El futuro de Java II

SD Times se ocupa también del futuro de Java, destacando la gran diferencia entre los modelos de negocios de Oracle y Sun, y cómo impactaría ésto en el movimiento Open Source. Lateralmente, en el mismo artículo, el editorial elogia la mayor apertura y alcance de Visual Studio 2010, ¿proponen una migración de herramientas?
Lo principal:

Gosling's departure is symbolic. It is indicative of the fundamental differences between the different approaches—and priorities—of Sun and Oracle. Oracle exists to sell expensive software, expensive hardware and expensive services. On the software side, Oracle’s products are huge databases, high-end application servers and costly business-management systems. Java represents a rounding error.

Make no mistake: Oracle is not “the Java company,” as Sun so greedily termed itself. Sun changed its stock symbol from SUNW (for Sun Workstations) to JAVA to send a message that its business was open-source software. Don’t expect Oracle to do the same; it is ORCL, a company that views open source as important, but not as its business model.

Oracle understands that Sun never made money for all of its work with Java. Despite 15 years of solid investment and feverish evangelism of open-source software, Sun was, at its heart, a hardware company. Sun’s ownership Java convinced few IT managers to buy Sun servers. And Oracle’s ownership of Java, while important, won’t convince corporate executives to buy Oracle’s databases.

We expect Oracle to continue evolving Java in a pragmatic, Oracle-centric fashion. Nobody should be surprised that in that type of environment, there was no room for James Gosling, the father and de facto chief evangelist of the Java programming language.