>>I would wager that if IBM was the only company pushing Java, it would still succeed.
>>
>>Peter
>
>But how much of those sales are hardware and service, and how much is software? (I'm not arguing, just making a point). IBM didn't have the push to make its superior OS2 win out.

Peter here (also trying not to argue).

There is a big difference between marketing an operating system and using a language. If you don't have a viable number of developers developing apps for your OS, than you're pretty well dead. The Mac has stayed alive on the fanaticism of the people who love it and the fact that MS continued to support it with the MS Office suite. OS/2 sank beneath the required threshold. Linux is thriving because those folks don't give a rat's ass who is developing for it as long as they get to use it.

Languages are different. As long as Java apps run on Windows, it doesn't matter much whether 3% or 10% or 30% of developers are using it. Look at VFP: we're certainly below 3%. So a language can pick up adherents over a span of many years (or lose them).

My point about IBM being able to push Java alone may be overstating the case, but it's moot anyway. ALL of the big software/hardware giants (except for MS) are quite interested in Java. There is nothing that MS can do about that.

And there is synergy between Java and Linux. Say Linux reaches 25% of the desktop market, then a developer using Java has a 25% bigger market than a developer using VB. (Actually 33.3% bigger. :)

One of two things will happen: either Java will fade from sight completely within five years (very unlikely, IMHO) or Microsoft (which must stay at the forefront of software development) will pick it up again within that same timeframe.

Peter