Who should bear primary responsibility for supporting Java on Mac OS X? | Java.net

My pages	Projects	Communities	java.net

Get Involved About java.net Request a Project Publicize your Project Submit Content java-net Project Java.net Enhancements Site Help Report Inappropriate Content Get Informed Articles Blogs Events java.net Online Books java.net Archives Get Connected java.net Forums Wiki Javapedia People Partners Jobs RSS Feeds Java User Groups Search Web and Projects: Online Books: java.net on MarkMail: Advanced Search
		Who should bear primary responsibility for supporting Java on Mac OS X? Apple 38% (409 votes) Sun 49% (525 votes) The Open Source community 12% (124 votes) Someone else (please comment) 1% (10 votes) Total votes: 1068 » Login or register to post comments 288 visits Printer-friendly version Apple should open source their Java Submitted by tompalmer on Wed, 2007-10-31 11:39. While I'm not saying they are obligated (any more than Sun was), best would for Apple to donate their implementation to OpenJDK. Then they can offload their "ball and chain" while making Java folks happy. Then Apple, Sun, and the open source community could work together. Key points: cheaper for Apple, cheaper for Sun, happier community. Login or register to post comments Depends on the version Submitted by getaceres on Tue, 2007-10-30 05:29. I think that for Java 6 it's Sun's responsibility to support Mac in the same way as they support Linux and Windows. But since Java 7 is Open Source it's the Mac, Windows and Linux Open Source Community that must support its respective platforms. Login or register to post comments why I am saying sun... Submitted by melbeltagy on Mon, 2007-10-29 23:01. I really think that it's Sun's responsiblity to do this. The reason why I am saying this, is very simple, Java' concept is: "Write once, run everywhere". And Java is Sun's big child now. As of this, I think that it's Sun's duty to support putting Java on Apple as well. Specially, that Apple OS is not new or a small OS. It is a big OS with its users all over the world. So, supporting it, I think is Sun's duty. Note: Supporting may mean at least putting hand-in-hand to do the job, it doesn't have to be 100% sun's job. Login or register to post comments No Java 6 on Leopard Submitted by wordwarrior on Sat, 2007-10-27 10:41. So, now that the cat's out of the bag (so to speak) and Java 6 is not part of Leopard, I have an important historical question: Did Sun always distribute a version of Java for Windows, or did they only start to do so after Microsoft violated their license agreement? If the answer is that Sun only distributed their WIndows download later, then there's a chance they'll do so for OS X as well. Login or register to post comments No Java 6 on Leopard Submitted by fachim on Sun, 2007-10-28 18:39. How about Java 7? it's open source and community has responsibility to port Java on any OS. It could be the bargaining power of Mac, in fact most developer develop Java on Mac. regards, fachim Login or register to post comments No Java 6 on Leopard Submitted by jwenting on Sun, 2007-10-28 01:59. Sun has always supplied JVMs for Windows, never for Mac (I believe Apple won't let them). Of course Macs have never been more than a fringe phenomenon. Login or register to post comments No Java 6 on Leopard Submitted by invalidname on Tue, 2007-10-30 06:23. Sun wrote a JDK 1.0 for the Classic Mac OS; it wasn't very good. After that, many third parties did their own Mac JDKs (Netscape, IDE makers Metrowerks, Symantec, and Roaster, etc.), and Apple tried to simplify things for users by doing their own, bundling it with the OS, and advocating that browser makers and others just standardize on that. Sun loaned engineers to Apple's JDK team for a while too, but they were cut in one of Sun's first dot-bomb RIFs. The "Apple won't let them" story is bogus -- Apple pays a license fee to Sun for the right to develop a Mac JDK, test against the JCK, and call it "Java". Login or register to post comments No Java 6 on Leopard Submitted by wordwarrior on Sat, 2007-10-27 10:32. So, now that the cat's out of the bag (so to speak) and Java 6 is not part of Leopard, I have an important historical question: Did Sun always distribute a version of Java for Windows, or did they only start to do so after Microsoft violated their license agreement? If the answer is that Sun only distributed their WIndows download later, then there's a chance they'll do so for OS X as well. Login or register to post comments What does Flash do? Submitted by prime21 on Fri, 2007-10-26 11:01. Should Adobe bear primary responsibility for supporting Flash on Mac OS X? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Of course Adobe will produce and support Flash Player for Mac OS X. Should Sun support Java on Mac OS X? Yes. And don't do some X hack. AWT/Swing must interact with Aqua, Applets need to work in Safari, etc. Does this represent a lot of work for Sun? Yes. But it's in Sun's best interest to make sure that Java GUI apps stay write-once-run-anywhere (including Mac). Login or register to post comments who cares ? Submitted by felipegaucho on Fri, 2007-10-26 10:30. eheheh, let the MacOS die... Login or register to post comments re: who cares ? Submitted by invalidname on Fri, 2007-10-26 12:53. With AAPL's market cap now at $161 billion (greater than IBM or Intel's, and eight times greater than Sun's), you might be waiting a while for that... Login or register to post comments Why not both? Submitted by coxcu on Fri, 2007-10-26 09:48. Sun already supports Solaris and Linux. Sun could support a JDK for OS X based on X. That would be far less work than what Apple does, but would give developers access to a current JDK on OS X. Login or register to post comments Why not both? Submitted by jwenting on Tue, 2007-10-30 11:28. where would it end though? Lots of AIX servers out there, and IBM is as slow as (or even slower than) Apple in providing new JVM/JDK versions. I'd venture to say that the economic impact of AIX JVMs is higher than that of Mac JVMs, so should Sun also provide for that? And there are many more OSs out there, like HP Ux. Login or register to post comments Why not both? Submitted by tompalmer on Tue, 2007-10-30 11:52. From a consumer perspective, Mac is an important platform. If developers can't count on Java being good enough there, then they'll need a different cross-platform technology. And alternatives exist (such as Flash or HTML or Silverlight). Or if not cross platform, then Microsoft has plenty of good client technology for Windows. Bad Java on Mac means Java isn't very useful all around. Login or register to post comments Why not both? Submitted by jwenting on Wed, 2007-10-31 01:22. consumers are hardly the market where Java is the most important. And even for consumers Mac is NOT an important platform. Outside some niche markets they have hardly any marketshare at all, and in those niches there's hardly any Java software. The 3 platforms Sun covers (Windows, Linux, and Solaris) cover probably around 90%+ of the end user market and 60-75% of the low/mid range server market. It would make far more sense for Sun to create AIX and OS/400 (or whatever IBM calls it these days) machines than it does for them to spend the same resources on creating MacOS VMs, as that would give them a far larger marketshare of the mid/high end server market for VMs which is more lucrative than the small niche where Apple operates. And serverside applications are FAR more important for Java than desktop stuff, no matter what the Netbeans team might think (and the Apple lovers who've never even heard of servers). Login or register to post comments Why not both? Submitted by tompalmer on Wed, 2007-10-31 07:13. I do server-side (not Java client) development for a living, though not on AIX and OS/400 and such like. So I don't know what the issues are there, even if I understand standard server issues pretty well. I'm just saying that Sun likes to claim Java as a cross-platform client solution, but it's not what it should be. If there's no money in it, then maybe Sun should just get out. Several other companies seem to find value in it (even if it's indirect). And the information I can gather shows more Mac than Linux users these days (maybe not among the Java crowd, but that's not the crowd that matters for these issues). Login or register to post comments Why not both? Submitted by tompalmer on Wed, 2007-10-31 11:17. Meaning, either Sun should commit to good consumer Java experience across the main consumer operating systems (Windows, Mac, Linux), or they aren't competitive with other options. Login or register to post comments Why not both? Submitted by jwenting on Thu, 2007-11-01 23:33. Mac OS is hardly a "main consumer operating system". A few graphics artists and photographers and some kids who are impressed into thinking they're "kewl" when they have a Mac (after all, it's from the guys that made the iPod, so it must make you popular) are the main users of Macs. They're a small minority, and not people who're likely to buy much software anyway (the graphics pros use Photoshop and not much else, the kids pirate everything). Login or register to post comments Sun? Submitted by linuxhippy on Fri, 2007-10-26 06:57. I don't see any reason why Sun would like to do Java for OSX themself. In fact Apple wants OSX to be a platform supported by java so they should do it (including