Posted by
Hemos
on from the will-it-even-matter dept.
jilles writes "I found this article at infoworld. Apparently some company executive of Sun was caught saying that SUN Microsystems is moving toward making its Java technology fully open-source."
Sun wants everyone to use Java on every platform - without putting forth the effort to port it to every platform themselves. But more importantly, they want everyone to use their compiler/runtime/etc
Can you clarify these statements? They seem to contradict eachother. If Sun truely wants everyone to use their compiler/runtime/etc, how can they not port it to every platform on their own?
import com.mon-sense.Grain_of_salt;
...
Grain_of_salt grain = new Grain_of_salt(HUGE);
The guys context of the phrase "open source" is completely off in the article. He keeps refereing to it as though it were a product, not a mode of release.
"We're not adverse to full open source [for Java]. It's really what is the right model for that open source and where that model is for that life cycle," Paolini said.
...
"I can say that open source for Java is our goal."
...
"We've really taken a simple program language to a platform very quickly."
Come on folks! This sounds like a script that seeds press-releases with the latest buzzword. This guy seems to not understand what 'open source' means, and by the last comment, seems to be a little confused about Java - the language, and the JVM as a concept.
Either that or he was only talking to a bunch of know-nothing MBA's.
The REAL jabber has the/. user id: 13196
--
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Re:The PR droid speaks?
by
~MegamanX~
·
· Score: 1
At least, follow the Java standards:
import com.mon-sense.GrainOfSalt;
GrainOfSalt grain = new GrainOfSalt( GrainOfSalt.HUGE );
;)
<RANT target='not the parent poster'>
People are never happy. They want people to know about the open source community, but now that we see it more, it's always company X is kissing open source butt. It goes as far in some comments as bitching against StarOffice open becoming open source.
And stop believing that because Quake3 or UT could not be efficient under a jvm, java is a useless pile of hype, because it is not true. Go learn Java, it IS nice.
</RANT>
phobos% cat.sig
-- phobos% cat.sig
cat:.sig: No such file or directory
Re:Correct me if I am wrong...
by
bolthole
·
· Score: 1
"Incorporating it into the OS" does NOT magically give you performance enhancements.
What improves performance.. is performance enhancements.
For example, converting the wonderfully portable but wasteful system class zip/jars, into shared libraries. If you're REALLY clever, you would put them into the library in an already initialized state.
This would then be OS-dependant, AND JVM dependant. But think of the startup gain, not to mention the memory savings on multiple java invokations!
Heck, a really good jvm would create $HOME/.class-cache, and do the conversion automatically, for system classes.
Anyone else find this amusing?
by
Pimpy
·
· Score: 1
Shortly after IBM announces they're just about ready to fully open java to the outside world, Sun then announces they're planning to do the same thing. This is most amusing in that when they were busy threatening IBM with legal action a month or so ago they obviously had no intention of opening it up, and since they couldn't sue IBM for it they're suddenly trying to look like the good guy. Some companies never change.
Re:I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
int69h
·
· Score: 1
Request 1: Write a compiler that targets outputs java byte code rather than native instructions.
Request 2: While it's not ADA, Apple is doing exactly that with their Objective C bridge in Mac OSX. You can use native classes from within a Java class and vice-versa. I'm assuming something similiar could be done with ADA.
Note: My knowledge of ADA is very limited. I have a single book that I purchased and skimmed over a few pages in. I felt it wasn't worth learning as I don't ever intend to code for the US military. Not that knowing ADA is a prerequisite for that anymore anyways.
The Java class loader verifies the bytecode.
by
yerricde
·
· Score: 2
The Java class loader has to make sure that the stream of bytecode is valid Java bytecode (no illegal instructions, no stack underflows or overflows, etc.) for security reasons.
Do you really think Microsoft would fork a GPL implementation and open source their improvements?
Yes.
If they did, would that really be so bad?
Yes.
Realize that everything Microsoft does is to maintain their Windows franchise. So I can easily imagine them forking the code in such a way that it only runs on Windows. Then include it with the default Windows install. And change Windows so other versions don't work or work poorly. And there would be nothing to stop them from adding non-GPL'd extentions. Windows only of course.
Steve M
Re:Doesn't even understand own product
by
Jagasian
·
· Score: 1
Sun Microsystems has a history of showing their belief that their implementation of Java is THE implementation - THE Java. I have heard many Java fans say things along those lines: "No, not IBM's version, I am talking about the real Java" (quote of a fan in reference to Sun Microsystem's implementation of Java).
So the Sun exec does understand his product, but in a very twisted and close minded way that many Sun Microsystems employees and followers subscribe to. I am not trying to troll. I am just stating what I have seen in the "Java community".
I wouldn't be surprised if they actually considered their implementation to be their specification of Java. There is something truely bizaar about the fanaticism that many of my peers seem to have for somebody else's programming language.
Just imagine if someone owned the English language. Imagine how happy writers would be... they wouldn't have to worry about someone slintering the language. Oh boy, they would love the restrictive grasp of the ownership around their profession.
Did they actually write the class loader in Java? It seems to me that you'd have to try hard to make it this slow.
In case someone hasn't already posted this, you can download the source from
http://www.sun.com/communitysource. Sorry if this is already common knowledge.
Interestingly, the virtual machine is written in C, not C++.
The class loading functionality (at least the low level parts of it) appears to be implemented by
src/share/javavm/runtime/classload.c.
Re:Doesn't even understand own product
by
Hast
·
· Score: 1
You mean the same way that this has happened to linux? I really hate the fact that we now have several hundreds of different incompatible kernels that all derive from linux! (Yes it's sarcasm.)
SUN have used "forking" as a rather lame excuse for quite a while now. Why would anyone want to use a different version of Java more than a different version of the linux kernel? If you make a program aimed at "IBM Java" you would lose a lot of customers, and then why use Java in the first place?
If used for the "good side" this could mean we get more integrated JVM's under our favourite OS's. Native support without hacking the kernel, etc etc.
SUN's current behaviour is slowing down Java's expansion rate. While this could be a benefit while you are still ironing out bugs, but I think Java is quite capable of standing now.
Personally what I like best about Java is to study some complicated aspect of programming, and then see the smart way they have made it easy in Java. There is a lot of really impressive engineering behind it.
C# is just too windows oriented
by
sips
·
· Score: 1
One of the major strengths of java was supposedly to have it not require porting and C# isn't there.
> Perhaps they don't want to be perceived as an
> "evil corporation"...
Yes, this is totally true. The big people in Sun really really really care if they're known as an "evil corporation" by/.ers.
Or, it might just make good business sense, and fit into Sun's vision of Open Computing, Dot in Dot com blah blah.
I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
slim
·
· Score: 5
I think Sun really did both Javas a disservice by giving them both the same name and marketing them as one thing.
Java, the object oriented programming language that's like C++ done right, is a very nice language to program in and deserves to do well. Note that you can/could compile Java source into any target language you like, from x86 machine code to Java bytecode.
Java, the portable bytecode and virtual machine technology is a very useful technology for the network age and is completely unrelated to the programming language. Note that you can/could compile any high level manguage you like to Java bytecode (especially if GCC supports it) from Eiffel to C to Ada to Java.
So, we're left wondering which of these, if any, or both, Sun plans to "open source"... --
Re:I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
totoro
·
· Score: 2
> How would I compile, say, Lisp into Java bytecode?
This is how.
Not much on Lisp, but quite a bit for Scheme.
There are also many other languages listed at that site that have been made to work inside of Java.
I know that JPython is very popular!
> How would I get Ada to access classes that were written in Java?
-- There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
Re:I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
novitk
·
· Score: 1
Vaporware!
Sure, I can even translate C into COBOL. But what the hell for? JVM bytecode is too high level to be practical for any pointer manipulating language.
Re:I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
Nailer
·
· Score: 1
You forgot ECMAscript, whiuch doesn't actually have anything to do with Java besides a nifty cross promotional marketing scheme.
Re:I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
jilles
·
· Score: 2
You forgot the third, IMHO most important, part of Java: the huge set of APIs and frameworks. Sure the language is nice, sure this cross platform VM is a nice gimmick but the API is what is responsible for the reduction in development time many developers are experiencing.
--
Jilles
Re:I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
slim
·
· Score: 2
BS! You can in fact write (and compile) code for JVM in Eiffel, Fortran, LISP, Visual Basic, Ada 95, Python, PERL, C, any language that GCC supports, and a whole slew of other languages.
In the future, keep your uninformed ramblings to yourself.
Eh? That's what I said. Which bit of "you can/could compile any high level manguage you like to Java bytecode (especially if GCC supports it)" didn't you understand?
Maybe you parsed "from Eiffel to C to Ada to Java" as three conversion stages, when what it actually means "encompassing a wide range of languages including Eiffel, C, Ada, Java and many more". My sloppy use of English idiom, perhaps... --
Re:I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
slim
·
· Score: 1
(sorry qnonsense; my score threshold made it look as if you were replying to me, and not to novitk's errnoeous post) --
Re:I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
goga
·
· Score: 1
> > How would I compile, say, Lisp into Java bytecode?
> This is how. Not much on Lisp, but quite a bit for >Scheme. There are also many other languages listed at > >that site that have been made to work inside of Java. I >know that JPython is very popular!
The trouble with JVM and Scheme is that the instruction set does not support tail recursive calls (required by Scheme and very important for any functional language). This makes complete implementation impossible.
.NET has it. What a shame -- Gosling has a Lisp background and ought to have known better.
Re:I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
qnonsense
·
· Score: 1
not a problem.
-- There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
Re:I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
yellowstone
·
· Score: 1
So, we're left wondering which of [Java the Language and Java bytecode/JVM], if any, or both, Sun plans to "open source"...
The language and the bytecode are already open, in the sense that you are free to create an open source compiler and JVM (c.f. kaffe.org for an effort already well underway).
The software Sun makes available for download, OTOH, is most definitely not Open Source (at least, not yet).
-y
-- 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
Re:I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
On+Lawn
·
· Score: 2
Okay slashdotters time to earn your keep in a sponaneous hacker elite contest.
How would I compile, say, Lisp into Java bytecode? How would I get Ada to access classes that were written in Java?
