Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9364
| From | Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? |
| Date | 2011-11-02 03:17 -0400 |
| Organization | UWA OKB |
| Message-ID | <j8qqqm$41c$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <opqdnQnjSeY2jTbTnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <4eb0a862$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <j8qkqm$pvh$1@news.albasani.net> |
On 02/11/2011 1:35 AM, BGB wrote: > On 11/1/2011 7:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 10/28/2011 4:29 PM, jebblue wrote: >>> With Oracle on one side suing Google over Android >>> and on the other cooing about how many phones >>> run Java; I'm wondering if it might be worth it >>> to put my ideological views about Microsoft aside >>> and consider going back to .Net. >> >> Why should the question whether Google infringed on >> Oracle copyright or patents affect your choice of >> programming language? >> > > maybe because it asserts that Java is not a free/open technology, and is > essentially a proprietary product owned by Oracle?... > > granted, .NET has the same basic issue (it is owned by MS, ...). .NET is much worse. Anyone can write a conforming Java implementation that people can use and anyone else can code for it, without permission from Oracle. With OpenJDK, there is a complete open source conforming implementation, in particular. The one restriction I'm aware of is that you can't actually call it "Java" unless it passes certain tests or else you're looking at a trademark infringement lawsuit, whereas you could, say, write a Lisp interpreter and call it C if you wanted to. On the other hand, Microsoft doesn't officially support the existence of any implementation of .NET than their own, or any instance running under any operating system other than Windows, and presumably won't license the trademark to anyone on any terms; the one attempt at an open source implementation that I know of, Mono, is partial and buggy at best. > granted, there are always C, C++, assembler, ... which are not > particularly "owned" by anyone. Lisp, too. On the other hand, specific implementations and dialects are sometimes "owned", often via a trademark. That new Lisp, Clojure, is trademarked, though it's open source. So it's exactly as free as OpenJDK.
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
back to .Net? lesser of two evils? jebblue <n@n.nnn> - 2011-10-28 15:29 -0500
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-10-28 15:16 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-02 07:05 -0300
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 22:46 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-01 22:18 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 22:35 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-02 03:17 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:58 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:06 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:01 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:48 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:52 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 07:21 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:30 -0500
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 22:48 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? coder <j-code@speak.invalid> - 2011-11-02 17:36 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:13 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 00:49 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:10 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 04:41 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 05:36 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? thoolen <tholen01@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 23:13 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 08:28 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:04 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 10:19 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 14:32 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:20 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 21:34 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:57 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:25 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:25 -0500
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:05 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 17:26 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:18 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:20 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:30 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:30 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:40 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-01 23:42 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:22 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:02 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:10 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:45 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:56 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:01 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 15:26 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:35 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:53 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:45 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 05:50 -0300
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 10:39 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-04 17:38 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 18:47 -0300
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 10:11 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:24 -0500
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:42 -0700
csiph-web