sun to perpetuate good faith and hardware sales.

      From a corporate point of view, Java is a loosing deal that can't be safely dropped (without gaining a lot of bad faith) and open-sourcing it could save them money, but would inevitably force a loss of Java market share while the community ramps-up to start supporting extensions to the current Java architecture (especially now, as .NET is totally in the clear). Further, community - open-source Java implimentations already exist (GCJ), but don't have the support of Sun's native implimentation.*

      So what for Sun to do? Same as ever. Keep expanding the product, but don't put too much into it (as it's a money seive).

      --
      * GCJ and even the 'blackdown' ports of Java having no support means little, (as supported free beer is more usefull than unsupported freedom when it comes to reality) - but their failure to gain market share can be taken as an indicator of the possible stagnantation of an OpenSource Java.

      • Re:Not just time... (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        lose, it is lose, not LOOSE

      • Re:Not just time... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by davecb ( 6526 ) *
        Allen Zadr writes: Java is a losing deal that can't be safely dropped.

        I'd consider Java a mechanism to keep customers from being locked into a particular hardware && software platform, thus making it possible for Sun to keep selling hardware.

        And I'd say it has succeeded, as Java's now back on Windows as part of the deal. Which is consistant with the eWeek story.

        --dave

      • Re:Not just time... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Doomdark ( 136619 )
        Sun is a Hardware vendor first and a Software vendor second.

        I would agree, except that this is to change, if one is to believe Sun's executives. It's hardly a coincidence that former software exec is now COO; his goal is to move Sun to become (more of) a software company. If he fails, he'll be history; to get the position he has promised he can do it... and if (when) he does not deliver, he'll be out and someone else will promise something else for eager board.

        Note that I'm not saying Sun should becom

    • Re:Time Will Tell (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Osty ( 16825 )

      Microsoft likely didn't do this but it would not surprise me at all if they did, because I've never known Bill Gates to part with any money without getting something in return

      Really? [gatesfoundation.com] That Bill Gates is such a bastard!

      (Okay, you could make a case that donation to charity still brings some sort of return, but then isn't that the case with everything?)

      • Personally I think the Gates Foundation is a stock laundering scheme. It's run by his father (who is a lawyer, if that helps).

        It operates like this: Gates as head of MS can only convert so much stock at a time into cash per SEC rules. So he donates it to the Foundation, who converts it for him, then sprinkles a few million of the $10 billion into donations of Windows to schools (MS market creation tactic)plus a few million for AIDS research or whatever in order to look good (the interest on the holdings

    • Re:Time Will Tell (Score:3, Interesting)

      by njcoder ( 657816 )
      I really don't get it. You don't have to look far to see how many millions of dollars Sun has invested in open source companies. You don't have to strain to find different open source projects they've released at much cost. IBM invests 50 million in Novell, a company that many people thought was going to die a long time ago. IBM buys support and licensing for Java from Sun. IBM hates Sun and wants them to open source Java so that they don't have to give money to one of their competitors. Sun makes a r

  • Cat got your tongue? (Score:4, Funny)

    by SparafucileMan ( 544171 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:32PM (#8772238)
    Sun is scared to open-source Java because the "zealots" will end up turning it into LISP.
    • Perl6 is already in the middle of its mutation into a Lispish language. Just read the Perl6 apocalypses:
      • Lexical Closures
      • Continuation and Continuation Passing function call. I'm not sure if Perl6 has (or will have) call/cc or not.
      • Syntax-based macros.

      It might be mistaken as a description of Scheme's features.

      --
    • Sun is scared to open-source Java because the "zealots" will end up turning it into LISP.

      They've already turned it into SmallTalk/Ruby: Groovy [codehaus.org]. :)

    • Re:Cat got your tongue? (Score:5, Funny)

      by RLW ( 662014 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @04:08PM (#8772610)
      (For (Bob's (sake (quite (bashing (Lisp!)))))) ((((((It's) a) wonderful) language) and) all) other) lauguages) ((would) ((be) (happy))) (to be) (((just) like) it)(!)

      • Re:Cat got your tongue? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @04:18PM (#8772711)
        No, no, no. You didn't get the syntax right at all!

        (map (quit reader (bash reader LISP)) (for sake Bob))
        (and (is it (fill language wonder)) (become (just-like LISP (subtract all-languages LISP)) happy))

        See, much more readable!
      • In every regard other than the damn parens, Lisp really is wonderful. The basic syntax however, blows. Performance prejudice (mostly outdated) is usually quoted as the reason that Lisp hasn't taken over the world, but I suspect that that syntax more than anything is why.

        The question is how to make something that is just as flexible and powerful with devolving in a paren counting nightmare.

        Python appears to be pointing the way, but (much as I love it) I don't think it's all the way there yet.