The winner gets to overthrow/undermine.NET
Re:Wow -- watch those $$$ fly!
by
rabababoa
·
· Score: 1
wrong topic:)
this isnt going to go over well with the moderation gods hehe
And idea whose time has come
by
Aerosiecki
·
· Score: 1
In all fairness, GOD am I glad this may happen.
It always seemed likely that Java should go open source, since the language itself is sort of a forced-open source language. (I'm referring to the extreme ease with which you can decompile Java, and trust me, even if it's been decompile-proofed, it's a snap).
Also, as someone who has worked with Java for nearly 4 years now, if you follow the Java community at all, you know that the main gripes people have are platform support, and bug fixes. The Sun Java Bug Parade and RFE lists have thousands of votes for fixes and enhancements. Imagine if instead of people just telling them what was wrong, people were sending sun fixes, or revisions.
This will also help platform support. Java's strength is it's run-anywhere ability. But as of now, there just aren't THAT many VMs available. If that changes, Java could surge in popularity with the platforms that don't get so much software written for them.
Re:If they don't want it to fork
by
Evil+Grinn
·
· Score: 1
If they really decide it's in the best interest of Java® to have libraries like
import java.win32api.*;
then, by all means, let them!
What's to stop them now?
They should probably be more like
com.microsoft.win32api or something.
They can't claim this to be an intrinsic part of Java, of course.
"'We're not adverse to full open source [for Java.] It's really what is the right model for that open source and where that model is for that life cycle,' Pailini said."
I think I speak for most of us when I say, "Huh?"
A decrease in size and possible kaffe improvement
by
sips
·
· Score: 3
I think that kaffe would really benefit from this. Last I checked they hadn't updated their program for quite a while.
Also improvements in memory waste of the JVM and sheer size would be greatly appreciated.
But seriously folks, Sun, whatever their motivation, is going in the right direction. Support them. Few believed them when they said they would open soffice, but they did. Let's give them some props.
Re:Correct me if I am wrong...
by
Edward+Teach
·
· Score: 1
I don't see a problem with this on an OS Level. As long as the source code level remained OS independent, the JVM and class libraries could be implemented in any way on the OS. The problem comes when one sub-classes a standard or extended Java class. Remember the JVM is already OS dependent.
If the shared library were for core functionality and any sub-classes scope were confined to the instance that created them, no problem. Since it is the JVM that handles dynamic class loading, this approach is feasible and WITHOUT having to recompile the.class files, which is the ultimate goal.
The JVM would have to be rewritten to be able to recognize that the java.* and javax.* packages are all shared libraries and that all other packages and classes are dynamic. Or, make it a JVM option. This might not improve memory usage because when classes are loaded dynamically, the JVM has to dynamically instanciate the super classes as well. Each instance of a class would have its own heirachy in memory. It would improve the load process though because of the lack of disk hits needed to load up the core packages since the shared libraries only have to be loaded on the first hit. Another approach would be to have the.zip and.jar files on a RAM drive so that they would not have to endure the disk hit problem. Same effect but much less work. All of this, combined with the HotSpot comiler technology might make programming in Swing an option.
Of course, I could have completely missed the point.
--- This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine. ---
--
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on/.
The hell it isn't a fork of C++. The syntax is IDENTICAL. They took namespaces and called them "packages", removed pointers and called it a new langauge. Oh, and made it compile to bytecode so it would be slow as shit due to JVM overhead. What a great new language...
I've heard similar reports but I tend to among the doubtful. First off, I'm not even sure how one would go about "open-sourcing" Java since that would be blurring the line of specs and programs, and there really doesn't seem to be much argument there. That said, if the specs were modifiable, there would be some use to the ballyhoo. The second point to be made is related to Sun itself, and the high level of unlikeliness in that company releasing the entire source code. Any thoughts?
Sun is more likely now than ever before to move towards open sourcing Java. The competition has emerged: Microsoft CLR and C#. Like all Microsoft products, it sucks. Big time. But Sun knows that that's never stopped Microsoft from taking over a market before.
So now with Satan's Steamroller coming across the horizon, Sun has every incentive to open source Java. Soon, preferably. --
-- Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Re:Does this mean...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Yeah! And if the performance increase will be anything like the staggering speed-up of Mozilla, then.. umm.. oh wait..
What I would rather see is a flash-upgradable hardware implementation of the JVM, on a plug-in coprocessor card, using something like Transmeta's code-morphing technology to execute the Java byte-codes on the hardware level.
Forget hooking the JVM into the OS of the platform. Make the JVM the HARDWARE of the platform.
The REAL jabber has the/. user id: 13196
--
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
/. used to have the official Java logo, but sun threatened to sue or something so Rob changed it to what you see now. That's how much Sun wants to support the open source community.
IBM was about to do the same thing, but the/. community came up with the idea of using a blue brontosaurus for the image instead. Fortunately for Big Blue, they backed down and let us have the stupid image.
"There will be some magic point in the future I believe, where we'll reach critical mass. When we reach that point at Sun, you'll see us go to a much more open source,"...
I tought that there are 2 things : open source and close source. Much more open source ?? hmmm, what does that mean anyway ?
They are stalling with this Sun Community Source License scheme... Too bad, I like Java...
Part of staying an icon is having a vision and recognizing which way the market is flowwing long term. As has already been addressed by another post, being able to incorperate jvm functionality closer to the kernel would give it a bit of a kick in the pants (which is what MS did in the windows envirnoment sort of). But at a more intere$ting level, one of the growing fields is Training. Sun had already started getting its hand into this. If they are able to boost java's use, and they are seen as the defacto source for java instruction then they profit. Think about it. 12 people paying $2000 for a week's instruction. That is $24000 to cover the cost of a trainer, a site, and some sun nick-nacks. RedHat is diving into training as fast as they can (maybe too fast) because there is profit.
-- In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than
this, look for me there...
Re:What bit of 'Open Source' is missing?
by
Jason+Earl
·
· Score: 2
And that's the whole point. There is little question that Sun would still remain in control of an Open Source Java. Especially if this beast were released under a license like the GPL (which would give extraordinary powers to Sun, they could still release versions licensed under a closed-source license, but their competitors would not be able to do the same). If Sun released their source code they would almost certainly end up behind the steering wheel. The only difference would be that it would quiet the doubters. All of a sudden there would cease to be a reason to worry about Java's future. After all, if Sun were to screw up horribly, the Java community could right the ship.
Forks are evil, but if you base your future on software that you can't fork, you are at your vendor's mercy. If customers want that, they can stick with Microsoft and their solutions.
Besides, I want a decent Java2 JVM to be part of Debian main. In fact, I want all of the Linux distributions to ship with a Java2 JVM set up and ready to go. Running Java programs should be as straightforward under Linux as running programs written in C. The fact of the matter is that, in the Free Software world anyhow, Java isn't even as ubiquitous as Python, and it is no where near as universal as Perl, and that's Sun's fault, plain and simple.
Java could easily become the next lingua franca for programmers, replacing venerable C. But Sun's grasp is slowly squeezing the life out of it.
It's easy to say "we go open source", because that way you don't have to make a commitment. Now "we're releasing Java as Free software" - that would be a bold move.
Re:Correct me if I am wrong...
by
naasking
·
· Score: 1
Hey, if you want low-level Java, why don't you check out www.jos.org.
JOS is an effort to produce a full Java operating system for many architectures. I think the point is to load a JVM "kernel" at boot time and off you go.:-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
You're kidding me right? Some guy at Sun slips a comment about OSS and everybody is up in a OSS induced religious fury? Where's the hard evidence? It's not even a f*ing RUMOR! Its silly some of the stuff that makes it on Slashdot.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The entire caching mechanism is LGPL'ed, you can pull it down from http://traxel.com/oss/. The call is in the Cache.manageCacheSize() method. I consider it well timed because it occurs right after expired objects are removed from the cache. I'll have my email address up on the site soon, if you want to make changes use bobnospam@nospamtraxel.com.
I agree completely. I'd also like to see the JCK available to anyone and the Java Compatible(TM) certification opened up to VMs that don't contain any Sun code.
Java VMs are becoming a vital piece of computing infrastructure (for many organizations at least), so I think the industry would benefit from having multiple, independent, compatible implementations.
The one question I have: won't this make it entirely possible and legal for somebody to pull what Microsoft tried with their "J++"? Microsoft got slapped for that. But, suppose that Suns JVM was GPL'ed; that would make it difficult for them to license the spec and slap Microsoft the way they did for J++. Then suppose that Microsoft releases a J++, also GPL'ed to keep it legal, but so tied into the Windows API that it will effecitvely only ever work on Windows. Microsoft then pushes it, hard, making IE only work with J++, trying to get all Windows users out there to move to this polluted version of Java.
Cross platform Java dies. Sure, if J++ is open sourced, people can eventually create emulators that will let it run elsewhere, but I'd much rather have a Java that was designed from the beginning to be cross platform, wouldn't you?
Mind you, I know this is a Chicken Little scenario, but it *would* have been possible of JVM was open sourced all along, I believe. Nowadays, Microsoft is going to try to push C# to replace Java, so Sun is opening itself up less to people like MS by fully open sourcing Java.
--Rob
Re:If they don't want it to fork
by
pohl
·
· Score: 2
It's amazing what passes for "insightful" these days. First of all, if a license prevents forking then it doesn't meet the open source guidelines. Not only that, but the GPL is the license for gcc, the gnu objective-c runtime, and countless libraries. One memorable fork in recent time was the gnu/linux split for the standard c library, and that ended up being unified quite nicely. In my opinion, being allowed to fork is necessary. Even if forking isn't desired, it must be allowed.
--
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Oh, please God, help Sun Micro... do a complete international standardization of Java FIRST! This to keep our semi-beloved Java free from the impurities of Hell, um, I mean Redmond, WA, and free of the unclean touch of the dark lord, um, I mean Bill Gates.
It is only through standardization that Java can be assured to be kept truly pure and cross-platform operable as an open product. Proprietary extensions, while seeming useful to large groups of users, erode overall product usefulness and cross platform compatibility. Remember the early days of both Javascript and ASP.
Code commentary is like sex. If it's good, it's VERY good.
