Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




What if Sun charge money for JDK?

VS.NET Enterprise Architect cost $2,399.99 at Amazon.

What if Sun charge money for JDK download at say $239.99?

0.  How will it slow jdk download rate at java.sun.com?  Perhaps to 10% of its current level?

1.  Will people stop contributing to JBoss, Tomcat e.t.c.?

2.  Will folks at SourceForge.net stop releasing new projects in Java and instead choose gcc or Perl or Python?

3.  How about companies like Borland, BEA who sell IDE, Application Servers e.t.c.?

Your opinion?

Amour Tan
Thursday, August 29, 2002

It might stop the home hacker playing around with it, but come on $239 to the company that is implementing say Websphere or BEA?  That amount would be laughable to them.

"We have this really nice IBM Risc box, but we can't afford the JDK, dammit, there goes our project"  I don't think so.

ryan ware
Thursday, August 29, 2002

Never underestimate the importance of the home hacker.

A language is only as good as the number of people who use it. 

People learn either at home, at work or in education.

Charging for the JDK would discourage not only Home, but also Education.  This would just leave work.

Whens the last time your employer allowed you to learn a new language on work time?

Ged Byrne
Thursday, August 29, 2002

If I had to pay for the JDK I would abandon Java and use C# .NET instead. Ok, I might have to pay for Visual Studio - although it's not really required - but at least I would know that I get good value. Microsoft's development tools are top notch and their documentation (API etc) tends to be pretty good too.

Patrick Ansari
Thursday, August 29, 2002

As for people who have used Java for a long time, I don't think this would change anything, really.

Patrick Ansari
Thursday, August 29, 2002

I just have to ask, what's the point of the question? Do you think Sun is likely to charge for the JDK, why would they do that? I could just as well ask "What if Microsoft give away .NET for free?". Certainly the amount of money you speculate about achieves nothing for Sun. All it would do would be to immediately piss off all Java developers without bringing in enough money to help Sun.

One thing though. Do you think there will grow up around .NET the same sort of open source community that Java has? If not, why not? If you have to pay so much for the development environment do you always thereafter expect to be paid for your code?

Alex Moffat
Thursday, August 29, 2002

> Do you think there will grow up around .NET the same sort
> of open source community that Java has?

Depends purely on Mono.

I don't get why Sun would do this either.  They're in the position of trying to deal with one monopolist per hostile platform, a bunch of smaller competitors, and a serious bunch of legacy code.  It would alienate (further!) all their opensource friends who increase the value of Java.

Is anyone planning on mind-controlling McNealy so Sun can commit suicide?  Is that you, Bill?

anon
Thursday, August 29, 2002

You can get .NET for free if you're willing to do all of your development in Notepad, or buy some other IDE.  When you download the .NET Framework SDK (for free) from Microsoft, you get the VB.NET and C#.NET compilers, as well as the SDK tools like the IL Disassembler. 

Visual Studio is an add-on project that supports .NET development, but is not required.  You are paying for the convenience of the IDE, not the basic compiler and runtime support.

Craig
Thursday, August 29, 2002

[One thing though. Do you think there will grow up around .NET the same sort of open source community that Java has?]

There seems to be a growing number of c# developers devoted to opensource. Just take a look at: http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=271

Open source is not restricted to non ms developers. I don't need VS.Net to build an application and have done quite a lot of .Net work without ever opening Visual Studio. All one needs is a decent editor and a good build tool like nant. There are open source IDEs that support c# if you prefer to use an IDE.

Ian Stallings
Thursday, August 29, 2002

I think comparing JDK to VS .NET is a little unfair. You could compare it to the .NET Framework, which (as has already been mentioned) you can download for free and lets you compile C# and VB.NET programs, but doesn't have any IDE.

Most serious Java developers use an IDE. Some pay for them, some use freeware ones. The situation with .NET is more or less the same. You can download it, but most serious developers are going to want an IDE. Microsoft would obviously prefer you to buy theirs, but there's nothing to stop someone developing an open source GPL one.

If Sun want to make money from developers, they could take a leaf out of Microsoft's book, and work on premium development tools. If the tools are good enough, developers will come flocking to buy them.

Finally it's worth point out that the Enterprise Architect edition has a lot more than just Visual Studio in the box. There's also a lot of other stuff like developer editions of most of the Microsoft server products and design tools like Visio. There is a more basic edition with a significantly lower price tag.

James

James Shields
Thursday, August 29, 2002

Charging $239 would be worse than charging nothing or $2300. By charging nothing, it leaves the value up in the air. People know it has some value but don't know if it's $1000 or $10,000. By charging $239 they leave no doubts that the product is virtually worthless.

pb
Thursday, August 29, 2002

Do you think that the .Net framework will remain free, once .Net is established.

Going on past form, I think not.

Microsoft made PWS free of charge, so that people could get up an running quickly.

No however, Microsoft seem to deliberately block the installation of PWS with some versions of Windows:

http://www.w3schools.com/asp/asp_install.asp

The fact that copying dlls solves the problem makes me feel that the blocking of PWS is deliberate.