        • Re:Cat got your tongue? (Score:3, Informative)

          by be-fan ( 61476 )
          Eh? Paren-counting only happens with dumb editors. Lisp *requires* a smart editor to use. In return, it gives you a lot of benefit (ease of editing without using mouse, *macros*). However, if you still think Lisp is really wonderful except for its syntax, try Dylan. [gwydiondylan.org]

      • Re:Cat got your tongue? (Score:5, Funny)

        by scrytch ( 9198 ) <chuck@myrealbox.com> on Monday April 05, 2004 @04:34PM (#8772865)
        youre->right(I.think(*lisp<looks<really>>(crufty[t o][(most*)people])));

  • Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll join Open Source (Score:5, Interesting)

    by darthcamaro ( 735685 ) * on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:34PM (#8772268)
    This could be a great thing for the open source community. Maybe we'll all get lucky and he'll join up with an open source 'java' project like Tomcat, JBoss or others.
    • Odds are more likely he'll take a position with a salary commensurate with having bee a VP at Sun.

    • Re:Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll join Open Sourc (Score:5, Insightful)

      by metlin ( 258108 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:48PM (#8772439) Journal
      Would be cool if it happened, but does not seem like it. This article [eweek.com] actually indicates that Green played a role in brokering the deal -

      In fact, the Santa Clara, Calif.-based company said Green played an essential role in Sun's negotiations with Microsoft to come to last week's 10-year, $1.6 billion deal. ... ...
      Meanwhile, Sun would not disclose where Green was going, but said the company has held the position "for quite a while" for him. Said one source: "He didn't want to leave until the Microsoft deal was done."

      And here is the blurb from the ZDNet article -

      A Sun representative said Green was instrumental in brokering the company's legal settlement with Microsoft.

      The first article also says that Green is planning on doing a startup. Therefore, whatever it was, Green would have definitely received significant amount of compensation for his role.

      Which would mean that, him going renegade and helping start something Opensource based on Java would be quite unlikely. When big sums of money are involved, especially with companies like Microsoft, you can be assured that they would have taken due precautions precisely against this kind of thing - especially since he was supposed to testify against them.

      On the other hand, he *might* just rally to make Java Opensource - which I believe, is more likely.
    • I'm not trying to troll but I think the best thing for the community is to have some standards. Right now Java is a great cross-platform language. Sun still needs to make money to survive and compete against the likes of Microsoft. For now I believe closed Java is for the best.

      I thank Sun everyday for releasing Star Office. I use Open Office at work and at home but also realize that a business must have cash flow to survive.

  • I, too, would have quit in disgust (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:35PM (#8772274)
    Given the nature of Microsoft's initial intentions (not interoperability, but domination), I would understand his fury. He seems to be a man of his word and put his money where his mouth was - which you have to respect, whether you agreed with him or not, and is more than you can say about MSFT.

    • Give me a break. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @04:17PM (#8772698) Homepage
      He seems to be a man of his word and put his money where his mouth was -

      What a marvelously simplistic view. Mr. Green was supporting an old, futile cause. Sun is not going to take over the desktop or server business. Java is not going to become the end-all be-all of enterprise software. Microsoft, Linux, and UNIX have all already done a fine job of that (or very close to it). It may be as simple as that Mr. Green actually believed all of McNealy's prior rhetoric ("network computer"? please) and had his airy ideology punched with a horse-needle when McNealy finally decided to engage in bit of corporate pragmatism.

      which you have to respect, whether you agreed with him or not, and is more than you can say about MSFT.

      You're telling me Microsoft doesn't put their money where their mouth is? Regarding Windows and the Xbox, for example, they've repeatedly said that they're here for the long haul and that they're not leaving. And you know what? I believe them. Because they have lots of money to put where their mouth is.
    • Microsoft is all about control, of course. For people like Bill and Steve, and their pet monkeys Paul and Rob, it's not abotu customers, or money, or good ideas. It's about control -- other things are a means to that end.

      Sun's next press release:
      Hello, gated community members! Here on the MS Ranch, we don't use anything Unca Bill doesn't make himself. Click here to read our white paper on transitioning your Java applications to Windows applicatios based on DotNet!

      </bitter>

    • Re:I, too, would have quit in disgust (Score:5, Informative)

      by justMichael ( 606509 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @04:21PM (#8772750) Homepage
      He didn't leave in disgust. It clearly states in the article that:

      In fact, the Santa Clara, Calif.-based company said Green played an essential role in Sun's negotiations with Microsoft to come to last week's 10-year, $1.6 billion deal.

      ...

      Meanwhile, Sun would not disclose where Green was going, but said the company has held the position "for quite a while" for him. Said one source: "He didn't want to leave until the Microsoft deal was done."

      He was merely finishing his current project.
    • >He seems to be a man of his word and put his money where his mouth was - which you have to respect, whether you agreed with him or not, and is more than you can say about MSFT.

      And so what conclusions can we draw when we see MS advertisment banners here?

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:37PM (#8772300)
    Can anybody explain to me how somebody quitting over Sun's decision to work with Microsoft actually brings Java closer to being open source? Sorry to burst a bubble, but on the face of it, Sun's getting further from considering that...

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 )
      Sun perhaps focuses on .net and abandons J2EE, dooming it to qausi-obscurity on sourceforge?
      • If sun focuses on .Net what incentive do they have to open source java?

        Even if they no longer care about java they gain nothing by releasing it. This is especially true now that they eat ms brand puppy-chow.

        Perhaps sun will decide it make the best business sense to focus on .net and start charging hefty license fees for any use of java.
    • It might reduce the likelihood since the guy that left is the one quoted in the article about Open-sourcing Java.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )
      YMBNAH (You must be new around here). all developments raise new hope for Open Source, the immediate demise of Microsoft, the impending arrest of SCO management, and free wireless broadband for everyone!

      That said, it does appear that Sun's corporate culture is beginning to lose some of its arrogance. Symptoms of this arrogance include not just the pointless holy war with Microsoft but the widespread belief that Sun (or even a particular unit within Sun) is the only true judge of The Right Way to Do Things

  • leave if I want to....leave if I want to. You would leave to if it happened to you.... da da da da da da da.
  • Timeline 2004-2007:

    1. Sun will turn anti-Linux
    2. IBM will offer to buy Java from Sun (Sun will refuse)
    3. The next software war will involve Microsoft and IBM directly
    4. IBM will win.

    It takes one monopolist to beat another.

    • Re:Quick summary of the near future (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:50PM (#8772463)
      3. The next software war will involve Microsoft and IBM directly

      4. IBM will win.

      Oh, you mean like OS/2 vs. Windows 95.

      • Oh, you mean like OS/2 vs. Windows 95.

        Laugh, AC, laugh. OS/2 was the last time IBM went up against Microsoft on Microsoft's terms. Since then the rules of engagement have changed.

        Software has become a commodity. You understand the term, yes? The OS, the Office Suite, the web server, the database, the user applications... they are no longer products with inherent commercial value. They have become tools for delivering more sophisticated services. IBM knows this and uses the fact strategically. Microsoft is trying to fight it, but it's a battle that it cannot win. You cannot survive by selling commodities at a premium, except by bullying your clients into paying the extra, and it's a self-defeating strategy. Every Microsoft user is at a competitive disadvantage, and eventually will either switch, or go broke. The argument that Microsoft software gives you a competitive edge is unproven and rather goes against all experience.

        The software market is truly bizarre because Microsoft continue to make large profits. But past success is no guarantee for future returns.

        IBM will beat the living daylights out of Microsoft. This should not be a real cause for joy, because IBM has behaved badly in the past as well.

        Hey, it's just a prediction. Feel free to produce an alternative one!

        • Re:Quick summary of the near future (Score:4, Insightful)

          by GSloop ( 165220 ) <`networkguru' `at' `sloop.net'> on Monday April 05, 2004 @04:53PM (#8773055) Homepage
          The IBM that took over OS/2 from....wait for it... Microsoft(!) is a way different IBM today than it was back then.

          IBM wasn't very committed to OS/2 really.

          It appears as though IBM is much more greatly committed to Linux and OSS now than it was to OS/2 back then.

          IBM had just come off of one of it's biggest revenue losses ever. It had just gotten Gerstner on board to fix things. IBM simply didn't have time to focus on OS/2 - it had to focus on survival and turning the firm around.

          It has done that.

          And where is Microsoft? In grand strategy terms, I think it's in the deep decline that IBM was in back in the early and mid 90's.

          We will see if the roles are reversed. The recovery IBM made was nothing short of astounding.
          Personally, I'd hate to have my company in the cross-hairs as a competitor to IBM. They have the resources to do it right and support the customer that no-one else does. (Check out the large iron business over the last 20 years and count who is left.)

          Cheers,
          Greg

        • Hardware is a commodity, at least you can get reasonable good hardware from many different vendors, from laptops to servers. And you have a broad choice of software, almost regardless of the hardware you choose.

          Software is mostly commodity, too, at least standard software like web browsers or office packages. I think free/open source software is a good indicator for this.

          So, what's next? IBM and Microsoft have very different strategies to head the future.

          IBM's main focus are companies, have been and p

      • "Oh, you mean like OS/2 vs. Windows 95."

        Probably more like Microchannel. Or maybe PC Junior...

    • "4. IBM will win."

      Oh sure, just like they won with OS2!

  • It's the principle! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chromodromic ( 668389 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:42PM (#8772359)
    Okay.

    So what did he say as he was leaving?

    GREEN: "What do you think this is about? Hmmm? MONEY?"

    MCNEALY: "Well, um ..."

    JOY: "Actually, yes."

    MCNEALY: "Well, okay, yeah, yes. I would have to, yeah ... Yes."

    GREEN: "Oh, so THAT'S the way it is. So you've coldly abandoned the noble principles of SOFTWARE!?!?"

    JOY: "Uhhh ... Yeah."

    MCNEALY: "The what?"

    GREEN: "Well if all you people care about is 2 billion measly dollars, I'M LEAVING!!!"

    JOY: "Okay."

    MCNEALY: "Yeah, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out ..."

  • Weak denial (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:42PM (#8772366)
    Claiming that Green had decided to leave Sun two months agao is not a direct contradiction to the claim that he left over the recently announced settlement with Microsoft. For all well know, the talks leading to that deal could have been going on for months, and Green certainly would have had inside access to how they were going.

  • Bogus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spitzak ( 4019 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:43PM (#8772383) Homepage
    However, a Sun spokesperson said Green actually tendered his resignation "long before last week. It was coincidental timing, not related timing."

    You mean to say that there was no indication to a top internal person that the decision to accept a 2B payoff was being considered, until exactly when it happened? Almost certainly he agreed to wait until the decision was announced before he quit. The fact that he decided "long before" does not mean it was unrelated...

  • Open source JAVA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by frodo from middle ea ( 602941 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:44PM (#8772397) Homepage
    Why is everyone so hell bent on Sun to open source Java ?

    I am not a great fan of Sun , but come on, it's their product and whether they choose to open source it or not, should be their decission. After all isn't that what choice is all about ?
    If the only choice left is open source , then what choice is it ?

    Besides , the java specs are wide open for the world to see and implement . So what's the problem , don't the companies of the likes of IBM, BEA , etc have developers who can code if not any better , atleat on par with sun's java developers ?

    Now if by open sourcing , they mean, relinquish the control over Java Specs, then that's a totally different thing. And even to that I don't agree, Sun after all did put in a lot of time and efforts to make Java acceptable in the Corporate world.

    Merits and Demerits of Java asides, no one can deny the fact that Java is being used for a lot of business software development. And Corporate world is always more welcoming to Products backed up be business oriented companies than a utopic concept. Don't forget that linux is gaining acceptance in the corporate world , mostly because of the efforts of IBM , rather than the collective RTFM attitude of most kernel developers.

    For all those who want Java to be open sourced, or open speced (if there is such a word) , why not divert some of those efforts in creating a cross platform development language, and make it as acceptable in the corporate world as Java. Then the problem will automatically go away.

    • Why is everyone so hell bent on Sun to open source Java ?

      Simple:
      .NET

      .NET is coming, without REAL community support, Java is probably going to die.
      Developers are going to be making the decision between .NET or Java. Open sourcing Java makes Java much more attractive. Suddenly you're not choosing between Sun and MS, you're choosing Sun+IBM+community vs. MS.

      Don't forget that linux is gaining acceptance in the corporate world , mostly because of the efforts of IBM , rather than the collective RTFM
    • I personally would rather see Java die because it really ISN'T a good technical solution to the problems it is being thrown at. (See here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org] for a brief start on my reasoning.)

      However, you have to realize that while the Java JVM spec may be "open" and already duplicated (see kaffe), the Java *libraries* belong solely to Sun. java.net.*, java.io.*, java.awt.*, etc., these are essential to building Java applications these days and they rely on an inordinate amount of C code called by Java. Sun owns

  • Now look here... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:44PM (#8772399) Homepage
    McNealy finally grew up, and therefore Sun's corporate policy with respect to Microsoft finally grew up. They were fighting a losing battle against the software titan and Linux--and McNealy must have known this for a long time, because the deal recently struck with Microsoft had actually been in the works for a good long while. Corporate contacts were reportedly telling him to grow up, and it looks as if he has, if not in spirit, then at least in practice.

    They are a power player and have no intention of fading away, and they have invested far too much in Java to let it fade away either. And regarding Java itself, there are great things that both Sun and Microsoft have done for it (from a purely objective standpoint of programming, this is very true, and if you can't see that, you're blinded by dogma). The agreement between Sun and Microsoft is specifically designed to facilitate interoperability, and of course this includes Java, and Java components and applications.

    It may not be the direction some had originally envisioned, but prevalence (or heck, just survival, if you consider worst-case scenarios) in a different form is often a far better outcome than the death of the original due to obstinacy. If Mr. Green is so dedicated to an outmoded cause that he's willing to give up his employment at Sun, well, I'll give him points for principle but none for pragmatism.