In an interview with the IDG News Service after his keynote address, Paolini reiterated that Sun will eventually also make Java's source code fully open but said that he could not give any predictions as to when.
"I know you want me to say it will be in a week or in a year, but I can't say that. I can say that open source for Java is our goal. But we also continue to provide an environment that benefits everyone," Paolini said.
Huh?
--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Re:Doesn't even understand own product
by
KeyShark
·
· Score: 1
There is a lot going on in the background of Java, like the native code, that just support the spec. It's basically like releasing how a library works for a interface. Sun would be opensourcing how they got their interface to work in regards to the specs. It's still different for every version of Java that follows the specs.
Starbucks opens the source to their award winning Nutmeg Coffee.
When asked to comment about this, they said "We hope to attract more of the computer scientists to our business. They have to get their buzz somewhere, why not get it from the OpenSource Java Leader?"
I meant distributing forks as Java. Obviously every new modification in some way will make a fork of a previous and a later version. And thus if you were to prevent forking in the global sense, all modifications would be prevented. I don't know where my mind goes some days.
What I meant was a more open license being used for Java would be a good thing, and I would support them in this, even if they preventing forking by means similar to the ones you name (registation and certification.)
They appear to be reaching out to the various interests involved in Java programming to approve changes in a congressional manner. I don't know if I should demand better representation, or less taxes.
-Ben
Re:Sun Spin Machine.....
by
um...+Lucas
·
· Score: 1
It's not the lack of openness that's keeping Java from reaching widespread acceptance, it's Microsoft, actually... Java has advanced pretty far ahead in the server arena, it just hasn't accomplished much on the desktop due to 90% of the worlds desktops not being very enthusiastic about it.
It'd really be detrimental to trully opensource java. If they had from the get go, there'd have been no clause for them to go after microsoft for shipping tainted "java" tools which incedentally destroyed the whole premise of Java by creating applicationst that ran on only one platform.
What's kept java going so far is that Sun's been leading the way.... It'd be much better if they made a $0 license for people to have access to the source code, but retain the name to Java and only permit environments which complied with the "standard" to use the word Java in their names or descriptions.
Bet your arse this isn't Open Source
by
Nailer
·
· Score: 1
It'll be Sun Industry Standard Source License.
Why is it an Industry Standard? Because they called it one.
You haven't checked lately
by
JohnQPublic
·
· Score: 1
Try clicking on your own URL. Kaffe put out a new release just a few months back, and announce that they'd be merging the free (Kaffe) and for-fee (Transvirtual) versions together, distributed free as Kaffe.
If I'm not mistaken, they use the original BSD license, which qualifies under the OSD. They also no doubt use GCC as their compiler, and it's GPL-ed. Maybe they don't like applying the GPL to their work, is that what you are trying to say? I'm not sure I'm getting your point.
Not enough inertia for GPL
by
SurrealKnife
·
· Score: 1
As I see it, the reason most well-known projects that go GPL don't fork too much is because they already have a lot of code and a lot of inertia. However, Java is a much smaller project and if anything more well-known than Linux(?!) and therefore is liable to get changed far more in a short period of time as everyone has their own ideas about what would be best to do with it.
This is liable to lead to a slew of different versions and in the end there will probably be a "battle of the Java's", similar to the "Browser Wars", with MS picking one type, Mac another and Linux another.
Of course, it could work out fine if everyone did work together on it - but how often does that happen when companies are competing for cash?
I actually think it's quite possible. Maybe they finally realized what's keeping Java from widespread acceptance is lack of true openness. My money is on "yes", I think they'll do it, in less than a year probably.
Open Runtime Platform from Intel
by
luiss
·
· Score: 1
FYI: The Open Runtime Platform from intel seems to be an open sourced VM, which happens to also be a JVM. Actually it seems similar to Microsoft's.net runtime... I'm not sure what languages it currently supports besides Java...
Re:Wow -- watch those $$$ fly!
by
j-turkey
·
· Score: 1
Do you really think Microsoft would fork a GPL implementation and open source their improvements? If they did, would that really be so bad?
-- - Sam Ruby
Re:Doesn't even understand own product
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
While you consistently post as a troll, you ride the edge of believability and say interesting things (well, you shoot from the hip), so I don't mind replying.
They are talking about the releasing the java.* and javax.* libraries under an open/free license. Currently Sun's SCSL license allows you to look at the source to those fundamental libraries; but it prohibits you from sharing it with anyone who hasn't agreed to the license (unless they're a student at an accredited school). So, to an absurd extreme, they could disallow anyone of black descent to view the sourcecode, as long as they aren't a student.
It is very important for the long-term, since it can conflict with the GPL. If you're against the GPL, fine; but there are many who take a shine to the hoary old license, and don't want it to be impossible to use. There are solutions... The Java environment can be considered an "operating system" since it provides a self-contained environment, and therefore you don't have to open up the libraries' source...
But it's one of those licenses that is totally open for abuse; many people within Sun are very open to the free/open movement, but there are those who find something about it to ridicule.
Re:If they don't want it to fork
by
rw2
·
· Score: 2
Then they cannot use a GPL license. It's one thing for an editor like emacs to fork, another for a language to fork.
That's a just plain dumb statement. Without language forks we would still be using Fortran or arguably Fortran/Cobol/Algol/Lisp.
Java is itself a language fork for christ's sake. Surely you've heard of it's predecessors C++, C with classes, K&R C, C, B and BCPL. Not to mention the many other langs it stole other idioms from!
The GPL is a like an ecology. If you don't suck, you survive. If you do, you get killed.
Maybe under GPL, Java would be able to grow up and become a champ. But if it gets it's neck snapped off by an inspired left hook thrown out of the Eiffel camp, so be it.
Re:If they don't want it to fork
by
Frac
·
· Score: 2
I completely agree. But that is why the Sun executive George Paolini made this statement:
"There will be some magic point in the future I believe, where we'll reach critical mass. When we reach that point at Sun, you'll see us go to a much more open source."
How many forks are there in the Linux kernel? Linux is under GPL, but Linus is still regarded as the central authority for maintaining the main kernel releases. Once Java reaches the critical mass that Sun is waiting for, the advantages to forking over the source code to create an incompatible Java instance will be overridden by the momentum of general public using Java.
Re:Doesn't even understand own product
by
eroberts00
·
· Score: 2
First of all, Sun has already released the source to the JVM, quite some time ago. It's just not under what some people consider an open license. The article was talking specifically about changing the license to GPL or something similiar.
Second, it would NOT be awesome if they opened the spec up to everyone, like an RFC. If it was, anyone who wanted to add a new API class or method or change the way a class worked would be free to do so, creating a large number of incompatible version of Java. This is precisely what Sun is trying to avoid. Now maybe they should release control of the spec to a standards body, but that is a different story. Besides, Sun created Java and they should be able to do with it as they see fit. If people don't like it they won't use Java and it will go away.
Java is itself a language fork for christ's sake. Surely you've heard of it's predecessors C++, C with classes, K&R C, C, B and BCPL. Not to mention the many other langs it stole other idioms from!
Calling Java a "fork" of C++ because C++ preceeds it and has some things in common is patently ridiculous, and appropriation of features from other languages does not a fork make.
Don't forget that Java itself is basically just a specification for a language and a means of implementation. The stuff that Sun [ is | may be ] looking at open sourcing are their virtual machine and bytecode compilers (we assume).
The "forking danger" here is that a bunch of other organizations might simply decide they want to introduce new stuff to the language and say, "Okay. This is our version of Java. So there." Microsoft licensed the technology from Sun and proceeded to do just that, completely against the terms of the contract.
(Incidentally: John Heilemann writes a fantastic article about the Microsoft anti-trust suit in this month's Wired. He asked Steve Ballmer if Microsoft believed they were signing the contract in bad faith. His answer was a bit on the long and vitriolic side, but it seemed to boil down to, "Of course we were, and the sub-50 IQ people at Sun were morons if they didn't think so too." Yes, "sub-50 IQ" was his phrase.)
Would it be so bad if someone forked the code in that manner? Maybe not. But I suspect that plenty of people are twitchy about just that possibility, given the whole J++ fiasco.
Re:Remember your history.
by
sammy+baby
·
· Score: 3
The hell it isn't a fork of C++. The syntax is IDENTICAL. They took namespaces and called them "packages", removed pointers and called it a new langauge. Oh, and made it compile to bytecode so it would be slow as shit due to JVM overhead.
So you think the two languages are essentially the same because of the syntax? Allow me to introduce someone who believes the contrary. His name is Bjarne Stroustrup.
If people insist on comparing C++ and Java - as they seem to do - I suggest they read The Design and Evolution of C++ (D&E) to see why C++ is the way it is, and consider both languages in the light of the design criteria I set for C++. Those criteria will obviously differ from the criteria of Sun's Java team. Despite the syntactic similarities, C++ and Java are very different languages. In many ways, Java seems closer to Smalltalk than to C++. - from Bjarne Stroustrup's personal FAQ
Of course, Stroustrup doesn't really like Java all that much, so you might infer that his claim might be biased by a desire not to be associated with it. In any case, I'd say this pretty neatly blows a hole in your theory that Java is a fork of C++ because the syntax looks the same.
Weren't the "sub-50 IQ people" also acting in bad faith? It seems like Sun's plan all along was to give microsoft Java, wait for the inevitable embrace and extend, and then generate lots of PR about MS's political tactics by filing a high profile lawsuit.
It seems to have worked pretty well for Sun -- Microsoft has locked themselves out of the booming Java market, J++ was rightfully FUDed out of existance, MS spending $millions to reinvent technology they already had a licence to, and the ABM folks (like most slashdotters) have a huge object example of how MS operates right out in the open.
--
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Calling Java a "fork" of C++ because C++ preceeds it and has some things in common is patently ridiculous, and appropriation
of features from other languages does not a fork make.
And, if you can believe it, from the same message!
The "forking danger" here is that a bunch of other organizations might simply decide they want to introduce new stuff to the
language and say, "Okay. This is our version of Java. So there."
You're killing me here! Good stuff!
Ok, I'll concede that Sun didn't actually say "Okay. This is our version of C++. So there". I guess that name change must be the difference.
