Open source vs closed source products on Java camp

September 14th, 2007

I just bumped into this

“Our customers, as well as the 750 organizations that downloaded our beta have spoken loud and clear: they want an open source, royalty free framework and engine that allows them to fully exploit the collaborative nature of the community and that does not lock them into a proprietary runtime,” said Byron Matheson, CEO of ClearNova. “We are confident that releasing the ThinkCAP JX framework as an open-source product will provide customers with the ability to realize the power of AJAX-enabled web applications as a better alternative to traditional client server business programs, while greatly accelerating adoption of ThinkCAP as the gold-standard for RAD platforms.”

Contrasting with Microsoft camp is quite disturbing. I can even imagine a similar statement from Scott Guthrie

“Our customers can’t and will not rely on something created collaboratively by the open source community. They need us to deliver something similar. Maybe better, possibly not. But will belong to Microsoft namespace, and that what counts to our customers.”

Microsoft is yet to realize the power of open source to improve and test their products in a large scale. Meanwhile Google’s GWT, Yahoo’s Hadoop, BEA’s Beehive, IBM’s xerces and xalan, leverage on the power of open source communities for quite some time. I only hope that when MS wake up for the 20th century it’s not too late. Afterall .net is a fantastic platform.

Categories: Java, OS | Top Of Page | 10 Comments » |

10 Responses to “Open source vs closed source products on Java camp”

Nate Kohari Says:

Not that I’m a Microsoft apologist, but I’m not sure that it’s really their fault. Was ScottGu was saying is that Microsoft’s *customers* remain distrustful of open-source. Perhaps it just comes down to Microsoft’s customers being more accustomed to the old ways of doing things, whereas ClearNova’s customers are prepared to embrace more modern ideas. I’m not saying that that’s a *good* thing, I’m just saying that it’s while it’s easy to blame Microsoft, their primary goal is (and should be) to serve their customers first.

hammett Says:

Or maybe that’s an excuse for the NIH antipattern. _If_ this culture really exists — I’m not sure — MS is not doing anything to change it.

Eber Irigoyen Says:

you’re talking to MS about large scale?

josh Says:

I hope there is a greater context for this from scottgu, as I was hoping he is helping change the old guard mentality at MS. Well, with that attitude Castle isn’t in much danger of a competing product from MS. They just won’t be able to keep up.

Man! I can’t tell you how frustrating that is.. I guess because I was hoping the recent technology roll outs, and cooperation with Mono on Moonlight were signs that MS was changing for the better.

Maybe its time to seriously look at Mono and Ruby/Rails. I’ve heard Castle runs on mono.

hammett Says:

josh, that wasn’t a quote from scottgu. I just extrapolate based on what I’ve read from MS’ position elsewhere.

josh Says:

I suppose if I read it more clearly, I would have figured out it was a summary statement and not a quote.

Rhywun Says:

Microsoft sells mostly to managers, and managers are not interested in taking chances.

Rick Donaldson Says:

I think you should make it clearer that that ‘statement’ is not actually a quote.

hammett Says:

“I can even imagine a similar statement from Scott Guthrie”

If that’s not clear enough, I don’t know what is.

Ayende Rahien Says:

You assume that people are actually reading the whole thing :-)
Mostly we just skim.
The thing that tipped me off was that it wasn’t corpo-speak enough.

Leave a Reply