    I have no illusions that Sun is going to open-source one of its most prized, closely-guarded secrets. They are almost Microsoftian in the protection of certain code. Even Green himself said, "Neither IBM nor Sun knows if it's feasible to fulfill the [open source goal] and meet the constraints." That's not a full-fledged denial, but it definitely represents uncertainty, and Sun's pact with Microsoft has perhaps provided a more secure context in which they can continue to develop and market their proprietary products, now armed with a few new advantages.

  • Open sourcing Java is less likely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChiralSoftware ( 743411 ) <info@chiralsoftware.net> on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:45PM (#8772400) Homepage
    My first reaction when I saw the news of the settlement was that this will probably kill any attempts to open source Java. The settlement includes patent cross licensing. What are the terms of this cross licensing? I have no idea, and the terms will probably never be published, but Sun's lawyers would have to spend a lot of time going through that agreement before they can open source anything now. The case they have to worry about is if the Java(tm) implementation contains something covered under a patent which falls under this cross-licensing agreement, especially if some little bit of Microsoft's technology has crept into the Java implementation somehow. Given the very broad patents that are being granted by the US PTO these days, it would not be surprising at all if Sun's lawyers said "we just can't be sure there isn't something from MS in here among these million lines of code."

    If we want an open source Java, I think the right thing to pursue is Kaffe [kaffe.org], gcj, and Gnu CLASSPATH. I would love it if Sun did open source Java and such an action may be the best way to ensure Java's long-term survival, but somehow I have a feeling that Scott and the Sun lawyers won't have the guts or the will to take the risks and do this.

    --------
    Create a WAP server [chiralsoftware.net]

  • Sigh. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by James A. M. Joyce ( 764379 )
    And yet when I suggested in a Slashdot story that the cosying-up might affect the direction of Java [slashdot.org], I got three responses saying that it would most likely not have any effect at all and that I was foolish for saying so. I thought it would be fairly obvious that Micro$oft is going to start applying pressure to those affiliated with Java to step off.

  • What does Sun stand for, now? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vivek7006 ( 585218 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:48PM (#8772441) Homepage
    What could Sun achieve by proceeding with its 2002 lawsuit? McNealy had presented the fight in apocalyptic terms: Mankind vs Microsoft.

    Sun staff must be wondering if the company, which defined itself by its opposition to Microsoft, has a reason to exist.

    What does Sun stand for, now?

    • Copy/Paste is "Insightful" now? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Parent post taken verbatim from http://www.theregister.com/content/7/36777.html [theregister.com]

    • Re:What does Sun stand for, now? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Self-Undermining Nerds
    • The best quote from the article:

      Let's keep things in perspective. Microsoft's unethical business practices should be put into context. Unlike the pharmaceutical cartel or arms manufacturers, Redmond doesn't overturn democracies or kill thousands of civilians; unlike News Corporation it doesn't debase social discourse or undermine language. Unlike Google, it doesn't pretend to present "all the world's knowledge", when most of the world's knowledge isn't even on the Internet. Microsoft simply makes some fai
    • What does Sun stand for, now?

      Perhaps they just intend to attempt to defeat Microsoft in the marketplace and on the strength of their products, rather than in the courtroom?

      Not that from looking at the public information they seem to have a terribly clear plan on how to do so, mind you, but it's a theory that settling their lawsuits would be in no way inconsistent with.

  • MS bought some Java, RIP Sun (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Iscariot_ ( 166362 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:52PM (#8772478)
    It's starting to sound like MS bought some Java. There's a lot of shady information about the deal between the companies, and that "undisclosed" amount of money Sun will be paying is awfully curious.

    Sun is really dumb for doing this. They don't stand a chance of competing long-term with Linux/Windows & Intel/AMD. Their main asset is Java, not their hardware or operating system. If they've just given MS some control over their most valuable asset, then they may have just dug their own grave.

    • unless.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by zogger ( 617870 )
      ..uinless. perhaps.... remember the discussions when IBM sold off it's hard drive division to Hitachi? I remember thinking on it and postulating (on another forum) something along the lines of "I smell a rat, IBM wouldn't sell unless they had some new whizzbang storage method in their skunkworks". Well, a short time later they announced their brick storage and that other technique, dang forget the name now, but I was right. Now, this sun business the last coupla weeks is interesting to me, and is similar.
  • I bet $10 that this fellow gets a new job at Microsoft for advocating C# and .NET in less than a month ;)

  • dibs (Score:5, Funny)

    by TedCheshireAcad ( 311748 ) <ted@fUMLAUTc.rit.edu minus punct> on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:55PM (#8772503) Homepage
    I call dibs.

    Already faxed my resume to Sun's HR.

  • Sun vs. Linux issues? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by -tji ( 139690 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:56PM (#8772511) Journal
    There were a lot of articles on various news sites saying that Sun and Microsoft had buried the hatchet, in order to concentrate on their common enemy: Linux.

