Why did Apple insist on having control of the Mac JVM years ago, when
Sun wanted do do that?
I only hope they will release to Oracle their improvement/porting
work, so Oracle can resume where Apple left it and there is no
discontinuity in the support of a high-quality Mac JVM.
And in 1997, it was pretty understandable why Sun wasn't that
interested in the Mac: a lot of people didn't think Apple would still
be in business by 2000. Sun was perfectly happy to let someone else
carry the Java banner on Mac. For a while, Sun even put a few of its
engineers at Apple to work on MRJ, although they were among the first
layoffs as Sun started its slow decline.
On Oct 22, 6:08 am, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
wrote:
The one thing that makes me think this might be legitimate is the
focus on release schedules. Since Apple has shipped Java as a system-
level framework, their policy has been to include one Java version
with the x.0 release of OS X -- ideally the most current Java, but
they failed to do so with Snow Leopard -- and then add any new Java
version as a system update during that OS' lifetime. This can make it
difficult for developers who have to target a certain version, like
keeping you on Tiger (OS X 10.4) if you need to run against a Java 1.4
VM for some reason.
Granted, if you really need to work with arbitrary Java versions, or
many of them at once, I suppose you would probably need to be on LInux
or Windows, at least in Parallels or VMWare.
On Oct 22, 12:44 am, Michael Neale <michael.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
Its time for Oracle to step up to ITS responsibility and make the JVM
for the Mac. If they do it for Linux and Windows then they damn well
should do it for the MAC.
The Mac is becoming nothing but a big iPhone (without the phone or touch capabilities) for your desk. It's no longer a general computing platform -- it's becoming just another form factor for an utterly closed consumer device with a walled garden market.
I don't think Apple wants Java on it any more than they want it on the iPhone -- and it's unclear whether it is worth Oracle's while to fight this.
Sure we all want Java to be ubiquitous. But when a vendor goes this far to drive everyone else off their platforms and, unlike Microsoft, does not dominate desktop computing, how far do you go?
Perhaps there's a backroom deal floating that will come to light soon, but it really sounds like any attempts at such a deal just plain fell apart.
> Its time for Oracle to step up to ITS responsibility and make the JVM > for the Mac. If they do it for Linux and Windows then they damn well > should do it for the MAC.
I think the point of Sun/Oracle making their own JVM/JDK for a given
OS is to keep or gain developers.
So the question is: if you couldn't develop Java on a Mac, how many
developers would they lose? Would current Mac-based Java developers
change machines or change languages? I think most, like Fabrizio,
would dump the Mac. But some of us went the other way.
I don't see it as a matter of responsibility. Like most things, I
think it's a question of rational self-interest. Apple has apparently
decided that Java isn't worth its time or money anymore. Oracle may
or may not feel the same about the Mac.
On Oct 22, 7:43 am, CKoerner <chessm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Its time for Oracle to step up to ITS responsibility and make the JVM
> for the Mac. If they do it for Linux and Windows then they damn well
> should do it for the MAC.
It was never Sun's intention to provide platform specific JVMs. They wanted each platform to do that on their own. MS tired to adopt and extend and deployments started making demands for Linux which left a huge gap in VM providers which... Sun decided to fill out of necessity.
> And in 1997, it was pretty understandable why Sun wasn't that > interested in the Mac: a lot of people didn't think Apple would still > be in business by 2000. Sun was perfectly happy to let someone else > carry the Java banner on Mac. For a while, Sun even put a few of its > engineers at Apple to work on MRJ, although they were among the first > layoffs as Sun started its slow decline.
> On Oct 22, 6:08 am, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> > wrote: >> On 10/22/10 12:01 , opinali wrote:> Why did Apple insist on having control of the Mac JVM years ago, when >>> Sun wanted do do that?
>> As Chris said, unfortunately in this case Sun is to blame for the poor >> engineering and integration, at the time.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
> The Mac is becoming nothing but a big iPhone (without the phone or touch
> capabilities) for your desk. It's no longer a general computing
> platform -- it's becoming just another form factor for an utterly closed
> consumer device with a walled garden market.
Exactly. I think Apple were very generous (you could argue it sold
Macs, but still). If this has as big an impact as we fear it will you
can blame no one but Snoracle. If anything it points out how painful
Swing integration is. Of course, I'm sure its more than that - NIO,
memory management etc all have platform specific optimisations. But
most of us develop server apps on our Macs but depend on Swing to
power our IDEs.
Oracle, if Java is all you say it is, why should Apple's move be a
problem.
On Oct 22, 10:09 pm, CKoerner <chessm...@gmail.com> wrote:
To me, one line that stood out in Gosling's blog was this one:
"Sun also provided the VM for Linux because there was no one else to
do it."
There was a Blackdown port of Java, but I believe it was pretty
troubled. Porting all of Java, including AWT and javax.sound and all
that, is *hard*. Again, I think you see Sun stepping in with their
own JDK primarily as a means of attracting developers and legitimizing
the Java platform. They may not have wanted to, but it seems they had
to.
--Chris
On Oct 22, 8:22 am, opinali <opin...@gmail.com> wrote:
So as I stated before - I guarantee Oracle will port to OS X. 20% of the US consumer market + 10% of the overall market is too big to ignore.
