Home » General (non-technical) » Eclipse Foundation » Open Komodo as "Eclipse-killer" ?
| Open Komodo as "Eclipse-killer" ? [message #49075] |
Sat, 08 September 2007 06:44  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: NOSPAMjfm84hd.gmail.com
http://www.activestate.com/openkomodo/
http://planet.mozilla.org/
Hi Eclipsers,
there's a new competitor for the Eclipse-framework. What do you think?
Komodo is a commercial closed-source IDE build on top of the Mozilla-stack
and made by a company named ActiveState. Now Komodo goes opensource like so
many other projects did before. If you can't sell your product then... sorry
just kidding. The new FOSS-project will be named "OpenKomodo". The goal of
OpenKomodo is building a new IDE-framework for C/C++, Javascript, Ruby,
Python and XUL on top of the Mozilla-application-stack aka XULRunner.
-----------------------------------
Now Mozilla has its own IDE-framework
-----------------------------------
Does the Mozilla-project need its own IDE-platform/framework? The
Eclipse-project, one of the biggest and most successfull
opensource-projects, already exists. Eclipse is not build on top of
XULRunner but on top of the JVM. Is that bad? Apparently yes. At least for
some of the Mozilla-contributors.
And Mozilla didn't adapt i.e. the Harmony-JVM but decided to brew their own
Tamarin-runtime which is guaranteed to be 100% Adobe (-vendor) Flash lockin
and off course 100% incompatible with any existing flavour of the JVM. For
Mozilla-lead-developer Brendan Eich our good ol' Java (TM) is... well some
sort of perversion if I re-read one of his blog-comments.
Enters "OpenKomodo", dedicated to be Mozilla's own IDE-framework which is
off-course competing i.e. against the Eclipse-project. Some of the
Mozilla-bloggers are enthusiasmated and planetmozilla is literally exploding
with plans and ideas concerning OpenKomodo. I'm somewhat able to understand
what causes such enthusiasm (* ) but...
-----------------------------------
How many IDE-frameworks does mankind really need?
-----------------------------------
Fragmentation and the all-dominating NIH-principle is the main problem of
all those different FOSS-communities. And maybe that's one of the main
reasons why Microsoft is what Microsoft is. Here is a citation from german
Dotnet-journal 2007/10 (slightly adapted but 100% correct translation)
"We evaluated Java for our purposes. Finally we choosed
the Microsoft .NET-framework. What we needed for our company
was a common, standarized IDE that all of our developers could use.
We found VS.NET with its team-capacities to be the perfect choice
for us.
(... why not Java?)
The fragmentation of the Java-IDE-space is just irritating.
This was one of the reasons why we went with Microsoft's technology.
You never get 2 Java-developers agreeing on the IDE to use
or agreeing on the framework to use.
Sounds like (FUD) written by a Microsoft-marketing-person. That's what I
thought when reading it.
But that's damned good FUD! And maybe it is not written by MSFT's marketing
and it is really an opinion that many companies share? In that case I'm
somewhat able to "understand" that company's decision in the same way that I
understand Mozilla's enthusiasm about "finally having our own
IDE-framework".
-----------------------------------
Why doesn't Mozilla support the Eclipse-project?
-----------------------------------
Eclipse has support by the whole industry but who the heck is ActiveState,
the company behind OpenKomodo? That's nothing but a small company with a
handfull of developers. That company tries to save their business by
opensourcing the beast. ActiveState is neither IBM neither Oracle neither
anything else represented in the Eclipse-consortium
Be sure that the german company that choosed Microsoft will never choose
something like OpenKomodo. Never! Even not in your wildest dreams. That's
what the FOSS-communities get by strictly implementing the NIH-principle.
They get Microsoft instead of freedom, choice, democracy and whatever
honourable principles!
But then why should anyone care, right? FOSS-projects exist for making their
own communities happy... not for making companies happy. Why should we care
if company xyz uses our IDE? It's ours... we have our own baby... and that's
much more important then anything else. And off course software is free and
open and democratic so we need no stinking companies making evil stinking
money with software.