    I looked through the articles, but did not see any Sun quotes that were clearly hostile towards Linux. Although, that has been true all along, in public Sun always said Linux was a good thing, but in private Sun employees I know were not exactly Linux fans.

    Were there any Sun statements made against Linux? Or were the journalists just connecting the dots?

    Then, there are the Sun involvement in SCO issues. From the beginning, Sun has only touted their fully licensed Unix, they have not ever offered any support of the Linux position. Many people think they are one of the main parties behind the SCO lawsuit.
    • I think sunw has claimed (against all evidence and logic) that linux is useful as a desktop, not a server.

      I believe, at one point, sunw claimed that only sunw linux was legal, because only sunw was specically blessed by scox.

      "I looked through the articles, but did not see any Sun quotes that were clearly hostile towards Linux"

      Actions speak so much loader than words. Sunw secretely supporting scox, and mcneally parroting mcbride, should tell you what you need to know.

    • Re:Sun vs. Linux issues? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Get Behind the Mule ( 61986 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @04:57PM (#8773082)
      Were there any Sun statements made against Linux?


      Good question, and it's about time to bring the subject up. On both Slashdot and Groklaw [groklaw.net], a lot of people have got the idea in their heads that Sun will now join forces with MS to attack Linux, and yet all of the evidence of Sun's business initiatives suggest exactly the opposite. (I deeply respect PJ's skills in legal research, especially concerning the SCO case, but her post about the Sun/MS settlement was one of the most bizarre tirades I've ever seen [groklaw.net]. And I just noticed she put up another one [groklaw.net] today.)

      People, where on Earth do you get this idea? As some have already pointed out, Sun is now getting close to the world's largest vendor of a Linux distribution, after the China and Walmart deals, and Linux is a supported platform for all of the Sun software products. From a business perspective, Sun doesn't seem to have much choice but to go with Linux. Back in the bad old days of Internet bubble, when everyone thought that they had a lot of money and that they had to spend a whole lot of it on Sun hardware, life was great in Santa Clara. But for years now, people have been looking for low-cost solutions in both hardware and software, and Sun didn't get it for too long, resulting in huge losses, layoffs, and a steep decline in stock price. They've got to stop the bleeding. Now they're going out of their way to come up with low-cost products, and Linux is a big part of it. What motive could they possibly have to change that now, especially after they just posted losses for the 10th time in 12 quarters?

      As for the MS settlement, I have rarely seen such a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't response. Back when Sun filed the suit, there was a chorus of protest at Slashdot, outrage at any attempt to use the courtrooms in any way at all. "Build better products, dammit! They're trying to gain in the courts what they can't get in the market!" Those were the most common mantras. Now Sun has discontinued the suit and collected a settlement, and people in the same forums are responding with -- outrage, all over again! What exactly is Sun expected to do? Were they supposed to draw a trial out as long as possible, through years of appeals?

      Moreover, everyone seems to be saying that Sun has capitulated to MS. I am the only one who suspects that it may be the other way around? Sun threatened to sue for over a billion to penalize MS for anti-competitive behavior toward Java. Now they're collecting about 2 billion, and have reached agreements about technical co-operation concerning Java, as well as .NET and network protocols and some other things. Doesn't that look as if MS did not expect to prevail, at least on the issues related to Java, and both sides gained from avoiding lengthy court proceedings? The two companies may begin co-operating on technical standards, and compete on products. Isn't this what we expect technology corporations to do?

      • Re:Sun vs. Linux issues? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by -tji ( 139690 )
        Sun's statements have been a bit more subtle than SCO's (that's not too tough), but they have certainly made no bones about throwing FUD towards Linux.

        Check out this article [zdnet.com.au] from immediately after SCO announced the lawsuit. McNealy was immediately commenting on their licensing position, FUD about an audit committee, and another wonderful FUD inspiring comment: "We think open source is wonderful and good, but we also believe in copyright and the rule of law,".

        Contrast that to the comments from HP: "HP is
  • Door to Door Evangelist Leaves Sun After Getting Burn in the Ass by a Solar Flare

  • Viva Rich Green! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gabbarsingh ( 207183 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @03:57PM (#8772527) Journal
    Well atleast there are still some good, old-fashioned, principled guys left in this desolate, dot-bombed, innovation deprived software landscape. I mean that's all that's going on in software for past 3-4 years - corporate restructuring i.e. the suits saving their own butts and their buddies' butts (consolidation and offshoring) and now Sun buries the hatchet. To me that seems so wasteful, of time, energy, resources, and good will.

    $un has floundered one thing after another. Got onto Linux, dumped linux, then a wishy washy strategy, and then sided with SCO. What is $un trying to be - Golum?
    • Let's see if this works:
      M$
      $un
      inux
      Rd Hat
      $u$
      $

      Damnit. Too bad /. doesn't allow currency symbols other than the dollar sign. Then the real fun could begin.
  • At the rate Sun is burning through cash, I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was part of an upcoming round of layoffs anyway. $2 billion is a frickin' ton of money for anyone, but Sun lost nearly half that in their past year alone.

