About Android and Java, from the trial
Fabrizio Giudici
"When shown emails from Rubin and others mentioning the need to license
some of Java during 2005 and 2006, Page linked the references to Google's
attempts to build Android in a partnership with Sun Microsystems, Java's
owner at that time. Oracle entered the picture in 2010 when it bought Sun
Microsystems for $US7.3 billion.
Page later elaborated on Google's discussions Sun under while he was under
more cordial questioning from one of his company's lawyers.
******"We really wanted to use Sun's technology," Page said. "It would
have saved us a lot of time and trouble to use Sun's technology. When we
weren't able to have our business partnership, we went down our own
path."*****"
Which confirms what I've always thought: Dalvik has no essential technical
reason, but work around licensing issues. You might disagree, but then you
must admit that Oracle's CEO has no clue about their own technology. Quite
hard to imagine.
And more:
"One August 2010 email from Google engineer Tim Lindholm to Rubin mentions
being asked by Page and Google's other co-founder, Sergey Brin, to review
possible alternatives to Java. Lindholm advised Rubin all the other
choices ****"suck"**** and urged him to negotiate a license for Java."
So, Java is not that poor thing that many would like us to think; at least
in Google's thought. According to their engineering, it was clearly the
best technical solution around for making Android, and when an alternate
solution has been picked merely for licensing issues, they pursued similar
solutions and even picked the same language.
Note that all my comments are related to technology evaluation, and I'm
not talking about Google stealing anything.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it
Fabrizio Giudici
<Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it> wrote:
> but then you must admit that Oracle's CEO has no clue about their own
> technology. Quite hard to imagine.
Of course I meant to write "Google's CEO has no clue"
Casper Bang
Which confirms what I've always thought: Dalvik has no essential technical
reason, but work around licensing issues. You might disagree, but then you
must admit that Oracle's CEO has no clue about their own technology. Quite
hard to imagine.
being asked by Page and Google's other co-founder, Sergey Brin, to review
possible alternatives to Java. Lindholm advised Rubin all the other
choices ****"suck"**** and urged him to negotiate a license for Java."
So, Java is not that poor thing that many would like us to think; at least
in Google's thought. According to their engineering, it was clearly the
best technical solution around for making Android, and when an alternate
solution has been picked merely for licensing issues, they pursued similar
solutions and even picked the same language.
Note that all my comments are related to technology evaluation, and I'm
not talking about Google stealing anything.
Fabrizio Giudici
wrote:
> First of all, as brilliant as Page might be, we should
> not necessarily assume he is a VM engineer. Secondly, I think we must
Hey, men, we're talking about a strategic decision for a company. I could
cite a number of CEO of italians corporates that don't have a clue on
strategy, and in fact effects are clear. I don't believe Google it's like
that, since they're going well. But, above all, we're not discussing only
about Page's mind: it was a discussion with some engineers (Page has been
involved in the news because it's negating it was aware of the discussion,
and an email proves it isn't true - but I don't care at all about this
aspect of the matter).
> So it's possible that Google technically could've used a hybrid of
> Hotspot,
> but that's not the same as saying Dalvik is a workaround of a licensing
> issue or that it doesn't have other merits (I.e. trace-based JIT's and
> registred based VM's are assumed more efficient than method based JIT's
> and
> stack based VM's).
I respect your opinion. But it isn't the opinion of Page since he says
"we'd saved a lot of time and money should have we adopted Sun's
technology".
> However, the King of Android (Rubin), advised Page way back in 2005 (page
> 22) that C# might be an alternative (which, unlike Java, is open spec
> rather than open source). We can only assume that Lindholm talked Rubin
> out
What's the point of open specs in this point without an open
implementation? You don't save a lot of time and money just out of open
specs if you have to reimplement everything. And there should be Mono, in
theory. As they bought a company that was developing the ancestor of
Dalvik, they could have done the same for C#.
> of this idea. Perhaps Google feared the prospect of upsetting Microsoft
> greater than over upsetting Sun, although I think the more likely cause
> is
> Google wanting to bootstrap off the existing Java community, which they
> have traditionally been aligned with, contributed to and hired people
> from.
Well, so we're saying that Java is hugely popular, at the point that it's
the best bootstrapping option. Fair enough for me :-)
> I'm confused, when you now say "Java", do you then refer to the 3
> official
> Sun runtimes (JME/JSE/JEE) or just the language as a medium of
> expression?
The core technologies. Certainly I'm not talking of running Android on
JME. With a business collaboration, they could have defined Android as a
fourth edition of Java. Note that I'm not blaming exclusively Google for
not making the deal. We don't know details, and it's certainly possible
that Sun missed a big opportunity: Android was clearly the JME killer, JME
was one of the most profitable parts of JAva for Sun and they weren't
smart enough to understand that JME was going to die because of its own
bureaucracy and the flawed relationship with phone manufacturer.
> You imply that Google think Java is bad, yet Google based Android on Java
> so I am not really sure what you are trying to say here. I guess maybe
> you
> mean to say that a subset of the JSE could've been used instead. Perhaps
> you are right, I don't think we will ever find out, since Sun/Oracle have
> shown little interest in creating a modern mobile platform.
No, no, I'm implying that Google thinks that Java, licensing apart, is
excellent both on the VM concept and the language aspect, which counters
all the usual Java bashing arguments around.
> Admittedly, I'm having a hard time seeing actual technological arguments
> here.
Sorry, you don't want to see the point. The cited facts proved that Page
and Google engineering thought that Java is an excellent technology. Since
they are top level professionals, this is a technological argument.
Otherwise, you must imply that they are not so competent. I don't see any
third option here.
Kevin Wright
No, no, I'm implying that Google thinks that Java, licensing apart, is excellent both on the VM concept and the language aspect, which counters all the usual Java bashing arguments around.
You imply that Google think Java is bad, yet Google based Android on Java
so I am not really sure what you are trying to say here. I guess maybe you
mean to say that a subset of the JSE could've been used instead. Perhaps
you are right, I don't think we will ever find out, since Sun/Oracle have
shown little interest in creating a modern mobile platform.
Casper Bang
What's the point of open specs in this point without an open
implementation? You don't save a lot of time and money just out of open
specs if you have to reimplement everything. And there should be Mono, in
theory. As they bought a company that was developing the ancestor of
Dalvik, they could have done the same for C#.
The core technologies. Certainly I'm not talking of running Android on
JME. With a business collaboration, they could have defined Android as a
fourth edition of Java. Note that I'm not blaming exclusively Google for
not making the deal. We don't know details, and it's certainly possible
that Sun missed a big opportunity: Android was clearly the JME killer, JME
was one of the most profitable parts of JAva for Sun and they weren't
smart enough to understand that JME was going to die because of its own
bureaucracy and the flawed relationship with phone manufacturer.
No, no, I'm implying that Google thinks that Java, licensing apart, is
excellent both on the VM concept and the language aspect, which counters
all the usual Java bashing arguments around.
Sorry, you don't want to see the point. The cited facts proved that Page
and Google engineering thought that Java is an excellent technology. Since
they are top level professionals, this is a technological argument.
Otherwise, you must imply that they are not so competent. I don't see any
third option here.
Fabrizio Giudici
wrote:
> The point of an open spec is to offer a standard everybody is free to
> use.
> Without standards, it's pretty hard to coordinate and cooperate across
> system boundaries. As such, a language is no different from a protocol.
> JavaScript is another example of an open standard under Ecma (why it's
> also
> called EcmaScript), which allows many different browsers and none of
> which
> has to pay licence fees to NetScape. Don't get me wrong here, I think
> it's
> great to have a de-facto implementation (OpenJDK) of the JSE standard,
> but
> I think it's a crying shame you alternatives are forced out (Apache
> Harmony) since I have a preference for open standards allowing for many
> different implementations. C# (Ecma-334) has .NET/CLR (Microsoft
> propriatary) Rotor (Microsoft Shared Source), Mono (open-source), dotGNU
> (open-source, dead).
Generally speaking I agree. But I was talking from the point of view of
Android. Google's needs were to build Android from scratch or reuse,
adapting, the OpenJDK. Furthermore, I doubt they are really interested in
making Android an open specification so other independent implementations
would be created.
> Sure there is, I just explained it a few times. It's the same reason you
> and I are arguing in English here; it's not that the English language
> is particular superior or that we couldn't invent a better one, it's the
> fact that it allows a Dane and an Italian to readily communicate.
Well, English *is* particular superior for this task. While it is
certainly true that English spread mainly because USA won the II World
War, I don't know about Danish, but I can guarantee that Italian is
syntactically more complex than English. It's definitely easier for an
Italian to learn English than for a English-speaking person to learn
Italian, especially if we're talking of a simple, introductive but already
productive level. Perhaps there are other natural languages that have the
same property, I'm not saying that English is the simplest in absolute. So
we can say that Java is spread also because Sun and other corporates
marketing efforts in the '90s and early 00's, but it also has some
definitely good properties. On the other hand, keeping this metaphor, I
could add that while Esperanto or Interlingua are possibly even simpler,
they fail to spread because they lack a sponsor. You need both things:
good properties and a sponsor.
Kevin Wright
Well, English *is* particular superior for this task. While it is certainly true that English spread mainly because USA won the II World War,
Ricky Clarkson
English is simple until you try to pronounce it.
Cough, bough, enough, dough, thought.
And until you try to spell it.
Beaurocracy, fondue, diarrhoea (UK version).
No, diarrhoea is not the UK version of fondue, although I guess there might be some resemblance.
In contrast, you can learn the pronunciation rules of Italian in a day and then read it aloud correctly, albeit with a foreign accent. It's a far more regular language than English, probably because it has far fewer influences. English probably won because its speakers don't bother to learn local languages.
I think that win happened before Hitler. It was widely known during WWII that there were many Germans who could speak English better than the natives, and that just can't happen übernicht.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@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.
Casper Bang
I'd argue that english was spread *mainly* out of Britain, through the old empire, the commonwealth, trade, etc. This being the reason why it's called "English" and is even spoken on the American continent in the first place!
Cédric Beust ♔
Beaurocracy, fondue, diarrhoea (UK version).
Fabrizio Giudici
wrote:
>
>
For sure I simplified things, in any case the fact that Spain was another
colonial power, while spanish until recent times was only talked in Spain
and former colonies makes the point that post-war USA had a deep influence
in that. Let's also recall that the diplomatic lingua franca until just
before the WWII was french, not english. In any case, USA were a former
colony of UK, so clearly the british expansion in previous centuries was a
fundamental step. But we're digressing (as usual).
Fabrizio Giudici
<ricky.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> English is simple until you try to pronounce it.
>
> Cough, bough, enough, dough, thought.
>
> And until you try to spell it.
>
> Beaurocracy, fondue, diarrhoea (UK version).
>
> No, diarrhoea is not the UK version of fondue, although I guess there
> might
> be some resemblance.
>
> In contrast, you can learn the pronunciation rules of Italian in a day
> and
> then read it aloud correctly, albeit with a foreign accent. It's a far
> more regular language than English, probably because it has far fewer
> influences. English probably won because its speakers don't bother to
> learn local languages.
Italian is by far one of the simplest languages around to pronounce (it's
for sure the simplest one of those I've heard at least once). As an
italian I find that almost every other language is a nightmare to
pronounce (I'm trying to learn french and But of course I was talking of
the written form: the comparison is with programming languages and we
write in them, not read out loud.
On the other hand Italian has got a pack of verb moods and times (I think
as most of the neo-latin languages), not counting that they have different
variations for each of the six persons (three singular and three plurals)
- most italians for instance have problems with the subjunctive mood in
moderately complex sentences. Italian was influenced by tons of external
sources as since the fall of the roman empire the area has been invaded by
virtually any population in Europe and surroundings (various waves of
barbarians peoples, normans, arabs, germans, frenchs, spanish, etc...). I
think it was more or less the same history in every part of Europe (and
even in the rest of the world, but I don't have direct knowledge).
Cédric Beust ♔
Italian is by far one of the simplest languages around to pronounce
Fabrizio Giudici
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <
> Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it> wrote:
>
>> Italian is by far one of the simplest languages around to pronounce
>
>
> You probably don't realize it, but Italian has a certain number of odd
> rules as well, in the sense that "what you read is not what you
> pronounce".
> I'm not just referring to oddities such as "c" pronounced "tsh" ("Non
> c'è") and
> "sch" as "sck" (I hear people saying "brushetta" all the time around
> here,
Sure. But rules are consistent. "ch", "ca", "co" is one way, "ce", "ci" is
in the other. It's more difficult to pronounce some vowels in the "open"
and "closed" way, but even if you get most of them wrong people will
understand (it falls within dialectal variations).
For french I'm having a bad time in understanding the various exceptions
for which a trailing "s" must be pronounced (admittedly, I'm trying to
learn it more by practice than by reading grammar books, and probably part
of the problem is the fact that I'm mostly in Provence where I suppose
there are strong dialectal differences - the same happens in different
parts of Italy). I think I can give up with understanding how "ours"
(bear) must be pronounced. Fortunately it's not a word that I need often
;-)
Takeshi Fukushima
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:29:38 +0200, Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com> wrote:Sure. But rules are consistent. "ch", "ca", "co" is one way, "ce", "ci" is in the other. It's more difficult to pronounce some vowels in the "open" and "closed" way, but even if you get most of them wrong people will understand (it falls within dialectal variations).
