4 ms·

I've been thinking about Oracle's stewardship of Java, as an intellectual exercise. I'm going to argue for Oracle (because that's the opposite of how I feel.)

by 8ren 16y ago

I've been thinking about Oracle's stewardship of Java, as an intellectual exercise. I'm going to argue for Oracle (because that's the opposite of how I feel.) (1) Oracle is not a technology company. They don't have an engineering culture; they don't want an engineering culture. So James Gosling left and many others (though oddly, Guy Steele remains: http://labs.oracle.com/people/mybio.php?uid=25706 http://labs.oracle.com/people/mybio.php?uid=25706). But maybe this doesn't matter for Java today... Java has matured (some would say "stagnated") and that doesn't hurt its prospects for business use, but enhances them. And, quite amazingly, Java still has great qualities for today's two largest emerging markets: the Cloud (hey! the network is the computer!) and small embedded systems (like Android.) None too shabby, as-is. (2) Oracle is a sales company. Sun was terrible at making money from Java. Maybe Java... needs Oracle? Microsoft has pushed business cases and business applications, and C# and .Net have gained great acceptance, even though they are confined to MS's stack. Even Apple is succeeding with its closed iPhone/iPad "stack". Why can't Oracle do the same in an Enterprise stack? Yes, many Java developers will really hate it. Yet, that confinement hasn't stopped .net developers. (3) The problem with Oracle is not sales vs. tech, but that they don't seem to be 100% on the ball - which is why Google is able to rip them apart so confidently. While I think the sales-based stewardship I outline above is plausible, it still needs to be well executed.

icey 16y ago
.Net may be confined to the Microsoft stack but C# is not, thanks to Mono.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Mono is a patent minefield. Microsoft's covenant only covers what is under the ECMA standard and most of the interesting parts aren't.
  - icey 16y ago
    http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issu... FUD can come from both sides of the argument, I guess.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      So, nothing of Mono falls outside the ECMA 334 and 335 scope, right?
  - tzs 16y ago
    You are oversimplifying. See http://www.infoq.com/articles/java-dotnet-patents http://www.infoq.com/articles/java-dotnet-patents for more information.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      A bit. You can work around the patents you know. Still, Microsoft retains the power to sue if any implementation of anything outside the community promise violates whatever patents they have. One could expect Sun to be ethical. One can count on Microsoft doing the exact opposite.
  - kjksf 16y ago
    Thanks to Oracle Java is a minefield that Google stepped on and a bomb went off. .NET (potential of being sued) is better than the alternative (Java, where someone has actually been sued).
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      I'll take my chances with Oracle. Oracle is in the business for money. Microsoft's in it for blood - because if they don't kill free and open-source software, they'll have no money.
Nelson69 16y ago
Have a listen to the Java Posse this last week, #325. The new platform architect seems to think Java is in better hands, for the greater community too. How do you simply dismiss Oracle as having a culture of engineering? Are the products bad? Is it simply that the corporation wants to profit? Is it the lack of hacker's names and faces on products? Is it the cost of the products or that they don't do something that they claim or should do? I'd assert that they might be so good at engineering that it's no longer sexy to talk about it with them and they've matured so far beyond hacking that the names and faces aren't important. Have you ever used any Sun hardware and then maybe a similar vintage IBM or HP piece of hardware?
- 8ren 16y ago
  It's well-known that Oracle isn't a technology company, but one that uses technology. It's not that their engineers are bad in any way, it's just that that's not a focus of the company as an organization. Instead, technology becomes a background issue (or a hygiene factor, as some economists call it.) It has to work, it has to be good; but it's not what makes the company go - they don't depend on Research and Development to produce a stream of new products. Any new tech they get is bought, via acquisition; and it is followed up only if it is of immediate value to their existing customers. They aren't creating new markets either (though recently they've bought some life sciences companies, which is a big branch out, and might shake up the health care sector in interesting ways.) Of course, once upon a time, they created the very first commercial relational database, before even IBM (where Codd invented it.) But in the following decades, Oracle didn't keep on developing entirely new technologies. Sun, IBM and HP all have or had strong engineering traditions (in particular HP used to, though not so much today.) Other examples with strong engineering are Sony, Nintendo, Adobe, TI, Intel and Apple. Another business company, like Oracle, is SAP. It's not intended as an insult, just a description of a company's approach. IBM has certainly moved much closer to that these days, it's almost a consulting company (like the big accounting firms), and its R&D has become very directed towards their client's immediate needs - at least, that's what they said at a presentation a few years ago. I've read of Mark Reinhold's comments about what's happening with Java now (but not listened to that specific podcast.) He made an interesting point about the JRockit tech (acquired from BEA.) Let me ask you: is it realistic to imagine the new platform architect not saying positive things on this point, given his job and employer? If he thought otherwise, would he be given the job, with its significant Public Relations component (which is what that podcast is, from Oracle's perspective)? In my view, I'm just stating well-known and accepted facts that I think Oracle itself would agree with. Can you tell me why you don't agree, please? You seem a little angry about it, too. I think it's possible you have misinterpreted me.