    • Re:Inevitable (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Virtucon ( 127420 )
      11 loosing quarters, soon to be 12.. That's 3 years, all losses. You can't hemorrage cash and their stock price reflects this.

      Chapter 11 coming to Bankruptcy Court near you.

      -All your stock options are belong to us.

  • 1.6B USD vs 500M EU (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When you consider the amount that Microsoft just used to pay off Sun, the EU fine is relatively small potatoes. Of course, they're already getting an ROI from the Sun pay-off.
  • He'll come back as Anders Hejlsberg II. Long live Object Pascal er uh, Delphi, er uh Java!

    Delegates and C# for everyone!
  • of jwz quitting Netscape after the AOL fusion?

    I remember being really depressed about his resignation letter (it's somewhere in his website [jwz.org]). But then I was 15 - and besides, I didn't quite realize he had gotten rich in the process.
    • You're thinking of his two-part resignation statement:

      nomo zilla [jwz.org] (Part 1)

      nscp/aol [jwz.org] (Part 2)

      He was unhappy with the way Netscape had handled Mozilla, and with the way AOL was handling, well, pretty much everything really. He says, "Now I'm in a more honest line of work: now I sell beer [dnalounge.com]."

  • Sun only needs to make 3,299 redundant now :)

    But I can understand his disgust, Java had the potential (I say potential, it's only become fast enough in recent times) to solve many cross platform compatibility problem. Java isn't dead yet, but it doesn't have the marketplace to itself anymore.

  • SUN Windows ;) (Score:4, Funny)

    by kompiluj ( 677438 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @04:15PM (#8772666)
    Imagine this [sun.com] running Windows.

  • The article hints that there may be more to follow.

    You mean, like that Jon Schwartz is leaving, to be replaced by John Loiacono? [forbes.com].

    [This must have been in the works a few weeks anyway. I have to wonder how the MS-Sun rapprochement talks intertwined with ESR's proposal to make Java truly open source...]

    • Uhm, Johnathan Schwartz got a promotion. It's mentioned in the second line of the first parargraph of the article you linked to. You know, right after it says he's being replaced in the first line...

      Talk about RTFA...

  • Cannot open source the JVM... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by barfy ( 256323 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @04:18PM (#8772707)
    There is alot in the JVM that does not "belong" to Sun, so it isn't thiers to open source. Most of the imaging and type model comes from Adobe for instance... I am sure that there is other stuff that isn't "thiers" as well.

  • shrug (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hak1du ( 761835 )
    This story brought it into focus for me: I was an early adopter of Java, but I just don't care about Java anymore. Sun promised to deliver an applet platform, but then changed directions to server-side programming and a half-hearted effort at a cross-platform toolkit. Frankly, for server-side programming and cross-platform GUIs, there are far better choices than Java.

    I'd still like to see something better than JavaScript and Flash for applet-like functionality, but it's clear Sun isn't going to deliver a

  • "Patent Agreements" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 1010011010 ( 53039 )
    According to the Sun Press Release [sun.com],

    "The companies have also entered into agreements on patents and other issues. [...] It will stimulate new products, delivering great new choices for customers who want to combine server products from multiple vendors and achieve seamless computing in a heterogeneous computing environment. We look forward to this opportunity - it provides a framework for cooperation between Sun and Microsoft going forward. [...] Sun and Microsoft engineers will cooperate to allow identit

  • ... and not any windows-wrappered API calls.

    *sigh*
  • What is all this talk about open-sourcing Java? There are already open-source JVMs and compilers. AFAIK, the specifications are open, so all implementations should be compatible with one another. Does ``open-sourcing Java'', then, mean Sun releasing sources for its implementations? If so, what makes people think Sun should do so? And if they should do it, what's the need for pushing them?

  • Let's do the Microsoft boogie (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @05:08PM (#8773184)
    It seems to me, instead of all this back room dancing, Microsoft should just follow their traditional plan if they want to destroy Linux. They seem intent on hiding their true contempt for this stable product and its threat to their core OS tree, so they work deals with companies like Sun and SCO to nick away at Linux and avoid any posture which might indicate Linux as a major contender.

    It seems to me, if they were smart, Microsoft would do what they've always done. Come out with a MS-branded version of Unix that at first was open, and then progressively turn it into a bloated, un-compatible mess that only works with their products. They did this with DOS; they should just do the same thing with Linux. The way I figure, Microsoft Linux 2006 will run everything, then by the time Microsoft Linux 2008 comes out, it suddenly won't run Apache or Sendmail, etc.

  • Tin Foil Hat firmly in place? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bachroxx ( 263916 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @06:05PM (#8773749)
    Two interesting tidbits:
    Sun was one of the few companies that bought a SCO license, and Scott McNealy darkly referred to Open Source as if they were pirates bent on destruction of Intellectual property here: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0%2C3959%2C1209873%2 C00.asp

    Second, one way to kill Linux as a viable desktop alternative would be to get rid of Star Office or at least make it seem like its support will be limited. Does Sun really care about desktops? Star Office on Linux is being used by many governments around the world as a bludgeon to beat up MS in contract negotiations (why would I pay $500/desktop and up for your software when I can use Star Office on Linux). Even when they don't intend to use Linux, it provides good leverage for getting massive discounts. If Sun can be convinced to get rid of Star Office, that very well could pay M$ back while seriously damaging Linux. I have used both Open Office and Star Office, and neither are MS killers, but Star Office is much more useful and polished.

  • Manhattan was sold for $24 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dtjohnson ( 102237 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @06:13PM (#8773830)
    Sun's sellout to Microsoft for $1.6 billion will look about the same as that great deal that the Indians got when they sold Manhattan. Microsoft is the only company that recognizes that the software is worth more than a few trinkets because it takes a lot of T-I-M-E to develop software and money cannot buy time. Most of Sun's software initiatives such as Java and Star Office (aka Open Office) will probably wither on the vine, now, for lack of nourishment, just as IBM let OS/2 wither after cutting a similar deal with Microsoft. It's amazing that Microsoft is able to buy off their competitors so cheaply...but then they have gotten a lot of experience doing it over the years.

  • It was bound to happen.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by g0_p ( 613849 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @08:06PM (#8775057)
    2 billion dollars over the next 10 years is not a big amount for a company like Sun. Undoubtedly they didnt sell out. I think it was a move that could not be averted. Sun is doing really badly and it simply cannot afford to spend money just to keep up the image of being a Microsoft hater. It has learnt its lesson from Big Blue. IBM forms alliances with whoever it can. Its operative word is profit. Sun was very profitable before the millenium and could afford to keep up the image of being able to take on Microsoft. Now, it just does not make economic sense to do stick to the image. They have simply decided to cut their losses and start focussing on making profits where ever they can find it. Its a time for Sun to lay low and really focus on how to turn the company around. They have done a lot of monkeying around with quick fix profit making schemes all of which have failed.

    Moral of the story: when the shit hits the fan, everyone ducks.

  • Ah, the possibilities... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crazyphilman ( 609923 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @01:02AM (#8776918) Journal
    The apparent facts:

    1. Sun decided not to open-source Java, at least for the time being.

    2. Shortly later, Microsoft paid Sun 2 billion dollars to settle a bunch of old lawsuits that were languishing in court anyway, and the two companies teamed up, agreeing to cross-license patents and share research info, work on mutually beneficial plans and so forth.

    3. Sun isn't crazy about Linux because it's better than Solaris. Microsoft isn't crazy about Linux because it's better than Windows. Linux is making strong advances against BOTH operating systems, thereby costing both Sun and Microsoft a LOT of money. And, yes, I know Sun has made some moves towards offering Linux on Sun equipment, but I suspect McNealy prefers Solaris despite this.

    4. Microsoft and Sun have both helped SCO in various ways over the past two years, both for their own reasons I imagine.

    SPECULATION:

    1. If Sun decides that they'll make more money partnering with Microsoft and pushing Solaris, then they'll consider stabbing Linux in the back. As we all know, they could fairly easily stop supporting Java on Linux. They could make it Windows-only if they wanted. Or they could sell it to Microsoft once and for all. Consider what this would do to corporate takeup of Linux.

    2. If Sun decides to partner with Microsoft temporarily until the Linux threat is dealt with, and then go rogue and try and push Solaris instead of Windows, that would be just as bad.

    3. Remember all that patent cross-licensing and the agreement to share research with Microsoft? I'm guessing this is going to be used against Linux shortly. Massive licensing fees would put a big dent in "free" whether as in beer or freedom.

    4. Everyone focusing on Java for the past few years has had the amusing effect of distracting large numbers of programmers from working on alternative programming systems that might have been better than Java. Linux is now in a Java rut. What happens if -- whoops! -- Sun pulls the Java rug right out from under us? That would be worth 2 billion to Microsoft, wouldn't it?

    POSSIBLE APPROACHES FOR OPEN-SOURCE PROGRAMMERS:

    1. Back to C++. It does everything except applets, anyway (and you can do all of THAT with Shockwave and Flash).

    2. Python, Perl and PHP (pick your favorite).

    3. Everybody, start working on GCJ and CLASSPATH! Somebody start a beer and coffee fund...

    4. Let's all do something different.

    Did I miss any?

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close