SUN won't enter the Eclipse consortium?

Miscellaneous Topics
#1

Hi. I’ve read these days that SUN don’t (doesn’t? Singular or plural?) enter the Eclipse consortium because they couldn’t agree with IBM on an important point (it hasn’t been said what point it is).

Does anybody know more about this?

#2

[quote]Hi. I’ve read these days that SUN don’t (doesn’t? Singular or plural?) enter the Eclipse consortium because they couldn’t agree with IBM on an important point (it hasn’t been said what point it is).
[/quote]
I think the NAME is the important point they don’t agree on! Hehe.

#3

[quote]I think the NAME is the important point they don’t agree on! Hehe.
[/quote]
Maybe. :slight_smile: Why did IBM choose such a name anyway? Or what’s the problem with changing it?

IBM wouldn’t like to join a somewhat “open” project named “HAL”, would they?

#4

[quote]Hi. I’ve read these days that SUN don’t (doesn’t? Singular or plural?) enter the Eclipse consortium because they couldn’t agree with IBM on an important point (it hasn’t been said what point it is).
[/quote]
“won’t” or “didn’t” works best.

[quote]Btw I am no Eclipse user. Even if I would like to I wouldn’t - until IBM’s domination of the whole thing is being ended. No monopolies please. :slight_smile:
[/quote]
Why is wrong with a company controlling the product that they spent a lot of money $$$ developing and then gave away for free? How is this any different than Sun’s monopoly over Java (in that they always have final say in the JCP). If it is a good product and it works for you use it. There doesn’t appear to be anything particularly evil about it. IBM isn’t quite as dastardly as Microsoft.

One thing that really bugs me about Eclipse is the whole SWT project… it may be better than AWT, though I don’t think it is any better than Swing, and in fact lacks features in comparison. But I’ve always felt it was a completely wasted effort. It would make much more sense to direct that effort at improving the core AWT/Swing support in the JRE. IBM could have tried to do something like that that through the JCP instead. Perhaps Sun disagrees with the concept of the competing SWT APIs as well? I certainly think the Eclipse IDE is far superior to NetBeans (Sun’s choice) at this point, but competition in this area is a good thing.

#5

Thanks. Singular-plural-neutral.

Since I didn’t want to start a “monopoly” discussion I’ve cut the regarding sentence in my first article. :wink:

[quote]There doesn’t appear to be anything particularly evil about it. IBM isn’t quite as dastardly as Microsoft.
[/quote]
Well, they lost the anti-trust trial 1+x decades ago which has been OK.

Still, the point is: why not change that “Eclipse” name when it offends SUN? We’re not talking about a C++ IDE (yes, theoretically Eclipse could do any language) but a Java one, and SUN invented Java, which is one of the best things I’ve ever seen in my IT career. :slight_smile:

#6

really? we do? Thats exciting news to me!

Seriously though I believe we only have a vote like any other JCP board member.

I know for a fact that there have been a number of initiatives we wanted that didn’t get through the EC vote, and others that did that were heart-ache. So if we DO have any executive veto or fiat (which I don’t think we do) we’ve never used it.

#7

“Sun” and “Eclipse” is more like ying and yang imo… and I think that was the big idea - instead of being “offending” or something like that.

Wo Licht ist, ist auch Schatten (~there’s no joy without sorrow. Wordwise: if there is light there is shadow, too [or something like that :P])

#8

To be honest the connection never even occurred to me shrug

#9

Whether it was a not-so-subtle dig on IBM’s part, or not, personally I think changing the name -now- is nuts. I’m not an Eclipse user either – in fact I’m ‘trapped’ on Netbeans, having been unable to find anything I like better – but I like the name ‘Eclipse’, whatever the connotations.

#10

I remember reading months ago something like this headline online.
“IBM “Eclipse’s” Sun with new Java IDE”

#11

I read about it before - the closest thing I can find is this from http://www.jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#A:

[quote]EC ballots to approve UJSRs for new Platform Edition Specifications or UJSRs for J2SE that propose changes to the Java language, are approved if (a) at least a two-thirds majority of the votes cast are “yes” votes, (b) a minimum of 5 “yes” votes are cast, and b Sun casts one of the “yes” votes.[/b] Ballots are otherwise rejected.
[/quote]