I'm not sure what you're saying.

If you're calling into question the portability of Java, then I can run the same bytecode on Windows, Mac, Linux, the browser (in theory) and, with a little transpiling, my Android.

If you're saying that that priority of decision drivers is backward, then I disagree:

If you want to develop a Windows app you start by saying "I want to develop something on Windows because my clients/customers run Windows". Then you work out how to do it on Windows.

If you start out saying "I want to write an app that does X" then you have the freedom to choose what balance of priorities affect you, including whether or not portability matters.

I believe he's trying to criticize Java for being owned by Oracle. The implication appears to be that alternative implementations are just compatibility layers for Oracle's technology like WINE is for Windows.

(For the record, I don't particularly agree with this. It seems like you could level the same criticism at nearly any language that has one person or stable group controlling it — for example, you could just as validly call Rubinius "WINE for Ruby".)

Do the MRI people own Ruby trademarks and patents? Did they use them to torpedo a free Apache implementation of Ruby?

IIRC Harmony was scuttled primarily because of OpenJDK — Harmony's major corporate sponsor switched its support to OpenJDK, and shortly thereafter the Harmony committee unanimously agreed to put the project in the attic. I don't think Oracle ever actually went after Apache.

Nope. Oracle denied Harmony a TCK license, meaning they had no license to Java patents (and trademarks). IBM switched to OpenJDK because of this.

Bingo :)

> A language that has a choice of runtimes from a choice of vendors like Java?

At least historically it wasn't much of a choice and I wouldn't put it past Oracle to continue in this fashion.