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it> wrote:
Italian is by far one of the simplest languages around to pronounce
You probably don't realize it, but Italian has a certain number of odd
rules as well, in the sense that "what you read is not what you pronounce".
I'm not just referring to oddities such as "c" pronounced "tsh" ("Non c'è") and
"sch" as "sck" (I hear people saying "brushetta" all the time around here,
For french I'm having a bad time in understanding the various exceptions for which a trailing "s" must be pronounced (admittedly, I'm trying to learn it more by practice than by reading grammar books, and probably part of the problem is the fact that I'm mostly in Provence where I suppose there are strong dialectal differences - the same happens in different parts of Italy). I think I can give up with understanding how "ours" (bear) must be pronounced. Fortunately it's not a word that I need often ;-)
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@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.
http://mapsdev.blogspot.com/
Marcelo Takeshi Fukushima
Cédric Beust ♔
For french I'm having a bad time in understanding the various exceptions for which a trailing "s" must be pronounced (admittedly, I'm trying to learn it more by practice than by reading grammar books, and probably part of the problem is the fact that I'm mostly in Provence where I suppose there are strong dialectal differences - the same happens in different parts of Italy). I think I can give up with understanding how "ours" (bear) must be pronounced. Fortunately it's not a word that I need often ;-)
jon.ki...@gmail.com
However, when you do need it, you probably don't want to wait around figuring out how it's said... :)
----- Reply message -----
From: "Fabrizio Giudici" <Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it>
Date: Thu, Apr 19, 2012 3:05 pm
Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: About Android and Java, from the trial
To: <java...@googlegroups.com>, "Cédric Beust ♔" <ced...@beust.com>
Cc: "Ricky Clarkson" <ricky.c...@gmail.com>, "Casper Bang" <caspe...@gmail.com>
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:29:38 +0200, Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <
> Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it> wrote:
>
>> Italian is by far one of the simplest languages around to pronounce
>
>
> You probably don't realize it, but Italian has a certain number of odd
> rules as well, in the sense that "what you read is not what you
> pronounce".
> I'm not just referring to oddities such as "c" pronounced "tsh" ("Non
> c'è") and
> "sch" as "sck" (I hear people saying "brushetta" all the time around
> here,
Sure. But rules are consistent. "ch", "ca", "co" is one way, "ce", "ci" is
in the other. It's more difficult to pronounce some vowels in the "open"
and "closed" way, but even if you get most of them wrong people will
understand (it falls within dialectal variations).
for which a trailing "s" must be pronounced (admittedly, I'm trying to
learn it more by practice than by reading grammar books, and probably part
of the problem is the fact that I'm mostly in Provence where I suppose
there are strong dialectal differences - the same happens in different
parts of Italy). I think I can give up with understanding how "ours"
(bear) must be pronounced. Fortunately it's not a word that I need often
;-)
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
Cédric Beust ♔
However, when you do need it, you probably don't want to wait around figuring out how it's said... :)
Jon Kiparsky
>technology. Since they are top level professionals, this is a technological argument. Otherwise, you must imply that they are not
>so competent. I don't see any third option here.
I'm sure I don't have the expertise to judge on the technical details, but I do think this is at least plausible as a third option. Under this scenario, it'd be impossible to accept any of Google's trial arguments as having any implications about Google's beliefs regarding the technology: the only purpose of those statements is to win a trial.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Fabrizio Giudici
wrote:
> Here's a third option: this is a legal argument, and the cited facts are
> the ones which support google's winning the case, regardless of the
> technological facts.
> I'm sure I don't have the expertise to judge on the technical details,
> but
> I do think this is at least plausible as a third option. Under this
> scenario, it'd be impossible to accept any of Google's trial arguments as
> having any implications about Google's beliefs regarding the technology:
> the only purpose of those statements is to win a trial.
Sure I've thought that legal arguments are a parallel world built mostly
for attorneys to make money and not necessarily related to reality. But
what I reported is not the discussion in the trial, it's the content of an
internal email exchanged years ago among Page and some Google engineers,
not in a trial context.
Ahmed Hosny Sayed
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.