OpenJDK seems too open for IBM's tastes and isn't based on J9 and thus
may fall afoul of "not invented here" knee jerk reactions.
Personally even apart from having source to Sun's JVM, I've much
preferred its behavior and reliability.
Eclipse used to be impressive, but nowadays I get the impression IBM has no real interest in making it a decent Java IDE anymore.
Compared to NetBeans it still wins hands down in anything related to code hygiene (NetBeans doesn't even bother to properly format the code it generates)
and it is still ahead in the refactoring category, but for writing code I find NetBeans the much more pleasant experience. Apart from formatter improvements I couldn't tell you what improved between Eclipse 3.2's JDT and the one in 3.4. It certainly still has that really annoying bug that clipboard operations fail sporadically on Linux -- you Ctrl-X something and it is gone from your editor, but the clipboard still has whatever it had before. No one seems to care enough to fix that and the Bugzilla they use seems to be close to a one way communication system. If it is a communication system at all. I think the lack of interest in the OSS versions of their products is sometimes quite obvious with IBM and I don't want to know what would happen to Eclipse if NetBeans would be discontinued.
Power vs SparcNo idea what would happen here.
Lotus Symphony vs OpenOfficeWrong: Lotus Symphony is "Eclipse RCP plus unknown OpenOffice version" (http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2992), so I don#t see a lot of conflict.
Websphere vs GlassfishWrong: Either "WebSphere + Glassfish" or "Glassfish vs. Geronimo", since Glassfish could be the low-end open source complement to the high-end commercial WebSphere, just like Geronimo. My guess: IBM would merge these two in one shape or another.
Eclipse vs NetbeansYes, that's a tough nut - can't see how they get united, and Eclipse underpins at least three of the five IBM software brands in one way or another. My guess: Netbeans gets spun off into a foundation, gets an initial check from IBM and is on its own from then as n open source project without corporate backing.
DB2 vs MySQLWrong: "DB2 + MySL" (see above - MySQL as low-end complement to DB2).
For what I am concerned, I would consider this a very sad thought...
I've known Java from the days it started and I've always associated Sun with it. If Sun would be bought, I think Java won't be Java any more. It will have been 'assimilated' by some commercial entity, just for the sake of profits.
And it would really be a shame to have all these great software go to waste. Especially if it's for the sole purpose of making even bigger profits. Never mind what will happen to the employees at Sun in case of such an event. I really wonder if the idea is that pleasing to them. I've been put out with trash once (for being too Java-minded btw) and that was no pleasant experience...
I'm not disagreeing with assessment that Sun has more than its fair
share of influence in the activities of the JCP. However, I don't see
it being due to the structure of this legal agreement. I'm no lawyer,
but, this agreement seems to me to be mainly about making clear that
contributions to the JCP must be unencumbered IP. Not really seeing
where this particular legal document gives Sun any particular power
that IBM would inherit through acquisition. Please enlighten me.
| Michael "Van" Riper
| JUG-USA Interim President
| Silicon Valley Web JUG
| Silicon Valley Google Technology User Group
So after three weeks not a single person has reported any verifiable facts. So much for modern journalism. I thought there was a time when the New York Times and Wall Street Journal didn't print rumors.
On Apr 5, 2009, at 11:44 PM, Jan Goyvaerts wrote:CNBC announced it too.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:32 AM, kirk <kirk.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have an open URL to the story? Posting an NY Times requires a login.
Bill Robertson wrote:
> Maybe not...
> On Apr 2, 10:24 pm, ad <adam.denn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well it's all but official:
Unfortunatly, it looks like the stock market doesn't need facts either...Anyway, I was glad no merger was announced as the rumors were suggesting. :-)