Oh wait... who will pay the Komodo-developers now who obviously won't work
for free? Where's the money for ActiveState, the company? Do you really
think that one single developer will buy the commercial ActiveState-IDE? Not
in your wildest dream.
SO WHY IN THE HELL DOES MOZILLA NEED ITS OWN IDE-FRAMEWORK?
(*)
The "enthusiasm" about OpenKomodo is essentially caused by a bunch of
ActiveState-employees whose blogs have been added to planetmozilla. And they
want to create hype about the OpenKomodo-project. That's what everybody is
doing and that's the way how marketing is done these days. Blogs have
degenerated to become pur marketing-instruments.
Sun is flooding the Java-blogosphere with its different and soon incountable
blog-aggretors like java.net, aquarium, planetnetbeans and whatsoever. And
off-course the Eclipse-bloggers do the same. Naahhh... can't be. Eclipse is
a charity-organization and there are only good guys (TM) on eclipse.org.
They aren't evil like Sun or ActiveState. And they like little Ponys and the
Firefox-browser.
|
|
|
| Re: Open Komodo as "Eclipse-killer" ? [message #49106 is a reply to message #49075] |
Sat, 08 September 2007 12:25  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: merks.ca.ibm.com
J.F.,
You write an interesting and amusing tale. I doubt many of us will
start worrying about Komodo any time soon though. Besides, until now I
thought a Komodo was a big lizard with teeth so bacteria ridden that a
single bite could cause fatal festering sores and if I didn't hang out
on certain isolated islands, I wouldn't need to worry about them at
all. Unfortunately for you readers I feel a rant coming on as a result
of reading this post, so please don't feel compelled to read further! :-p
One of the main problems I see in the software industry as a whole is
that it generates "solutions" of a transient nature at a rate that far
exceeds their uptake and at complexity levels that boggle the best of
human minds. Why should anyone invest is using technology that is bound
to be replaced with something new and improved in just a few years? By
the time a big organization gets itself fully onto any modern technology
stack, the stack will have moved on to comply with the latest buzzword.
After all, if you don't have a service oriented architecture that's
standards compliant and fully Web 2.0 enabled, you've got crap and you
need to start over immediately! Time to retrain all your staff and buy
new tools (if they're not free), none of which will run on your crappy
old hardware so you might as well buy new hardware while your at it.
Java starts out being the solution for building web-based GUIs, then it
turned out to be better for building stand-alone GUIs, either native or
native-looking; but wait, those web-based GUIs are really a panacea
after all. Oh really? I'm pretty sure many have noticed the rinse,
lather, repeat aspect to all this and are choosing to skip washing their
hair for a day or two while the latest awesome shampoo is being
engineered to a more refined state of perfection. Then our hair is
bound to be noticeably cleaner and shiner than ever before! Even our
standards processes typically end up putting the cart before the horse.
Instead of innovating and then standardizing, we often end up stifling
innovation by standardizing poorly understood technology so that all
vendors will provide equally inadequate solutions ensuring that the
cycle will start anew...
For all these reasons, I love Eclipse. The horse is out in front
pulling the cart forward at a steady predictable pace generating value
as it goes. People can trust that even if the horse croaks, another
horse can take it's place. Someone once said to me "We use Eclipse
(and EMF) because we need to build software that will last the fifty
year lifetime of the air planes we build." I thought that was very eye
opening. Is there a commercial vendor you can trust not to replace the
software you rely on with something new and incompatible, err, I mean
improved, less than every five years? Can you step in and take over
their software if necessary? In contrast, Eclipse is an open community
and if the community isn't providing the service you need, you can step
in to provide self service. In this way, a diverse community with drive
and initiative can always accomplish its goals. It's an irresistible
force...
J.F. Martens wrote:
> http://www.activestate.com/openkomodo/
> http://planet.mozilla.org/
>
>
> Hi Eclipsers,
>
> there's a new competitor for the Eclipse-framework. What do you think?
