[clug] Why isn't Java popular on the Linux Desktop?

[Daniel Pittman]

Ben Coughlan <ben.coughlan at gmail.com> writes:

I edited your text to clarify what you are referring to at various points so
that, hopefully, a bit clearer for readers who find the discussion later.  If
you feel I misrepresent any of your positions with that, please say so.

> Overall I'd point out that [the OSGi and Maven distribution mechanism for
> Java code is] not trying to do all those things on an OS scale.  I'd liken
> it more to application level plugins, only _all_ the bits of the application
> are plugins.

*nod*  I don't quibble that: I just assert that it completely misses the point
of my complaints, which *are* about OS level distribution and management of
Java applications.

OSGi sounds nice, in the isolated universe of a single Java application.  It
doesn't sound so good if I want to manage two or three of them, let alone a
few dozen.  (...and at the scale of Debian, where they might want to
distribute literally hundreds of Java libraries and packages... nothing.)

> [The OSGi and Maven stack is] package management for a JVM.  Much like Java
> developers write code for the JVM, not a particular OS.

...yes, but.  Again, while the Java code is hopefully portable, it still needs
to be deployed and managed on production infrastructure — and "the JVM" isn't
a viable OS choice for production yet, eh.[1]

Many of my issues with Java come down to social, or "outside the JVM" issues,
because that is where the problems start.  Inside the JVM, and the
application, all is well.  Once you start trying to integrate, or deploy, or
manage these things the issues come back.

> Coming back to the original question [of why Java isn't used for desktop
> applications more often], I think Java gets a bad rap because people miss
> the idea that their applications will be running on the JVM not a particular
> OS.

...but the Java desktop application has to be at least aware of the underlying
platform, doesn't it?  Without that awareness, each Java application needs to
implement *everything* internally: not just the application, but all the
ancillary features that the OS and, especially, that the application software
provides outside it...

[...]

> Having recently had a discussion with my Managing Director about weather or
> not our next project should use .NET after some MS reps  offered piles of free
> stuff if we did, I'd like to point out that Sun  never campaigned that hard to
> lock developers in to using their  technologies.
>
> Anyway, I'm young and naive so I should probably stop trying to argue - the
> only thing I find more annoying than fanboys/girls is when I start acting
> like them myself.

Honestly, I am finding your perspectives intriguing, and your arguments well
formed and thought out.  I really appreciate your taking the time to talk to
me about this — even if I don't agree, I have learned a number of things from
you in the back-and-forth of the discussion.

Regards,
        Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaOS doesn't really count, what with being
     a dead project and all, I think.

-- 
✣ Daniel Pittman            ✉ daniel at rimspace.net            ☎ +61 401 155 707
               ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons