Yes, the author has it correct. That IT organizations don't want an app delivered fast. They are slowly relearning that the app needs to meet/exceed specs and IT governance. It also has to be maintainable. What good is using Ruby if only .01% of 1% of the available developers know what Ruby is?

But the issue of Java going OpenSource is a moot point.

Open Source will have a minimal impact since most who use Java do not actually want or try to change the underlying code of Java.

I think I implied that none of this was particularly new at the end; but being "correct" is just about good enough for me :-)

FWIW, I agree with: "Open Source will have a minimal impact since most who use Java do not actually want or try to change the underlying code of Java".

The JCP has worked reasonably well so far and which professionals have time to waste mucking about with their system software, risking consequent maintenance overheads? And they'll probably buy their OSS from an organisation like SpikeSource, with a support package.

But OSS is about more than that. If you can see and own the code you can see how it works. This may help you address difficult bugs and security flaws yourself, in extremis, and you're not tied to a vendor upgrade agenda.

No, you often don't want to change the OSS code but knowing that you can, and can inspect it, brings a kind of comfort you don't get from proprietary software - at least, as I see it.