>
> Komodo is a commercial closed-source IDE build on top of the Mozilla-stack
> and made by a company named ActiveState. Now Komodo goes opensource like so
> many other projects did before. If you can't sell your product then... sorry
> just kidding. The new FOSS-project will be named "OpenKomodo". The goal of
> OpenKomodo is building a new IDE-framework for C/C++, Javascript, Ruby,
> Python and XUL on top of the Mozilla-application-stack aka XULRunner.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Now Mozilla has its own IDE-framework
> -----------------------------------
>
> Does the Mozilla-project need its own IDE-platform/framework? The
> Eclipse-project, one of the biggest and most successfull
> opensource-projects, already exists. Eclipse is not build on top of
> XULRunner but on top of the JVM. Is that bad? Apparently yes. At least for
> some of the Mozilla-contributors.
>
> And Mozilla didn't adapt i.e. the Harmony-JVM but decided to brew their own
> Tamarin-runtime which is guaranteed to be 100% Adobe (-vendor) Flash lockin
> and off course 100% incompatible with any existing flavour of the JVM. For
> Mozilla-lead-developer Brendan Eich our good ol' Java (TM) is... well some
> sort of perversion if I re-read one of his blog-comments.
>
> Enters "OpenKomodo", dedicated to be Mozilla's own IDE-framework which is
> off-course competing i.e. against the Eclipse-project. Some of the
> Mozilla-bloggers are enthusiasmated and planetmozilla is literally exploding
> with plans and ideas concerning OpenKomodo. I'm somewhat able to understand
> what causes such enthusiasm (* ) but...
>
> -----------------------------------
> How many IDE-frameworks does mankind really need?
> -----------------------------------
>
> Fragmentation and the all-dominating NIH-principle is the main problem of
> all those different FOSS-communities. And maybe that's one of the main
> reasons why Microsoft is what Microsoft is. Here is a citation from german
> Dotnet-journal 2007/10 (slightly adapted but 100% correct translation)
>
> "We evaluated Java for our purposes. Finally we choosed
> the Microsoft .NET-framework. What we needed for our company
> was a common, standarized IDE that all of our developers could use.
> We found VS.NET with its team-capacities to be the perfect choice
> for us.
>
> (... why not Java?)
> The fragmentation of the Java-IDE-space is just irritating.
> This was one of the reasons why we went with Microsoft's technology.
> You never get 2 Java-developers agreeing on the IDE to use
> or agreeing on the framework to use.
>
> Sounds like (FUD) written by a Microsoft-marketing-person. That's what I
> thought when reading it.
>
> But that's damned good FUD! And maybe it is not written by MSFT's marketing
> and it is really an opinion that many companies share? In that case I'm
> somewhat able to "understand" that company's decision in the same way that I
> understand Mozilla's enthusiasm about "finally having our own
> IDE-framework".
>
> -----------------------------------
> Why doesn't Mozilla support the Eclipse-project?
> -----------------------------------
>
> Eclipse has support by the whole industry but who the heck is ActiveState,
> the company behind OpenKomodo? That's nothing but a small company with a
> handfull of developers. That company tries to save their business by
> opensourcing the beast. ActiveState is neither IBM neither Oracle neither
> anything else represented in the Eclipse-consortium
>
> Be sure that the german company that choosed Microsoft will never choose
> something like OpenKomodo. Never! Even not in your wildest dreams. That's
> what the FOSS-communities get by strictly implementing the NIH-principle.
> They get Microsoft instead of freedom, choice, democracy and whatever
> honourable principles!
>
> But then why should anyone care, right? FOSS-projects exist for making their
> own communities happy... not for making companies happy. Why should we care
> if company xyz uses our IDE? It's ours... we have our own baby... and that's
> much more important then anything else. And off course software is free and
> open and democratic so we need no stinking companies making evil stinking
> money with software.
>
> Oh wait... who will pay the Komodo-developers now who obviously won't work
> for free? Where's the money for ActiveState, the company? Do you really
> think that one single developer will buy the commercial ActiveState-IDE? Not
> in your wildest dream.