But wait!
Would it be so bad if someone forked the code in that manner? Maybe not. But I suspect that plenty of people are twitchy
about just that possibility, given the whole J++ fiasco.
Microsoft did change the name and it wasn't enough. Argh! I'm confused! (or someone is anyway)
I think this is a great idea if they do it. Javadocs are cool, but sometimes, you have to go find the source to figure out how ther *^&$ thing *really* works. If you've ever had to do this, then having the class library source in convenient Javadoc format would be a huge boon. I really don't care if they opensource the JVM, but I really want the entire source code to the class libraries...
-- A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose
both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
Re:Doesn't matter if it's open source...
by
Cuthalion
·
· Score: 1
If they made Java a completely Open System, designed by industry consensus
Um. You kind of have to decide how you're going to design something BEFORE you do it, rather than afterwards.
--
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
...But they still need to relax their Distribution restrictions - If java2 doesn't come as a standard part of Linux distributions, they will have hard Time trying to attract Linux users. Windows users will go with.net anyway. Which leaves OS X/Solaris as the only serious java2 platforms.
Both have the problem of running on hardware with a bad bang/buck ratio.
Hopefully their co-operation with apache project might eventually wake them up.
-- signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
What about what happened with StarOffice & GNOME?
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 2
If you consider what happened with StarOffice having the GPL applied to it, and Sun seeding the GNOME foundation, this is a lot deeper than a reaction to C#. Sun looked at how the community felt about the SCSL license on StarOffice and decided we were right. They looked at GNOME as the right choice when CDE and other consortium projects didn't pan out. They've heard our criticism on Java's licensing, and they might percieve that their present strategy is holding Java back. Sun is coming to the understanding that the Free Software paradigm is the future for computer infrastructure.
Not a reaction to C pound
by
selectspec
·
· Score: 1
I disagree. Sun has already reacted to C# in the most appropriate manner: No reaction. C# is a joke that will at its best replace VB on IAS.
Sun is simply trying to court the open source community towards Java. Sun's reluctance to submit Java to a standards committee is justified. Standards don't garauntee compliance. Look at the C++ Standard Lib and STL.
--
Someone you trust is one of us.
Re:Not a reaction to C pound
by
stienman
·
· Score: 3
Well, I must admit that this is a matter of opinion and speculation. But from where I'm standing, here's what it looks like:
Sun has always been server driven, and application servers are a future we are looking at now. The hardware to run those servers is what Sun will make its money on. Netscape tried to make this a reality with their integrated communicator product, and their server software, but they were only selling software, and it is mainly an issue of manpower and money to drive a software company out of the market, rather than time. Hardware takes time, and if Sun can get their product out the door as a complete solution for application servers, they are set for the short term.
Microsoft, however, knowing that Intel (and consequently AMD) is creating more powerful hardware which will transcend the desktop for pennies wants the market that netscape, sun and all the other major player were after: distributed computing, especially in the context of application serving. Imagine a world where users don't have to buy new software every year, upgrade their computers infrequently, and have instant support. This is the holy grail of money making: Software is now a service, not a unit or product. Rather than making $80 per computer sold for Office, MS is going to be making $5 a month from all these people who want to buy cheap, small, non-upgradeable computing units. Even those people who now only upgrade office every other version will pay this. Now MS doesn't have to pay for packaging, distribution, etc. They just need to set up companies with servers and their software. The company gets a cut, MS gets a cut, which is significantly larger than what they are getting now.
Sun now has a problem: if NET takes hold of a significant share of the market (as it will, since this is the third time MS is at bat in this market;-) then Sun will have a VERY difficult time selling its hardware. In order to protect the market so they can insert their servers into it they have to get the people so entrenched into Java than NET fails.
C# isn't the ONLY reason they MIGHT open-source java, but it is the straw that broke the camels back. It is an integral part of MS's NET strategy, and must be in place before MS can effectivly get developers on board their vision.
-Adam
#include "speculation" #include "grainsalt"
Java the environment?
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 2
Java the environment takes in all of those pieces. I don't think it's bad to call a large package of different components that are meant to work together "Java".
The language definition is already out there for people to use, as are the APIs. That leaves the JDK and the various Java packages as the main thing that is not Open Source.
> I don't think it's bad to call a large package of different components that
>are meant to work together "Java".
hey, shouldng' that be GNU/Java?
[duck]
:)
Re:What about what happened with StarOffice & GNOM
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 2
And I doubt Sun is anywhere near an understanding that 'the Free Software paradigm is the future for computer infrastructure'.
First there was IBM. Then, Digital provided an alternative. Then, Sun provided an alternative to Digital. Then a whole bunch of people marketed Unix-like systems based on Free Software and provided an alternative to Sun. Sun's got to notice, and they don't want to go the way of Digital. So I think they might be getting that message.
Hey, SUN! Why not give out the source code for NeWS?
Preferrably the original Gosling NeWS server, not the X11/NeWS hybrid. Both would be even better, though...
They don't have the infrastructure to take fixes
by
driehuis
·
· Score: 1
if you follow the Java community at all, you
know that the main gripes people have are platform support, and bug fixes.
Around the JDK 1.1.5 days, I took a look to see what it would take to port JDK 1.1.5 to BSD/OS. After all, working ports for FreeBSD and Linux existed at the time.
At first I was in shock to discover that everything that had been done for FreeBSD, I would have to redo. The code supported Win32 and Solaris and that was it. Obviously, not importing any portability fixes from outside developers (who have offered them to Sun for inclusion) is a surefire way to make sure that all other platforms will always play catch up, often involving non-trivial amounts of work to backport earlier fixes to a new release. Basing the BSD/OS version off the FreeBSD work looked like suicide for my spare time to me.
I discussed the situation with a few people who had dealt with these issues, and came to the conclusion that Sun just didn't have the infrastructure to support integrating platform patches. If you look at platform support in Mozilla, you'll notice that Netscape-the-company invests significant time in keeping the source tree in shape for their main platforms without unduly damaging the other platforms.
Sun will have to devote significant resources to the management of their external developer base as well: integrating patches, verifying their non-effect on the supported platforms, and resolving disputes. They will have to anyway: the model whereby they license the code to third parties and burden them with porting the fixes forward to new releases just won't fly in this day and age. The model where outside source trees blossom in the field (e.g., SourceForge) isn't attractive to them either: sooner or later a significant fork will drive a wedge between Sun-supported Java and the Other Java.
I never tracked Java closely after the 1.1.6 release so they may have built on this already, but given their track record for fixing bugs in Solaris or defining a "Community license", I don't think they're mentally ready yet to properly manage outside contributions.
--
Bert Driehuis --
All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
What bit of 'Open Source' is missing?
by
kyz
·
· Score: 2
Java is already being shaped by expert group communities, with Sun's developers at the helm having the final say. How is this different from the same way structures work with other open source projects? You're free (in most countries) to download the source code to Java's classes and runtime JVM implementation, you're just not allowed to make your own one based on Sun's implementation, and you're not allowed to call it 'Java' without paying Sun a lot of money for a license. Who cares? If you want to participate in the Java community, almost all the flexibility you need is there.
Certainly kaffe exists. They will benefit, not because they cannot currently exist but because they will have to go through fewer legal hoops to get there.
--
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
Then why not include perl and php, etc?
by
sips
·
· Score: 2
There are some things that make an OS lite enought to run properly and there are some things that are rather bad to do. I think when you start to shove things into the OS domain you really start to get bloat similar to microsoft products.
In theory why aren't people working on running OS level perl and php as well considering all the use that these languages get in the world today.
Re:If they don't want it to fork
by
Auckerman
·
· Score: 1
"First of all, if a license prevents forking then it doesn't meet the open source guidelines"
This is a load of rubbish. Who's "open source guidelines" are you talking about? Are you talking about those self appointed commissioners of OSS, ESR & Stallman? Open source means just that, the source is available. The terms and use of that source do not necissarily have to be GPL. Sun is a company and is not interested in the politics of GPL vs. the world, and they should not be interested in such things. They should do what is best for Java. There may be legal issues with GPL'ing anything dealing with Java, since the GPL has yet to stand a day in court. They need to protect Java from the polluting hands of Microsoft, or Java dies just like Netscape did, just like HTML is doing, and just like XML will (which is a nice buzzword with little meaning to MS).
Re:If they don't want it to fork
by
dvdeug
·
· Score: 1
There are already JVMs and Java compilers under the GPL. And Microsoft has already paied the Kaffe people to add support for Microsoft extensions. This isn't going to change much of anything, except make a whole lot of Java stuff easier for Red Hat, Debian and others.
Re:Doesn't even understand own product
by
hetairoi
·
· Score: 1
ok, i'm don't use java, so I'm not sure if this really applies, but here are my thoughts:
any programming language that runs on a proprietary operating system is going to have problems, not the least of which is the fact that the language is at the mercy of the operating system manufacturer. sun wants java to run on any platform, but must make some concessions to achieve this goal. it seems to me that it would be in the best interest of Sun to have the operating system open. it makes little difference to them if their software or their specification is open source.
i think everyone here agrees that it's the operating system that needs to be open, so that more programmers are able to write *good* code on top of that operating system. as many people have already noted, a few years from now (hopefully) the operating system will make little differnce to the user.
looking at the real world now, i think linux will reach it's saturation point soon because as much as i like it, it's a tool for people who like to know everything that's going on and like to configure every little detail (pretty much known as 'geeks'). Most people are happy with the/leading national brand/ operating system because it does most things for them, quickly and easily. this makes sense to me, when i buy a car, i don't want to install the engine myself, i just want it to go really fast when i push the gas peddle, wtf difference does it make to me if company a or company b made the engine? however, if company a made my engine, but i wanted to buy a stereo form company c, but that stereo didn't work with company a's engine i would be very upset (yes, that is ridiculous, but that's the way the software company works now isn't it?)
soooo.... companies like sun and aol/timewarner/glowfax mega corp that have software that they want as many people as possible to use would greatly benefit if the operating system made no differnce. i don't know about sun, but i'm pretty sure aol gets it, yes they have proprietary software, but they give it away. look at nullsoft, i'm sure aol is thrilled everytime j frankel and gang do something "subversive" and give it away to 50 million people, because it just gives them more and more users.
so basically this off topic (i don't think i've ever been on a topic) rant comes down to a question: what more can companies like sun and aol do to force operating systems open?
the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and i think our 'friends' need to band together to do something about/leading national brand/ operating system manufacturer forcing them to bow down to them in order to get a peice of software to actually work correctly.
ok, that got kinda long and disconnected, but i'm at work, and i'm doing 20 things at once. and nobody asked you to read this or agree with it. mod it down and it will go away.