by 8ren 16y ago

icey 16y ago

.Net may be confined to the Microsoft stack but C# is not, thanks to Mono.

rbanffy 16y ago
Mono is a patent minefield. Microsoft's covenant only covers what is under the ECMA standard and most of the interesting parts aren't.
- icey 16y ago
  http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issu... FUD can come from both sides of the argument, I guess.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    So, nothing of Mono falls outside the ECMA 334 and 335 scope, right?
- tzs 16y ago
  You are oversimplifying. See http://www.infoq.com/articles/java-dotnet-patents http://www.infoq.com/articles/java-dotnet-patents for more information.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    A bit. You can work around the patents you know. Still, Microsoft retains the power to sue if any implementation of anything outside the community promise violates whatever patents they have. One could expect Sun to be ethical. One can count on Microsoft doing the exact opposite.
- kjksf 16y ago
  Thanks to Oracle Java is a minefield that Google stepped on and a bomb went off. .NET (potential of being sued) is better than the alternative (Java, where someone has actually been sued).
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    I'll take my chances with Oracle. Oracle is in the business for money. Microsoft's in it for blood - because if they don't kill free and open-source software, they'll have no money.

Nelson69 16y ago

Have a listen to the Java Posse this last week, #325. The new platform architect seems to think Java is in better hands, for the greater community too. How do you simply dismiss Oracle as having a culture of engineering? Are the products bad? Is it simply that the corporation wants to profit? Is it the lack of hacker's names and faces on products? Is it the cost of the products or that they don't do something that they claim or should do? I'd assert that they might be so good at engineering that it's no longer sexy to talk about it with them and they've matured so far beyond hacking that the names and faces aren't important. Have you ever used any Sun hardware and then maybe a similar vintage IBM or HP piece of hardware?

8ren 16y ago
It's well-known that Oracle isn't a technology company, but one that uses technology. It's not that their engineers are bad in any way, it's just that that's not a focus of the company as an organization. Instead, technology becomes a background issue (or a hygiene factor, as some economists call it.) It has to work, it has to be good; but it's not what makes the company go - they don't depend on Research and Development to produce a stream of new products. Any new tech they get is bought, via acquisition; and it is followed up only if it is of immediate value to their existing customers. They aren't creating new markets either (though recently they've bought some life sciences companies, which is a big branch out, and might shake up the health care sector in interesting ways.) Of course, once upon a time, they created the very first commercial relational database, before even IBM (where Codd invented it.) But in the following decades, Oracle didn't keep on developing entirely new technologies. Sun, IBM and HP all have or had strong engineering traditions (in particular HP used to, though not so much today.) Other examples with strong engineering are Sony, Nintendo, Adobe, TI, Intel and Apple. Another business company, like Oracle, is SAP. It's not intended as an insult, just a description of a company's approach. IBM has certainly moved much closer to that these days, it's almost a consulting company (like the big accounting firms), and its R&D has become very directed towards their client's immediate needs - at least, that's what they said at a presentation a few years ago. I've read of Mark Reinhold's comments about what's happening with Java now (but not listened to that specific podcast.) He made an interesting point about the JRockit tech (acquired from BEA.) Let me ask you: is it realistic to imagine the new platform architect not saying positive things on this point, given his job and employer? If he thought otherwise, would he be given the job, with its significant Public Relations component (which is what that podcast is, from Oracle's perspective)? In my view, I'm just stating well-known and accepted facts that I think Oracle itself would agree with. Can you tell me why you don't agree, please? You seem a little angry about it, too. I think it's possible you have misinterpreted me.