the manpower and money to do it). Sun does not sell Apple hardware, so they won't do it, and also why should they do it? To help its competitor Apple? Login or register to post comments Sun? Submitted by samkass on Fri, 2007-10-26 07:52. The same argument could be made about Microsoft and Windows. The only difference is that in the past Apple was willing to take on this responsibility. Since they seem to drop the ball with every single Java release, though, perhaps they're not really capable or willing. I think it undermines Sun and Java more than Apple when Apple doesn't have a release of Java ready for the better part of a year after its release on other platforms-- therefore it's in Sun's interest to do the release themselves. Login or register to post comments Sun? Submitted by swpalmer on Fri, 2007-10-26 11:43. Apple integrates Java as part of the OS. It lags because it in linked to OS X releases. Apple presumably uses the most recent APIs available in the OS when integrating Java. They do the port and offer Java as a standard component that is supported through Software Update. If Microsoft was doing the same, would it still make sense for Sun to do the Windows port? Login or register to post comments Sun? Submitted by damnhandy on Fri, 2007-10-26 15:13. Actually, Java 6 is not in Leopard. It maybe released down the road, but no one knows for sure when and if Java 6 for Mac OS X will arrive. Ryan- Login or register to post comments Sun? Submitted by whartung on Fri, 2007-10-26 10:45. It is in Apples interest if they want to be considered in the enterprise space at all to support java. Companies are certainly diversifying their deployed platforms, but Java is the dominant player on the server side. WebObjects is already a Java program, so there's motivation to maintain Java on their platform. And Apples hardware is good, competitive hardware, and they offer value through their OS and management interfaces. So, basically, if Apple want to see their servers deployed for anything beyond basic unix services, they're going to need to support Java. And on the client side, they're driving Java developers away from the platform. Certainly not the largest chunk of their marketshare, but a lot of folks buy Macs for Java. And we Java using Mac users ARE becoming more disheartened by their slow response and lack of news. My Mac Pro will work with Solaris just fine, thanx, but I sure would rather run Leopard than Solaris. So, Apple, Don't make me use these! [Waving Solaris DVDs around wildly] Login or register to post comments Sun? Submitted by robilad on Fri, 2007-10-26 14:05. Going way off topic here, but ... you really don't want to deploy Apple's OS as a server for basic Unix services. Darwin as a server OS only makes sense if you are in an exclusive OS X environment, and you want to serve out AFP shares, or enable netbooting of OS X clients or similar shenanigans. For anything else, it's a waste of time and money, compared to what you get out of the box for free (and/or supported) from Sun, Red Hat, Canonical, Novell, etc. Login or register to post comments re: Sun? Submitted by invalidname on Fri, 2007-10-26 13:11. It is in Apples interest if they want to be considered in the enterprise space at all to support java.But what if they don't really care about the server side, beyond moving a few XServes to Mac shops? They've been plenty successful in the client and consumer electronics space, making them one of the most highly-valued tech companies today. Nobody complains about Sony or Matsushita not making servers, so why should we expect Apple to? Login or register to post comments re: Sun? Submitted by jwenting on Wed, 2007-10-31 22:49. correct. At the moment Macs are no longer core business for Apple (at least in volume and user awareness). More people associate Apple with iPods (and to a degree iPhones) than associate them with iMacs (some may know that Apple used to make a funky computer in the past that hardly anyone used because it didn't use DOS). If the current trend continues we might even see them silently getting out of the computer business, except maybe the iBooks (which are evolving more and more into overpriced throwaway "devices" much like everything else Apple seems to make these days). Login or register to post comments Sun? Submitted by robilad on Fri, 2007-10-26 08:26. I think there is a slight difference in market share between Windows and OS X, that explains why there is a couple of different third party implementations of JSE for Windows, and none for OS X. To put it more bluntly: If OS X mattered much on the server side of things, you'd see IBM & BEA porting their JVMs to it. It doesn't, though. Login or register to post comments