>
> SO WHY IN THE HELL DOES MOZILLA NEED ITS OWN IDE-FRAMEWORK?
>
> (*)
>
> The "enthusiasm" about OpenKomodo is essentially caused by a bunch of
> ActiveState-employees whose blogs have been added to planetmozilla. And they
> want to create hype about the OpenKomodo-project. That's what everybody is
> doing and that's the way how marketing is done these days. Blogs have
> degenerated to become pur marketing-instruments.
>
> Sun is flooding the Java-blogosphere with its different and soon incountable
> blog-aggretors like java.net, aquarium, planetnetbeans and whatsoever. And
> off-course the Eclipse-bloggers do the same. Naahhh... can't be. Eclipse is
> a charity-organization and there are only good guys (TM) on eclipse.org.
> They aren't evil like Sun or ActiveState. And they like little Ponys and the
> Firefox-browser.
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Open Komodo as "Eclipse-killer" ? [message #49162 is a reply to message #49075] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 15:50 |
 Philippe Ombredanne
Messages: 386
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
"J.F. Martens" <NOSPAMjfm84hd@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbtgee$jvu$1@build.eclipse.org...
> http://www.activestate.com/openkomodo/
> http://planet.mozilla.org/
>The goal of
> OpenKomodo is building a new IDE-framework for C/C++, Javascript, Ruby,
> Python and XUL on top of the Mozilla-application-stack aka XULRunner.
That is an awesome news for eclipse.
We have been early adopters of Xulrunner (in the ATf project project and now
with built-in platform support).
In fact some of the Eclipse committers are also Mozilla contributors and
have been instrumental to keep Xulrunner afloat, at a time whne it is direly
needing help, for instance with contributed builds and important pathes, as
well as contributing and leading teh JavaXPCOM efforts.
Komodo is a cool technology, and bringing it to Xulrunner make it available
for integration in Eclipse too, yieldding even better tools and awesome
combination capabilities.
It is alos a great news for Xulrunner which was badly lacking major open
source adopters beside Eclipse.
--
Cheers, Philippe
philippe ombredanne | nexB
1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
http://www.nexb.com
http://EasyEclipse.org
http://eclipse.org/atf
>
> Hi Eclipsers,
>
> there's a new competitor for the Eclipse-framework. What do you think?
>
> Komodo is a commercial closed-source IDE build on top of the Mozilla-stack
> and made by a company named ActiveState. Now Komodo goes opensource like
so
> many other projects did before. If you can't sell your product then...
sorry
> just kidding. The new FOSS-project will be named "OpenKomodo". The goal of
> OpenKomodo is building a new IDE-framework for C/C++, Javascript, Ruby,
> Python and XUL on top of the Mozilla-application-stack aka XULRunner.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Now Mozilla has its own IDE-framework
> -----------------------------------
>
> Does the Mozilla-project need its own IDE-platform/framework? The
> Eclipse-project, one of the biggest and most successfull
> opensource-projects, already exists. Eclipse is not build on top of
> XULRunner but on top of the JVM. Is that bad? Apparently yes. At least for
> some of the Mozilla-contributors.
>
> And Mozilla didn't adapt i.e. the Harmony-JVM but decided to brew their
own
> Tamarin-runtime which is guaranteed to be 100% Adobe (-vendor) Flash
lockin
> and off course 100% incompatible with any existing flavour of the JVM. For
> Mozilla-lead-developer Brendan Eich our good ol' Java (TM) is... well some
> sort of perversion if I re-read one of his blog-comments.
>
> Enters "OpenKomodo", dedicated to be Mozilla's own IDE-framework which is
> off-course competing i.e. against the Eclipse-project. Some of the
> Mozilla-bloggers are enthusiasmated and planetmozilla is literally
exploding
> with plans and ideas concerning OpenKomodo. I'm somewhat able to
understand
> what causes such enthusiasm (* ) but...
>
> -----------------------------------
> How many IDE-frameworks does mankind really need?
> -----------------------------------
>
> Fragmentation and the all-dominating NIH-principle is the main problem of
> all those different FOSS-communities. And maybe that's one of the main
> reasons why Microsoft is what Microsoft is. Here is a citation from german
> Dotnet-journal 2007/10 (slightly adapted but 100% correct translation)
>
> "We evaluated Java for our purposes. Finally we choosed
> the Microsoft .NET-framework. What we needed for our company
> was a common, standarized IDE that all of our developers could use.
> We found VS.NET with its team-capacities to be the perfect choice
> for us.
>
> (... why not Java?)
> The fragmentation of the Java-IDE-space is just irritating.
> This was one of the reasons why we went with Microsoft's technology.
> You never get 2 Java-developers agreeing on the IDE to use
> or agreeing on the framework to use.
>
> Sounds like (FUD) written by a Microsoft-marketing-person. That's what I
> thought when reading it.
>
> But that's damned good FUD! And maybe it is not written by MSFT's
marketing
> and it is really an opinion that many companies share? In that case I'm
> somewhat able to "understand" that company's decision in the same way that
I
> understand Mozilla's enthusiasm about "finally having our own
> IDE-framework".
>
> -----------------------------------
> Why doesn't Mozilla support the Eclipse-project?
> -----------------------------------
>
> Eclipse has support by the whole industry but who the heck is ActiveState,
> the company behind OpenKomodo? That's nothing but a small company with a
> handfull of developers. That company tries to save their business by
> opensourcing the beast. ActiveState is neither IBM neither Oracle neither
> anything else represented in the Eclipse-consortium
>
> Be sure that the german company that choosed Microsoft will never choose
> something like OpenKomodo. Never! Even not in your wildest dreams. That's
> what the FOSS-communities get by strictly implementing the NIH-principle.
> They get Microsoft instead of freedom, choice, democracy and whatever
> honourable principles!
>
> But then why should anyone care, right? FOSS-projects exist for making
their
> own communities happy... not for making companies happy. Why should we
care
> if company xyz uses our IDE? It's ours... we have our own baby... and
that's
> much more important then anything else. And off course software is free
and
> open and democratic so we need no stinking companies making evil stinking
> money with software.
>
> Oh wait... who will pay the Komodo-developers now who obviously won't work
> for free? Where's the money for ActiveState, the company? Do you really
> think that one single developer will buy the commercial ActiveState-IDE?
Not
> in your wildest dream.
>
> SO WHY IN THE HELL DOES MOZILLA NEED ITS OWN IDE-FRAMEWORK?
>
> (*)
>
> The "enthusiasm" about OpenKomodo is essentially caused by a bunch of
> ActiveState-employees whose blogs have been added to planetmozilla. And
they
> want to create hype about the OpenKomodo-project. That's what everybody is
> doing and that's the way how marketing is done these days. Blogs have
> degenerated to become pur marketing-instruments.
>
> Sun is flooding the Java-blogosphere with its different and soon
incountable
> blog-aggretors like java.net, aquarium, planetnetbeans and whatsoever. And
> off-course the Eclipse-bloggers do the same. Naahhh... can't be. Eclipse
is
> a charity-organization and there are only good guys (TM) on eclipse.org.
> They aren't evil like Sun or ActiveState. And they like little Ponys and
the
> Firefox-browser.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Open Komodo as "Eclipse-killer" ? [message #49275 is a reply to message #49106] |
Fri, 14 September 2007 15:29 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: joerg.von.frantzius.artnology.com
Ed Merks schrieb:
> croaks, another horse can take it's place. Someone once said to me
> "We use Eclipse (and EMF) because we need to build software that will
> last the fifty year lifetime of the air planes we build." I thought
> that was very eye opening. Is there a commercial vendor you can trust
> not to
Now *that* would make a great quote for anyone trying to sell Eclipse or
EMF based technology. Would the person saying that mind being quoted
officially?
|
|
|
| Re: Open Komodo as "Eclipse-killer" ? [message #49285 is a reply to message #49275] |
Fri, 14 September 2007 16:47 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: merks.ca.ibm.com
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070705020701090408050109
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
J
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 26 02:34:11 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03196 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