The statement "Sun wants everyone to use Java on every platform - without putting forth the effort to port it to every platform themselves." is only contrdictory if you assume that to have java on every platform then Sun will have to port it to every platform. If they open-source the code (under whatever restrictive license they need to keep control of it) then OTHERS will do the porting for them. They will have it on every platform, they will have control over it, and they'll only have to expend a fraction of the resources they would expend if they ported it themselves. This also lets their user community decide which ports get done and how quickly, rather than Sun guessing which port has the highest priority.
Whether they have a problem with people changing it the way MS tried changing it depends entirely on what they source and how they license it.
I doubt Sun is opening all of java, and I doubly doubt that they will use a licensing scheme which allows others to 1) fork the code and 2) change the code significantly without their stamp of approval.
-Adam
Correct me if I am wrong...
by
Ron+Harwood
·
· Score: 3
...which I'm sure many of you will do.;)
If they open source Java - wouldn't it be very easy at that point to incorporate it at a very low level into an operating system (especially an open source OS like Linux)? Thereby increasing performance and usability...
Re:Correct me if I am wrong...
by
blueg3
·
· Score: 2
Actually, IIRC, which I may not, Java is implemented at a fairly low level in Mac OS X.
What this would really mean is that open source OSes like Linux could implement Java at a really low level and not have to cut any deals or make any sacrifices to accomodate the VM.
That would be cool. Real cool. Too many people complain about how Java is slow, but that doesn't seem to apply to programs running under Linux. Low-level Java support would allow a whole lot of neat programs.
Doesn't matter if it's open source...
by
karzan
·
· Score: 4
Just make it Open Systems! If they made Java a completely Open System, designed by industry consensus and completely backward compatible with a publicly available spec, anyone could create a complete Java implementation, open source or not. This is far more important than availability of source, but then again Sun has been more against Open Systems than any of the UNIX vendors, historically.
Re:Doesn't matter if it's open source...
by
guacamole
·
· Score: 1
Bah, Sun is the company that brought NIS, NIS+ and NFS and those are as open and it can get. Recently, they also released the source to their operating system, bundle free software with their OS, give it out for nearly no fee, and open sourced StarOffice, what else do you want?
I don't see how HP or IBM is any more open than Sun.
Re:Doesn't matter if it's open source...
by
bmongar
·
· Score: 1
I think they may eventually go this way, especially with pressure from Micro$ofts "more open system than java" C#
Does anyone think this wasn't prompted by C# ?
-- As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
Re:Doesn't matter if it's open source...
by
Waldmeister
·
· Score: 1
Java is almost a set of open standards. Language, Bytecode, Libraries, etc are well documented, and there is the JCP (Java Community Process), where everybody can participate in the evolution of java. (Okay, Sun is still more equal than everybody else is, because they have a veto right.) I don't know, why Sun withdraw the standard requests, but in my eyes they look, like trying to keep Java unpolluted and unforked in the first place.
If you take a look at the enterprise sector, Sun does only provide a spec and leaves the implementation to others like BEA or Orion.
They are in a good position if they were to do that. Suppose everyone and their mother were able to use java and then they were able to sell some rather niftly little software extensions and the like for java and make a good profit? I think that is their overwhelming concern.
...there will exist a JVM that isn't broken? The Java Virtual Machines are known for their memory taking and process slugging performance. If they open source this, I can't wait to see what an incredible increase in performance this will mean for Java programs!
-- Don't you hate it when people comment on other people's.sigs??
Memory footprint can be significantly mitigated with well placed calls to System.gc(). Was playing with a caching mechanism this past weekend and reduced memory overhead by more than 30%. Unfortunately, very few tutorials that I've seen demonstrate or recommend the well timed use of System.gc().
Lack of good coding on the part of the programmer cannot be blamed on the VM.
Have you seen Java 1.3...Sun's new hotspot VM is much much faster, with smaller memory footprint, and increased startup time. I've seen some benchmarks testing (I wish I had the URL) that shows that it even beats C++ in a couple tests. (they were recursive tests which doesn't say a whole lot)...It's definately a faster Java now.
First of all, M$ version of Java is pretty much dead. Secondly, why would this harm IBM's Java? If they open-sourced their Java and the community found it to be a better app., don't you think it would become the de-facto Java VM?
The problem with all of this idiotic thinking is the open source community thinks it has the ability to write VMs. VMs are an extremely complicated beast, best left to the experts w/i these companies who spend their lives devoted to writing them. Some 2-bit hack isn't going to sit down and improve the garbage collector over night.
-- ---
One world, one chance Doc.
Re:Stay out of that black box
by
phthplatt
·
· Score: 1
I've found that having the source is excellent for knowing how the foundation classes are implemented, and for learning more advanced Java. Javadocs are really nice, but they don't explain how the data is actually stored inside the class, for instance. I think this is important for optimization.
Also, the source isn't included with the JDK that you download. It's a seperate download (at least that's how I did it).
Doesn't even understand own product
by
OlympicSponsor
·
· Score: 4
"Java" can't be open sourced--it's a specification, not a program. So is he talking about releasing the source to their implementation (which would be largely worthless*) or about opening the spec up to everyone to modify like with RFC's (which would be awesome)?
My guess: Neither one. The guy was speaking at ApacheCon, he was just using "Open Source" as a buzzword. At best, we'll see the source code of some (not all) of their implementation.
*Obviously this would provide immediate help to projects like Kaffe, but it wouldn't be all that useful long-term. --
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Re:Doesn't even understand own product
by
OlympicSponsor
·
· Score: 1
"While you consistently post as a troll..."
No, I don't. That doesn't mean I don't attract stupid replies, just that I don't go looking for them.
"They are talking about the releasing the java.* and javax.* libraries under an open/free license."
They may indeed be talking about this--but it's impossible to tell from Paolini's (quoted) comments. All he says is "open source Java" and "bring open source to Java" and so on. --
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Re:Doesn't even understand own product
by
spankenstein
·
· Score: 2
You must not have tried creating or running Java apps on various JREs. There is a difference in each one and it's not just performance... There Sun opening up the source to their implementation would be great for a truly standard jvm.
Sun don't care about printing!
by
renoX
·
· Score: 1
Java was also lacking in the printing capabilities for a looonnnggg time!
The JDK1.2.0 was very "funny" in this respect:
- it had the JDK1.1x printing API which was deprecated which means that in theory you could still use it, in reality it wasn't working anymore.
- it had the brand new Java2 printing API which was barely working: it used gobs of memory, was really slow, you had to do weird things such disable the double buffering, etc..
The Java language is not bad, but the set of libraries need some bug fixing!
Maybe opensourcing it will help, there are bugs in the BugParade for which more than 100 people asked to be corrected, the bug report was opened 2 years ago and it is still there!!!
To be fair the JDK1.3 fixed a lot of bug, so it is getting better, it is just taking a lot of time..
This is really just a reaction to C#. Rather than trying to submit Java to a standards body and let everyone make their own Java compilers (instead of Java - like compilers) Sun wants everyone to use Java on every platform - without putting forth the effort to port it to every platform themselves. But more importantly, they want everyone to use their compiler/runtime/etc
This may or may not happen, and it may or may not benefit them. But if it does happen, it can only benefit us.
-Adam
It's no match for Larry-Boy and his Super Suction ears! "spluh, spluh, spluh, spluh, spluh"
How do you make a squeeking, suctioning sound in cyberspace?
I think this is a reaction to C# and.NET but not the reaction people may think about.
Assume for a moment that Sun isn't evil and greedy with Java but really has wanted to take it open source. Up until now they've been afraid that Microsoft would come in to whatever process that Sun no longer has veto power over and try to "corrupt" Java.
Now that Microsoft has C# and.NET to play with and has renounced Java then Sun can now safely open up Java. Microsoft can't change direction now and try to get back in the Java game without looking incredibly foolish.
Thanks for the clarification. When you were refering to Sun making everyone use their compiler/runtime/etc, you were refering to the specifications, not the implementations. That's where the confusion arose.
If they do try this trick, I imagine it'll backfire considerably. By having to expose their source for J++' (under the GPL), they'll expose valuable information about the hidden calls used to make it dependent on windows, as well as give other information about those undocumented features. Give a good hand to Wine, as well as to those simply trying to get the J++' to work on other OSen.
--
--
-- The Internet is the Suppository of All Knowledge.
You get it in the end.
Sun wants everyone to use Java on every platform - without putting forth the effort to port it to every platform themselves. But more importantly, they want everyone to use their compiler/runtime/etc
Huh?? The VM and Language specs are freely available. So is the source to the runtime libraries. Re-implement them all you want, nobody is stopping you or forcing you to use their runtime. There are several platforms for which there is no up to date Sun runtime, but there is a third party runtime. There are also several current VMs which "compete" with Sun's. I'm sure they couldn't care less. They don't sell VMs, they don't even sell Java products!
I think Java is still in an immature phase. It still needs to be centrally controlled. Just look at the number of "community" proposals: there are tons of them, many of them which would have very broad impact on Java. The problem is not that implementations will fork - who cares. The problem is that these nascent specs will splinter and leave the entity known as "Java" in many various flavors which may or may not be reconcilable (e.g., everybody comes up with their own RPC apis and libraries? etc.).
I think we should lay off Sun a bit. Kirninghan faced this very same problem when everybody was jumping on him to add their favorite new whizbang feature and he resisted (yeah, yeah, C is an ANSI standard...Java is not there yet, there is still stuff to clean up).