I reckon Microsoft will pull a similar trick with the .Net framework, with obtaining it becoming increasingly difficult, and no updates.

Ged Byrne
Thursday, August 29, 2002

The fact that microsoft is supporting the development of an OPEN SOURCE dotnet implementation (FOR LINUX) makes me think that they will continue to release the core compilers and SDK for free, while making the majority of the money of support tools etc.  Otherwise they're asking for it.

Vincent Marquez
Thursday, August 29, 2002

Bad analogy. The .NET framework is a lot closer to the Platform SDK than to PWS. And the Platform SDK is free, always has been. And always will be.

The fastest way to kill a platform is to put up barriers to entry. Having to spend money before you can even TRY the platform is one of the biggest barriers. That's why the platform SDK is free. That's why the .NET SDK is free. That's why the Java SDK is free.

Chris Tavares
Thursday, August 29, 2002

Ged said:
"...No however, Microsoft seem to deliberately block the installation of PWS with some versions of Windows:
http://www.w3schools.com/asp/asp_install.asp"

Huh??? So requiring the installation of the Option Pack is some sort of nefarious ploy on Microsoft's part???

(bloody conspiracy theorists :-) )

Dunc
Thursday, August 29, 2002

Oh yea - just saw that there is jiggery pokery involved with WinME... anyway I doubt if it was intentional on MS's part, otherwise why would they include IIS their subsequent operating system: Windows XP?

Dunc
Thursday, August 29, 2002

It's all a MS ploy to take your attention away from the superior web server - PWS.

puh lease. If you've ever used it you know its crap, lets just let that one die. And move to a NT kernel for bird's sake, any self respecting developer wouldn't be caught dead on a 9x kernel. I use 9x to test to make sure my apps work on those platforms, thats it, anymore exposure and I'd have to have my developer card revoked.

trollbooth
Thursday, August 29, 2002

Sun could charge $1000AU for the JDK and Id still download each release. I have paid more for MS Visual Studio !

I need/want to develop with Java so whats $1000AU in the scheme of things.

Regs

James Ladd
Thursday, August 29, 2002

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh??? So requiring the installation of the Option Pack is some sort of nefarious ploy on Microsoft's part???
-------------------------------------------------------------- Dunc

Please reread the link, to the instructions for ME and XP Home.

The option pack will only work for NT or 9x.  If you have ME or XP home, then you can't have PWS full stop - unless you do some hacking and copy DLLs from another system.

My point is that Microsoft will only offer items free as long as they have to gain market share, and not a moment longer.  You can't rely on continued support without having to pay out further down the road.


I know of students who had to develop ASP for an important assignment, and their tutors tell them install PWS.  Since they had a new machine with XP Home, PWS was out of the question.  Fortunately, they were able to persuade the tutor to accept PHP under the circumstances.

Ged Byrne
Thursday, August 29, 2002

The original comparison is flawed in more than one way. As many have pointed out, you could sort of compare the .NET SDK with the Sun JDK. Problem is that in the MS world most of the enterprise class middleware is in the OS itself, while on the Sun platform these are all extras.  So even with just the SDK you would have most "EE" features present.
Maybe the closest match in this respect could be comparing Visual C#.NET standard (about 100$) with something like Borland JBuilder 7 Enterprise Edition (about 3.000$).

Just me (Sir to you)
Friday, August 30, 2002

I do believe the exclusion of PWS like functionality in ME and XP Home is intentional: The intention here is more likely not to place the added security burden of maintaining a full-blown application server on the shoulders of a typical "home" user.

As for the students: They should complain that their faculty did not get them the software needed for their assignments. For a CS department the whole MS OS + development suites are virtualy free ( If I remember correctly the pricing is in the region of 500$ per year. That is for the whole of the dept., including computer classes and home use by both faculty and students).

Just me (Sir to you)
Friday, August 30, 2002

I still stand by my original point that while you can rely on Microsoft to produce top class software, you cannot rely on getting any of it for free.

Another example is the free CCE version of VB5.  Although still available.  It has not been upgraded and is now very difficult to find.

If you are planning to use C#, then expect to pay for it.  I don't think relying on the freely available command line version is wise.

Ged Byrne
Friday, August 30, 2002

[If you are planning to use C#, then expect to pay for it. I don't think relying on the freely available command line version is wise. ]

Why not? I can create any .Net app using just make and a text editor, so what makes that not wise? Do you think thr IDE is calling a special compiler or something? The VS.Net IDE wraps a lot of functionality into a GUI and also ties into the command line debugger. But MS distributes a free GUI debugger with the .Net SDK so that advantage is null. The most important thing the IDE can offer is the ability to create Windows Forms using drag and drop, a very important feature for app developers that require GUIs. But I create those same forms using just a text editor, solid unit tests, and a good build tool.  So please explain the specific disadvantages.

trollbooth
Friday, August 30, 2002

Long term you have no guarantees of continued support.

Ged Byrne
Friday, August 30, 2002

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home