The real problem here is apple pulled an a-hole move. They just said it's deprecated. They didn't inform oracle and come up with a transition story. That would have been the professional thing to do.
No one would be upset if the story was "Oracle is taking over Mac development of the JVM".
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Christian Catchpole
<christ...@catchpole.net> wrote: > Exactly. I think Apple were very generous (you could argue it sold > Macs, but still). If this has as big an impact as we fear it will you > can blame no one but Snoracle. If anything it points out how painful > Swing integration is. Of course, I'm sure its more than that - NIO, > memory management etc all have platform specific optimisations. But > most of us develop server apps on our Macs but depend on Swing to > power our IDEs.
> Oracle, if Java is all you say it is, why should Apple's move be a > problem.
> On Oct 22, 10:09 pm, CKoerner <chessm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Well the cats out of the bag now. They were lucky that Apple did their >> work for so long.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
On Oct 22, 8:58 am, phil swenson <phil.swen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The real problem here is apple pulled an a-hole move. They just said
> it's deprecated. They didn't inform oracle and come up with a
> transition story. That would have been the professional thing to do.
I think they have a fairly clear transition story. They've changed
the directory structure to allow for multiple third-party JVMs to be
installed at /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines, and provided a new UI
for the user to inspect their VMs by version and vendor and rank them
in order of priority. Screenshot in the Apple Insider article here:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/21/apple_deprecates_its_re...
The Apple VM will continue to work in Snow Leopard. It sounds like
they're not guaranteeing an Apple VM to be present in Lion, due in
Summer 2011, so interested parties have a little less than a year to
figure out what to do in case it's absent.
> The Apple VM will continue to work in Snow Leopard. It sounds like > they're not guaranteeing an Apple VM to be present in Lion, due in > Summer 2011, so interested parties have a little less than a year to > figure out what to do in case it's absent.
Probably there could be one more scenario to consider. It has been said that probably Apple would need to negotiate Java 7 licensing with Oracle. Maybe they're just trying to get a lower price. In any case, I do bet they have been privately discussing the deal with Oracle.
<fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote: > On 10/22/10 14:01 , CKoerner wrote:
>> "The Mac is becoming nothing but a big iPhone (without the phone or >> touch >> capabilities) for your desk."
>> That is the dumbest thing anyone has ever written about a Mac. >> Congratulations!
> In perspective, I don't think Jess is that wrong. I suspect Apple's strategy > is precisely that.
Yeah, I'm curious on what makes that a stupid statement. Especially since, from all I've heard so far, the largest repercussion is that you can not use Java in their App Store, now.
On Oct 22, 10:32 am, Chris Adamson <invalidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me, one line that stood out in Gosling's blog was this one:
> "Sun also provided the VM for Linux because there was no one else to
> do it."
...under the conditions of that pre-OpenJDK era - closed code, had to
pay a license etc. Like HP, IBM and others did. RedHat for example
could have done that job. The Blackdown team, as you mention below,
sort of did it, with a special arrangement to have access to Sun's
source code and TCK, but they obviously didn't have enough resources
to do a top-notch port.
> There was a Blackdown port of Java, but I believe it was pretty
> troubled. Porting all of Java, including AWT and javax.sound and all
> that, is *hard*. Again, I think you see Sun stepping in with their
> own JDK primarily as a means of attracting developers and legitimizing
> the Java platform. They may not have wanted to, but it seems they had
> to.
> --Chris
> On Oct 22, 8:22 am, opinali <opin...@gmail.com> wrote:
Apple likes to move quietly under the radar, at immense speed... they
do things very differently than most, i.e. changing CPU architecture 3
times in 1½ decade. I simply don't think they are interested in Java
anymore and they don't need another dependency to "tie them down". I
also don't really think Oracle cares enough about client side Java to
do much about it, there's only money in them for JEE. JSE is dying bit
by bit, like JME... tough reality to swallow perhaps, but really just
Darwin's evolutionary theory applied to software.
On Oct 22, 2:23 pm, Christian Catchpole <christ...@catchpole.net>
wrote:
> Exactly. I think Apple were very generous (you could argue it sold
> Macs, but still). If this has as big an impact as we fear it will you
> can blame no one but Snoracle. If anything it points out how painful
> Swing integration is. Of course, I'm sure its more than that - NIO,
> memory management etc all have platform specific optimisations. But
> most of us develop server apps on our Macs but depend on Swing to
> power our IDEs.
> Oracle, if Java is all you say it is, why should Apple's move be a
> problem.
> On Oct 22, 10:09 pm, CKoerner <chessm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well the cats out of the bag now. They were lucky that Apple did their
> > work for so long.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Josh Berry <tae...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Fabrizio Giudici > <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote: >> On 10/22/10 14:01 , CKoerner wrote:
>>> "The Mac is becoming nothing but a big iPhone (without the phone or >>> touch >>> capabilities) for your desk."
>>> That is the dumbest thing anyone has ever written about a Mac. >>> Congratulations!
>> In perspective, I don't think Jess is that wrong. I suspect Apple's strategy >> is precisely that.
> Yeah, I'm curious on what makes that a stupid statement. Especially > since, from all I've heard so far, the largest repercussion is that > you can not use Java in their App Store, now.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