As a daily Java middleware developer (CORBA/Servlets/MOM, etc.; yeah, I'll admit it), I think Sun has done a pretty damn good job at giving everybody a pretty solid language which is lovely to develop in, tomes of *well designed*, refined APIs and libraries, and liberation from platform dependence -- all for free (if not Free).
like flamebait but its not meant to be, but doesnt it seem like SUN is trying really really hard to get into the liking of the OSS community. If so, I ask you this.....Why bother? Sun is an icon already, much like 'IBM Compatible' pc. They dont have to do much more to impress us, what is compelling them to go out of their way to kiss up to the OSS community? (ie staroffice, solaris etc etc.) is it possible sun is in financial trouble?
"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."
--
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
I don't think so if you look at it IBM is doing the same thing. I think there are at least a couple of reasons. 1. And I think most important is mindshare. They understand that there are alot of very bright people who prefer to work with stuff that is open. They therefore can gain mindshare and goodwill among alot of people for basically nothing. Think about how many people a couple of years ago hated IBM and how many now think they are kind of cool again. 2. They get work for free we get better tools. This is IMHO a good thing for everybody
--
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics.
Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Then they cannot use a GPL license. It's one thing for an editor like emacs to fork, another for a language to fork.
They must use a different license, where forking is somehow not allowed. I think that's understandable for a piece of software on which millions of other pieces of software are based, such as Java. Although they want it to grow and change quickly, they want it to stay in one version, if only to keep sanity in the ranks of millions of Java programmers (like myself). Can you imagine if someone came out with a Java++ with new features and incomplete support for new initiatives that came along?
Oh wait...
So I support Sun, as a Java programmer still. And I understand why a "pure" GPL license probably isn't the answer in this instance.
-Ben
Re:If they don't want it to fork
by
4of12
·
· Score: 1
I'd say the GPL would work just fine in the same fashion that has been stable (so far) for Linux.
Namely, GPL the source so any and all improvements, random variations are held up for public scrutiny for suitability, then assign a benevolent dictator (Gosling?) without a vested financial interest to retain the trademark.
Let Sun and the other players (including the divisive embedded Java market) assign a few people and some money for them to develop things as they best see fit from a pure technical perspective at "java.org".
If they really decide it's in the best interest of Java® to have libraries like
import java.win32api.*;
then, by all means, let them!
Be brave and put it all on the table! To insure you succeed financially from this, let your best people have 1-2 year internships over in the Marketing Free Zone. When they return, they'll drive your business in ways you can't imagine now.
It's got to be possible to do something like this given the recent hubbub surrounding the GNOME Foundation (although the jury's still out on the longer term health of that particular initiative.)
-- "Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:If they don't want it to fork
by
gle
·
· Score: 2
You can fork the implementation (ie: the code of the "compiler" and the JVM).
If you fork the language, it isn't Java anymore, so you can't.
____________________
-- Ni!
Re:If they don't want it to fork
by
Baki
·
· Score: 1
What open means in open source is open to interpretation, but IMO it means not only open to read, but also open in the sense that it is unrestricted, i.e. you can do with it what you want.
This with the single possible restriction that you can do with it what you want, except make it closed again (i.e. like the GPL). The BSD is open without this restriction (i.e. you can make it closed again if you like).
Re:If they don't want it to fork
by
vsync64
·
· Score: 1
Namely, GPL the source so any and all improvements, random variations are held up for public scrutiny for suitability, then
assign a benevolent dictator (Gosling?) without a vested financial interest to retain the trademark.
-- TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Re:Java executables finally in sight?
by
Boston99
·
· Score: 1
The security problem is an OS-level problem. The OS enables the admin to give permissions per user/sysobject and that is insufficiently granular in world with ubiquitous network connections and applications.
A user should also be able to reduce his own permissions when he doesn't trust a particular executable.
Example:
The admin gives user "Jacky" a particular set of permissions. If I am user "Jacky" and I want to execute an executable from source "www.donttrust.com", I should be able to set permissions for "Jacky-www.donttrust.com" that are a subset of the "Jacky" permissions and hence further reduce the potential havoc that source "www.donttrust.com" could create.
So, the internet has created a need for 2-level sysadminning. The sysadmin gives the user a subset of root, and the user gives a particular application source a subset of his own rights.
You could conceivably create a workaround, by creating new users, but in a normal context an ordinary user does not have the permission to create new users, nor should he have this permission.
In fact, this is a general OS problem to raise with the kernel and filesystem people.
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore. Vote Third Party to disrupt the process.
But a third party vote is a vote for Bush or Gore.
And how is voting, which is part of the process, disruptive?
Vote for the candidate that best represents your interests, Bush, Gore, or anybody else.
For me that's Gore. YMMV.
Steve M
How Sun can use the GPL on Java
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 5
Sun can indeed use the GPL on Java, or any other Open Source license. However, Open Source licenses may not, in themselves, prohibit forking. That would be a prohibition on modification or distribution of the modifications, which is specificaly excluded in the Open Source definition.
What Sun can do is use a certification program and trademarks to enforce the Java definition. If you modify it, you can't call it Java(R) any longer, and you can't display their certification badge on your product's packaging and literature.
Don't you know? Special purpose hardware is out..
by
slothbait
·
· Score: 2
Designing an ASIC to run Java byte code native might sound appealing at first, but it is ultimately a losing proposition. General purpose hardware (in this case, commodity microprocessors) ramp so incredibly quickly that investing in a special purpose "accelerator" is almost always the less cost-effective approach.
Obviously, graphics cards are the exception today. The reason? Graphics processing is incredibly hungry, and parallel by nature. Rendering and texture mapping can be parallelized far more easily than other desktop-style applications.
It is less clear that an ASIC JVM would make sense. Recall the early days of software mp3 players. When you were running an inefficient software decoder on a P100, you could notice the performance loss. Many people talked about how cool it would be to have a special ASIC run the algorithm in hardware on your sound card. Well, ramping up a project to design, market and sell such a device would have taken so long that by the time it hit shelves, everyone would be P200's with better optimized players and no longer care.
As long as CPU cost / performance keeps ramping like it is, hardware accelerators for special functions are not going to be attractive. I just can't see the demand for such a device. Besides, how much speed improvement could the device really buy you without being a fairly advanced processor itself?
rambling on a Wednesday,
Lenny
Re:What about what happened with StarOffice & GNOM
by
stienman
·
· Score: 2
I'm certian this decision is a long time coming, and that it has been discussed for the past several years at various times. But I would not be surprised if the decision was tipped toward open source (not free software, read the article) due to MS's NET strategy, and integral part of which is C#.
And I doubt Sun is anywhere near an understanding that 'the Free Software paradigm is the future for computer infrastructure'.
The ones that I wrote with the Debian developers. ESR didn't have anything to do with them, he came along 6 months later and adopted them. RMS approved of them at the time. If you don't like them, that's your privilege, but the DFSG and its derivitave the OSD are the generally-accepted definition of Open Source (and for that matter, Free Software as well).
If I'm remembering recent history correctly, the term "open source" was coined for the purposes of marketing the free-software meme. It was deliberately decided that the term needed a careful definition to prevent the mistake that you are making: you are assuming that if you can put your eyes to the source code, regardless to the terms & conditions for doing so, then you are viewing "open source" software. This thinking is in error. OpenBSD predates the time when "open source" came into use. By the way, their license meets the guidelines at opensource.org anyway. (so what's your point?)
--
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Java executables finally in sight?
by
Bezanti
·
· Score: 2
Java is definitely C++ done right, as a language.
Unfortunately, the whole virtual machine approach sucks like a 2-dollar hooker.
Why not have to linker grab the.class and(!) native.obj files that your application needs (and nothing more) and link them to one executable?
It would solve a large number of problems that are now plaguing Java applications:
(1) A need to deploy the run-time
(2) another need to deploy the run-time everytime you upgrade the jdk.
(3) an unnecesary requirement for the run-time to remain backwards compatible.
Why not take the sealed jar approach to the logical point where it not only contains all the.class files your application needs but the.obj files as well?
In such case, an executable would have all its dependencies, contained in its own file, and there would be no need to remain backward compatible. The new executable would simply contain the new dependencies!
Second, I would like to see:
import org.myorg.somefunctionality.1.99.* As some
It prevents global name space pollution, and it clearly indicates what namespace the classes and methods come from. Now you would have to write the horrible:
As an attempt to please the developer community, I think they'd do better with some standardization of the core product (language,vm,core classes).
I know standardization is slow and can inhibit development (and the ground is well trodden), but developors' need that reasurance that what's written today doesn't need rewriting tommorrow.
Did anyone consider that this might just be a rumor? Or even a misquote? I highly doubt Sun is going to OS Java. Unless there was a major shakeup, historically Sun wants to maintain it's ownership of Java.
--
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
Using "Open Source" for publicity
by
discoinferno
·
· Score: 2
I mean, get real. Sun is spitting out this merely as a publicity attempt. Will it go open source? Who knows, not even them at this point. But that doesn't top them from using the open-source frenzy from grabbing a little publicity.
"There will be some magic point in the future I believe, where we'll reach critical mass. When we reach that point at Sun, you'll see us go to a much more open source," said George Paolini Sun's vice president of technologies advocacy and community development in the conference's first keynote speech.
Hate to say it, but Microsoft's.NET strategy is a pretty compelling vision. While it "embraces" Java, it will always play second fiddle in Microsoft's eyes. As with everything M$, it will take 2-3 years before.NET becomes decent.
Open sourcing Java now will allow it to evolve with a much higher degree of innovation than it has to date. IMHO, this will give it a strong fighting chance to stay ahead of the.NET snowball in being a foundation for the coming net centricity of virtually everything.
I think this would give Sun a huge advantage over IBM and Microsoft's version of Java. It would completely blow them out of the water or force them to do the same.
MS is only interested in the defense of their Windows franchise. Attacking a technology like java that could undermine it is an obvious move on their part. In fact they've already tried this once with J++ and got slapped for it.
But under a different license it wouldn't be illegal to produce a bunch of MS-specific changes (as long as they release the source). You can say everyone would reject such stuff, but the mass of MS pre-installs and re-installs (as part of, say, an IE 6 installation) is a formidable group of folks that would not reject it.
But even if everyone rejected the MS tools and libraries it wouldn't matter that much to MS since the desired effect is disruption and distraction, not a strategic platform effort. Any success their stuff had would be gravy as long as the forking blunted java's progress.
