In the midst of the IBM/Gluecode deal there is some JBoss code up for grabs. As Hani points out in his bileblog, there is possibility that the ex-jboss gluecode guys could hand over their JBoss copyrights to IBM. This would create a problem for JBoss because IBM will now own at least a 20% portion of the code. The reactions to the IBM/Gluecode deal have been coming in from the JBoss guys and Bob Bickel extended the following comments from his blog based on this article.
IBM announced it has acquired Gluecode. In so doing, IBM is acknowledging the overwhelming momentum behind open source in general and the success of JBoss in particular.
What we at JBoss see every day is that CIOs want to create strategies around open source. They increasingly trust it to run their core business applications and the technology is available today to support mission-critical deployments. IBM’s embrace of open source will be a shot in the arm for JBoss and the rest of the open source movement.
At the same time, IBM’s acquisition is an overtly defensive move (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/technology/10blue.html). JBoss is being adopted so rapidly and in such volume (BZ Research reports increases in market usage for JBoss from 13% to 26% to 34% over the past 3 years in terms of production usage) that it is becoming, in effect, the next Linux at the middleware layer. This naturally makes WebSphere (IBM was at 33% in the same study by BZ Research) the next Solaris.
IBM has in many ways welcomed Linux, but is hostile toward open source products that may affect the cash cow that is the WebSphere business. This intent of the acquisition, we believe, is to slow down JBoss and to try, with Geronimo, to capture the high-volume J2EE space.
But IBM is betting on unproven technology. Today, JBoss is the high-volume J2EE leader. The JBoss ecosystem is active and enormous, and as a result we’ve got great technology. We intend to keep our open and large community and ecosystem happy and thriving.
IBM customers should be wary of a potential bait and switch of IBM suggesting Geronimo for low-end deployments, then pushing WebSphere to do the heavy lifting. This is also creating issues for customers and partners who may feel pressured to support yet another application server. We question how robust Geronimo can be given that its backing has primarily come from Gluecode, a company that’s been known for some time to be in financial trouble and lacking in community support (Less than 100 posts in 7 months of existence compared to 3,000 per month on the JBoss forums- http://www.gluecode.com/forums/index.jspa). Geronimo is obviously not J2EE certified. It is obviously low-end. It obviously is not tracking the EJB3 spec. Gluecode has written far less code (for example, in Q4 of last year Geronimo had 800 total new commits, while JBoss had over 7,000). Geronimo also does not offer customers the full vision of the JBoss Enterprise Middleware System.
JBoss customers and partners have a single, unified, always free license to our software. JBoss users will not be presented with what we anticipate will be a forced trade up from Geronimo to WebSphere. JBoss software is capable of running high-end applications; Geronimo is not. And JBoss does not force customers to purchase expensive long-term contracts. Frankly, we question whether IBM's dual interests will keep Geronimo from reaching the full capabilities of open source that JBoss has reached.
It will be interesting to hear IBM articulate a strategy on how they merge WebSphere and Geronimo and handle Gluecode’s dual-licensing strategy. IBM will also need to explain its strategy for the Gluecode Portal and IBM’s products in this area.
JBoss will continue to work with IBM Global Services and the IBM Hardware teams because of strong customer demand. We will also continue to work with IBM on various standards.
Overall, we see this as a move that should clarify things for customers and partners: open source is the here and now. Companies are implementing open source middleware - not just Linux today. The JBoss ecosystem (contributors, partners, customers, users) is central to that movement and will continue to be the technology and market leader for open source middleware.
Here's a quick tip for getting those JSTL tags to validate properly in IntelliJ IDEA.
Then just set up your external resource like this:
This should stop the red in your JSP files and it will get tag completion and validation working.
I recently stumbled upon this open letter to the president where Jack Stack, CEO of SRC Holding Corp., makes a compelling argument for saving small business in America. One of the most noteable insights is that the innovation and driving force is not going to come from large companies anymore, but from the smaller ones. There is a bigger push these days for younger employees to start their own businesses and become part of the new ownership society. It sounds like a great idea and the more support we get for this new direction, the better.
You should remind them that, when they pass laws and makes rules, they need to think more about the effect the changes will have on small entrepreneurial companies. That's where the future lies. We're not going to see any more Microsofts or Wal-Marts being built from the ground up. Big companies aren't where it's at. Young people are instead starting their own small businesses in the communities where they live. Local organizations like the chambers of commerce are helping these upstarts, but the federal government has done little or nothing for them, as far as I can tell. If that's going to change, you'll have to lead the way.
But enough. By now you're undoubtedly asking, "Who are these guys, and what do they really know about the U.S. economy and global economics?" Well, we're just an employee-owned company that loves hearing you talk about creating an ownership society. We realize that at the end of the day, quarter, year, or even the end of a presidential term, change begins at home. The revolution starts with us on the factory floors and in the service bays. It is our responsibility to make sure we are capable of competing and contributing to a better community and a better quality of life here and throughout the world.
There are some resounding truths and insights in this article that just can't be ignored. It's interesting to see someone writing an informed letter on it.
It appears there is a new release for NetBeans IDE. We now have NetBeans 4.0 to download and check out. It's got a lot of new features and support and now I have to decide whether or not to try out this new version or stick with the best IDE for JAVA I have found to date; IntelliJ IDEA. I've used NetBeans exclusively before I tried IntelliJ and I instantly switched to the ease of use that IntelliJ IDEA provided JAVA developers. Now it's time to reevaluate and see what NetBeans 4.0 brings to the table.
I found an interesting article on the Performance of Java versus C++ from the University of Southern California. It explains and clarifies some of the misconceptions about the speed of Java. It also addresses the garbage collection issue and why some still believe that the GC is responsible for slowness in Java. Check out the article here.
Looks like they disbanded the Apache Commons Project. Jakarta-Commons, XML-Commons and DB-Commons will still be active under different projects. It was only a matter of time before this happened.
I just read an interesting list published based on an essay by Paul Graham. He debunks some the top ten reasons people give for not using Java in their application programming. Thus, we are given the "Top Reasons Why People Think Java Un-Cool" and they seem to hit the nail on the head. The two that stand out the most are the vast API and the initial lack of any good IDEs. In the beginning, it's true we didn't have much for good IDEs, but now we have some good IDEs available such as IntelliJ.
They sent me back a licence that only allows me to use the software in one virtual machine in one computer at a time, in my house. I am not allowed to reverse engineer the product. I can't even draw diagrams of how the system might work, so I certainly can't talk about that in my review.The review later found that the ULC product is overpriced and really just sucks.
The people at Canoo Engineering aren't nice and they're not my friends. They're self-absorbed automatons, hawking incomprehensible wares at ridiculous prices and trying to buddy-up with writers in our little Java development community so we'll vomit forth blushworthy prose about their "miraculous new MVC client software".This all leads to the burning question: Do they really suck as bad as they say they do? They really didn't seem to know what they were talking about, what their product does, or even what they do. Here's a quote from one of their engineers.
Consider these two quotes (from the same person): "The server-side is exposed to the developer whereas the client-side is hidden." "With ULC a developer has to implement an application's presentation layer."
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting