[LINK] 'Cloud Computing doesn't fly'

Fernando Cassia fcassia at gmail.com
Wed Sep 29 17:57:44 EST 2010

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:40 PM,  <stephen at melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> With this talk of cloud (fog) computing, I'm guessing that resistance to
> such arrangements well might be a factor behind this current development
> regarding OpenOffice? One can imagine Sun should be keen on clouds/fogs?

I personally hate the attitude from some in the FOSS camp. It seems to
me that Oracle is "guilty until proven innocent", that the burden of
proof has been reversed: they must prove they´re not child molesters,
before any incident actually happens -if you pardon the blunt if
somewhat extreme comparison.

The only thing I´m certain of, is that the bloodbath wrt open source
products would have been orders of magnitude higher had IBM purchased
Sun -as was originally rumored-. For instance, there was little
incentive for IBM to keep the NettBeans IDE alive, as the firm always
favored Eclipse.

Instead, Oracle so far has:

- Confirmed that work on the new Java 7 and Java 8 versions will be
contributed back as open source, as part of the OpenJDK project
(@mreinhold on Twitter)

- Is backing Netbeans with lots of investments (despite the fact that
Oracle had another, propietary IDE, Oracle JDeveloper).

- Says it will release JavaFX 2.0 as open source when 2.0 is completed
(without the MPEG4 codecs that are patent-encumbered by the MPEG-LA).

- Is backing the open source Glassfish J2EE server, with two new
releases planned for next year.

- Is backing OpenOffice and integrating JavaFX into it. (see above
abonut JavaFX 2.0 to be released as open source).

So, was it right to spit in the face of Oracle, and then "invite" them
to come "join" the new independent body?. Sounds like more "forcing
their hand" to me.

Like I said, it seems that for some, Oracle must prove they´re not
guilty of future crimes, that it might comite, sometime, in the
future, when nobody´s looking. If there isn´t good faith from one of
the parties, no long lasting relationship can be established.

Then you have stupid journalists that confuse open source and the GPL
with "public domain" **


And others who claim Java ME was never released under a GPL license,
plus they confuse a runtime environemnt with an "operating system":


"Although parts of Java are open-source under GPL2, __Java ME, Sun's
embedded operating system, was not__"

Well, gee, I guess what Sun´s PhoneME project is

... and how PhoneME (J2ME open source) for Windows CE was created...


Too much FUD going around, and the usual suspects that wanted a piece
of Sun´s pie (Novell, IBM, Microsoft) rejoycing...

** The story headline was apparently changed to "open source" but the
original story title remains in the story URL...

More information about the Link mailing list