Think dog-in-the-manger defense. I don't think an intentional fork (under the guise of extra goodies for the consumer) is a hard scenario to envision.
I think this is a great idea if they do it. Javadocs are cool, but sometimes, you have to go find the source to figure out how ther *^&$ thing *really* works.
I'd have to disagree with you on that one there.
Sun already includes the public source for the class library with the JDK
Depending on one vendor's internals is a bad thing
Far too often I've seen bad coding implemented for the sake of 'optimization' and 'work-arounds'. While I'm not dismissing knowing what's going on, it's far more important to do things cleanly and to test things. A good test case run against multiple VM's is far better than a stroll through the code. Especialy if in that stroll you pick up some assumptions on how things work and missapply them later.
Also, I've seen 'fixes' people have put in that later break things worse when stepping up the VM. Just switching to IBM's VM, or from 1.1.x to 1.3.x should not cause any problems.
For an example of vendor-specific class sources, compare java.lang.String.valueOf( int ) in Sun's 1.1.x and IBM's 1.1.x. Some would recommend going with Integer.toString( int ) instead as an 'optimization'. However, it makes the code less clear and less reuseable, and, more importantly, in IBM's VM doing that is actually slower. And even in Sun's VM doing the 'optimized' thing is not significantly faster. So why then do some recommend that 'optimization'??? Because they looked into the Sun 1.1.x sources and decided to change their application's code based on their examination of the Sun sources.
Re:Stay out of that black box
by
mughi
·
· Score: 1
I've found that having the source is excellent for knowing how the foundation classes are implemented,
True, for a specific VM. But then again, the foundation classes might be implemented differently in a different VM, and then your insight becomes misleading instead of enlightening. It's often not a good idea to break encapsulation. Probably going through the JLS will be more helpfull.
and for learning more advanced Java.
And also for learning bad, 'kludgy' programming. I remember back around 1.1.3 days I had a co-worker walking up and down the halls for about a week cussing out Gosling for some of the code in the JDK (and this was a guy who usually didn't swear). He was trying to use something in a more advanced way (subclassing & all), but ended up having to redo everything from scratch himself.
Now, I'm not saying that you can't learn anything from the sources, but there are much better places to look and learn clean advanced programming
Also, the source isn't included with the JDK that you download. It's a seperate download (at least that's how I did it).
For JDK 1.1.x and JFC 1.1 there is an included src.zip that has them. For later VM's you can get it from the 'community license' VM. But the bottom line (and bringing things more on-topic) is that Sun has made most of their sources available from pretty much the begining anyway. Open-sourcing their VM really doesn't help with that.
These are bigger limitations than you think.
by
yerricde
·
· Score: 2
you're just not allowed to make your own one based on Sun's implementation
A Java platform compatible environment, with all the class libraries, would AFAIK have more lines of code than the Linux kernel.
you're not allowed to call it 'Java' without paying Sun a lot of money for a license
Free software reimplementations of the UNIX platform are called POSIX standard compliant systems. What will free software reimplementations of the Java platform be called?
GPL'ing Java would be a mistake. The only way Sun could ever keep Java from being polluted like every other web standard MS has touched is by still maintaining the related Patents and Copyright.
Open Sourcing of Java is not magical pixie dust. It won't lead to anymore developement than it has now. Sun should release full OSS Java Compilers, along with detailed sample code and headers with the purchase of a $20 book. You need to get the hearts and minds of poor college students, then once they are in the industry you can move to screw Microsoft.
Sun only cares about one thing... Sun
by
ppetrakis
·
· Score: 2
If "open source" (what ever their definition of it is this week) is what Sun has to say to get folks attention then hell thats what they'll do. An "open source" java from Sun means nothing without Java itself being submited to a standards body like ANSI. More lip service from Sun's marketing to make them look like the nice guys while they plan their next points of attack against MS and the Linux/Unix world.
Open sourcing java (if they mean the jdk) may work much better than projects like mozilla and openoffice.
Mozilla and openoffice are both more or less monolithic, huge heaps of source code. It is very difficult to handle them in open source projects. (X11 is a similar thing, and XFree has long been developed by a relativly small, well organized bunch of people).
The jdk consists mainly of two parts: The virtual machine and the class libraries.
Huge parts of the libraries are written in java, and their interfaces are somewhat documented, so it may be easy to subdivide it into smaller projects.
The VM may be split into a base system and a a JIT compiler, both are reasonably sized for an open source project.
Slashdot Mirror
Sun wants everyone to use Java on every platform - without putting forth the effort to port it to every platform themselves. But more importantly, they want everyone to use their compiler/runtime/etc
Can you clarify these statements? They seem to contradict eachother. If Sun truely wants everyone to use their compiler/runtime/etc, how can they not port it to every platform on their own?
...
Grain_of_salt grain = new Grain_of_salt(HUGE);
The guys context of the phrase "open source" is completely off in the article. He keeps refereing to it as though it were a product, not a mode of release.
"We're not adverse to full open source [for Java]. It's really what is the right model for that open source and where that model is for that life cycle," Paolini said.
...
"I can say that open source for Java is our goal."
...
"We've really taken a simple program language to a platform very quickly."
Come on folks! This sounds like a script that seeds press-releases with the latest buzzword. This guy seems to not understand what 'open source' means, and by the last comment, seems to be a little confused about Java - the language, and the JVM as a concept.
Either that or he was only talking to a bunch of know-nothing MBA's.
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Ask Rob about J*va Invaders.
"Incorporating it into the OS" does NOT magically give you performance enhancements.
What improves performance.. is performance enhancements.
For example, converting the wonderfully portable but wasteful system class zip/jars, into shared libraries. If you're REALLY clever, you would put them into the library in an already initialized state.
This would then be OS-dependant, AND JVM dependant. But think of the startup gain, not to mention the memory savings on multiple java invokations!
Heck, a really good jvm would create $HOME/.class-cache, and do the conversion automatically, for system classes.
Shortly after IBM announces they're just about ready to fully open java to the outside world, Sun then announces they're planning to do the same thing. This is most amusing in that when they were busy threatening IBM with legal action a month or so ago they obviously had no intention of opening it up, and since they couldn't sue IBM for it they're suddenly trying to look like the good guy. Some companies never change.
Request 1: Write a compiler that targets outputs java byte code rather than native instructions. Request 2: While it's not ADA, Apple is doing exactly that with their Objective C bridge in Mac OSX. You can use native classes from within a Java class and vice-versa. I'm assuming something similiar could be done with ADA. Note: My knowledge of ADA is very limited. I have a single book that I purchased and skimmed over a few pages in. I felt it wasn't worth learning as I don't ever intend to code for the US military. Not that knowing ADA is a prerequisite for that anymore anyways.
The Java class loader has to make sure that the stream of bytecode is valid Java bytecode (no illegal instructions, no stack underflows or overflows, etc.) for security reasons.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Do you really think Microsoft would fork a GPL implementation and open source their improvements?
Yes.
If they did, would that really be so bad?
Yes.
Realize that everything Microsoft does is to maintain their Windows franchise. So I can easily imagine them forking the code in such a way that it only runs on Windows. Then include it with the default Windows install. And change Windows so other versions don't work or work poorly. And there would be nothing to stop them from adding non-GPL'd extentions. Windows only of course.
Steve M
Sun Microsystems has a history of showing their belief that their implementation of Java is THE implementation - THE Java. I have heard many Java fans say things along those lines: "No, not IBM's version, I am talking about the real Java" (quote of a fan in reference to Sun Microsystem's implementation of Java).
So the Sun exec does understand his product, but in a very twisted and close minded way that many Sun Microsystems employees and followers subscribe to. I am not trying to troll. I am just stating what I have seen in the "Java community".
I wouldn't be surprised if they actually considered their implementation to be their specification of Java. There is something truely bizaar about the fanaticism that many of my peers seem to have for somebody else's programming language.
Just imagine if someone owned the English language. Imagine how happy writers would be... they wouldn't have to worry about someone slintering the language. Oh boy, they would love the restrictive grasp of the ownership around their profession.
In case someone hasn't already posted this, you can download the source from http://www.sun.com/communitysource. Sorry if this is already common knowledge.
Interestingly, the virtual machine is written in C, not C++.
The class loading functionality (at least the low level parts of it) appears to be implemented by src/share/javavm/runtime/classload.c.
where there's fish, there's cats
You mean the same way that this has happened to linux? I really hate the fact that we now have several hundreds of different incompatible kernels that all derive from linux! (Yes it's sarcasm.)
SUN have used "forking" as a rather lame excuse for quite a while now. Why would anyone want to use a different version of Java more than a different version of the linux kernel? If you make a program aimed at "IBM Java" you would lose a lot of customers, and then why use Java in the first place?
If used for the "good side" this could mean we get more integrated JVM's under our favourite OS's. Native support without hacking the kernel, etc etc.
SUN's current behaviour is slowing down Java's expansion rate. While this could be a benefit while you are still ironing out bugs, but I think Java is quite capable of standing now.
Personally what I like best about Java is to study some complicated aspect of programming, and then see the smart way they have made it easy in Java. There is a lot of really impressive engineering behind it.
One of the major strengths of java was supposedly to have it not require porting and C# isn't there.
Respond to s
Increased startup time, or increased startup speed?
> Perhaps they don't want to be perceived as an > "evil corporation"... Yes, this is totally true. The big people in Sun really really really care if they're known as an "evil corporation" by /.ers.
Or, it might just make good business sense, and fit into Sun's vision of Open Computing, Dot in Dot com blah blah.
I think Sun really did both Javas a disservice by giving them both the same name and marketing them as one thing.
Java, the object oriented programming language that's like C++ done right, is a very nice language to program in and deserves to do well. Note that you can/could compile Java source into any target language you like, from x86 machine code to Java bytecode.
Java, the portable bytecode and virtual machine technology is a very useful technology for the network age and is completely unrelated to the programming language. Note that you can/could compile any high level manguage you like to Java bytecode (especially if GCC supports it) from Eiffel to C to Ada to Java.
So, we're left wondering which of these, if any, or both, Sun plans to "open source"...
--
wrong topic :)
this isnt going to go over well with the moderation gods hehe
In all fairness, GOD am I glad this may happen.
It always seemed likely that Java should go open source, since the language itself is sort of a forced-open source language. (I'm referring to the extreme ease with which you can decompile Java, and trust me, even if it's been decompile-proofed, it's a snap).
Also, as someone who has worked with Java for nearly 4 years now, if you follow the Java community at all, you know that the main gripes people have are platform support, and bug fixes. The Sun Java Bug Parade and RFE lists have thousands of votes for fixes and enhancements. Imagine if instead of people just telling them what was wrong, people were sending sun fixes, or revisions.
This will also help platform support. Java's strength is it's run-anywhere ability. But as of now, there just aren't THAT many VMs available. If that changes, Java could surge in popularity with the platforms that don't get so much software written for them.
It'll work.
--
Cherish. Live. Dream.
you mean .02?
i am math daemon, hear me correct!
then, by all means, let them!
What's to stop them now? They should probably be more like com.microsoft.win32api or something. They can't claim this to be an intrinsic part of Java, of course.
where there's fish, there's cats
I think I speak for most of us when I say, "Huh?"
I think that kaffe would really benefit from this. Last I checked they hadn't updated their program for quite a while.
Also improvements in memory waste of the JVM and sheer size would be greatly appreciated.
Respond to s
What about Japhar and Classpath? Or SableVM, ORP,...
...the did open source Star Office...
Perhaps they don't want to be perceived as an "evil corporation"...
BlackNova Traders
If the shared library were for core functionality and any sub-classes scope were confined to the instance that created them, no problem. Since it is the JVM that handles dynamic class loading, this approach is feasible and WITHOUT having to recompile the
The JVM would have to be rewritten to be able to recognize that the java.* and javax.* packages are all shared libraries and that all other packages and classes are dynamic. Or, make it a JVM option. This might not improve memory usage because when classes are loaded dynamically, the JVM has to dynamically instanciate the super classes as well. Each instance of a class would have its own heirachy in memory. It would improve the load process though because of the lack of disk hits needed to load up the core packages since the shared libraries only have to be loaded on the first hit. Another approach would be to have the
Of course, I could have completely missed the point.
--- This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine. ---
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
The hell it isn't a fork of C++. The syntax is IDENTICAL. They took namespaces and called them "packages", removed pointers and called it a new langauge. Oh, and made it compile to bytecode so it would be slow as shit due to JVM overhead. What a great new language...
Increased startup time.
The speed might be faster too, but I know time is faster for sure.
The best defense to forking is momentum/inertia. Sun has already said that there are 5 million or so users, who would want to leave them behind?
- Sam Ruby
My Vote's On This Doofus
great comedy company.
Sun is more likely now than ever before to move towards open sourcing Java. The competition has emerged: Microsoft CLR and C#. Like all Microsoft products, it sucks. Big time. But Sun knows that that's never stopped Microsoft from taking over a market before.
So now with Satan's Steamroller coming across the horizon, Sun has every incentive to open source Java. Soon, preferably.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Yeah! And if the performance increase will be anything like the staggering speed-up of Mozilla, then.. umm.. oh wait..
Forget hooking the JVM into the OS of the platform. Make the JVM the HARDWARE of the platform.
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Performance and usablity of Java - maybe. Performance and usablility of Linux - NOT.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
/. used to have the official Java logo, but sun threatened to sue or something so Rob changed it to what you see now. That's how much Sun wants to support the open source community.
/. community came up with the idea of using a blue brontosaurus for the image instead. Fortunately for Big Blue, they backed down and let us have the stupid image.
IBM was about to do the same thing, but the
Misfit
"There will be some magic point in the future I believe, where we'll reach critical mass.
When we reach that point at Sun, you'll see us go to a much more open source,"...
I tought that there are 2 things : open source and close source. Much more open source ?? hmmm, what does that mean anyway ?
They are stalling with this Sun Community Source License scheme...
Too bad, I like Java...
Just another coder...
Part of staying an icon is having a vision and recognizing which way the market is flowwing long term. As has already been addressed by another post, being able to incorperate jvm functionality closer to the kernel would give it a bit of a kick in the pants (which is what MS did in the windows envirnoment sort of). But at a more intere$ting level, one of the growing fields is Training. Sun had already started getting its hand into this. If they are able to boost java's use, and they are seen as the defacto source for java instruction then they profit. Think about it. 12 people paying $2000 for a week's instruction. That is $24000 to cover the cost of a trainer, a site, and some sun nick-nacks. RedHat is diving into training as fast as they can (maybe too fast) because there is profit.
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
And that's the whole point. There is little question that Sun would still remain in control of an Open Source Java. Especially if this beast were released under a license like the GPL (which would give extraordinary powers to Sun, they could still release versions licensed under a closed-source license, but their competitors would not be able to do the same). If Sun released their source code they would almost certainly end up behind the steering wheel. The only difference would be that it would quiet the doubters. All of a sudden there would cease to be a reason to worry about Java's future. After all, if Sun were to screw up horribly, the Java community could right the ship.
Forks are evil, but if you base your future on software that you can't fork, you are at your vendor's mercy. If customers want that, they can stick with Microsoft and their solutions.
Besides, I want a decent Java2 JVM to be part of Debian main. In fact, I want all of the Linux distributions to ship with a Java2 JVM set up and ready to go. Running Java programs should be as straightforward under Linux as running programs written in C. The fact of the matter is that, in the Free Software world anyhow, Java isn't even as ubiquitous as Python, and it is no where near as universal as Perl, and that's Sun's fault, plain and simple.
Java could easily become the next lingua franca for programmers, replacing venerable C. But Sun's grasp is slowly squeezing the life out of it.
Now, when anyone posts how .net is cool for being very cross lingual, just remember folks this is yet another way of doing that same thing.
GTK also gets kudos for its success in the cross-lingual-hood.
It's easy to say "we go open source", because that way you don't have to make a commitment. Now "we're releasing Java as Free software" - that would be a bold move.
Hey, if you want low-level Java, why don't you check out www.jos.org.
:-)
JOS is an effort to produce a full Java operating system for many architectures. I think the point is to load a JVM "kernel" at boot time and off you go.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
You're kidding me right? Some guy at Sun slips a comment about OSS and everybody is up in a OSS induced religious fury? Where's the hard evidence? It's not even a f*ing RUMOR! Its silly some of the stuff that makes it on Slashdot.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The entire caching mechanism is LGPL'ed, you can pull it down from http://traxel.com/oss/. The call is in the Cache.manageCacheSize() method. I consider it well timed because it occurs right after expired objects are removed from the cache. I'll have my email address up on the site soon, if you want to make changes use bobnospam@nospamtraxel.com.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I agree completely. I'd also like to see the JCK available to anyone and the Java Compatible(TM) certification opened up to VMs that don't contain any Sun code.
Java VMs are becoming a vital piece of computing infrastructure (for many organizations at least), so I think the industry would benefit from having multiple, independent, compatible implementations.
Microsoft.
Or any other company that saw Java as a threat.
Steve M
The one question I have: won't this make it entirely possible and legal for somebody to pull what Microsoft tried with their "J++"? Microsoft got slapped for that. But, suppose that Suns JVM was GPL'ed; that would make it difficult for them to license the spec and slap Microsoft the way they did for J++. Then suppose that Microsoft releases a J++, also GPL'ed to keep it legal, but so tied into the Windows API that it will effecitvely only ever work on Windows. Microsoft then pushes it, hard, making IE only work with J++, trying to get all Windows users out there to move to this polluted version of Java.
Cross platform Java dies. Sure, if J++ is open sourced, people can eventually create emulators that will let it run elsewhere, but I'd much rather have a Java that was designed from the beginning to be cross platform, wouldn't you?
Mind you, I know this is a Chicken Little scenario, but it *would* have been possible of JVM was open sourced all along, I believe. Nowadays, Microsoft is going to try to push C# to replace Java, so Sun is opening itself up less to people like MS by fully open sourcing Java.
--Rob
It's amazing what passes for "insightful" these days. First of all, if a license prevents forking then it doesn't meet the open source guidelines. Not only that, but the GPL is the license for gcc, the gnu objective-c runtime, and countless libraries. One memorable fork in recent time was the gnu/linux split for the standard c library, and that ended up being unified quite nicely. In my opinion, being allowed to fork is necessary. Even if forking isn't desired, it must be allowed.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
It is only through standardization that Java can be assured to be kept truly pure and cross-platform operable as an open product. Proprietary extensions, while seeming useful to large groups of users, erode overall product usefulness and cross platform compatibility. Remember the early days of both Javascript and ASP.
Code commentary is like sex.
If it's good, it's VERY good.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011 ,1017808,00.html .
bug.gd: error search engine. Humanity working together to solve all errors.
"I know you want me to say it will be in a week or in a year, but I can't say that. I can say that open source for Java is our goal. But we also continue to provide an environment that benefits everyone," Paolini said.
Huh?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
There is a lot going on in the background of Java, like the native code, that just support the spec. It's basically like releasing how a library works for a interface. Sun would be opensourcing how they got their interface to work in regards to the specs. It's still different for every version of Java that follows the specs.
Starbucks opens the source to their award winning Nutmeg Coffee.
When asked to comment about this, they said "We hope to attract more of the computer scientists to our business. They have to get their buzz somewhere, why not get it from the OpenSource Java Leader?"
What I meant was a more open license being used for Java would be a good thing, and I would support them in this, even if they preventing forking by means similar to the ones you name (registation and certification.)
Anywhere, here is java's future in action:
http://java.sun.com/features/2000/10/jcp.html?fron tpage-banner
They appear to be reaching out to the various interests involved in Java programming to approve changes in a congressional manner. I don't know if I should demand better representation, or less taxes.
-Ben
It's not the lack of openness that's keeping Java from reaching widespread acceptance, it's Microsoft, actually... Java has advanced pretty far ahead in the server arena, it just hasn't accomplished much on the desktop due to 90% of the worlds desktops not being very enthusiastic about it.
It'd really be detrimental to trully opensource java. If they had from the get go, there'd have been no clause for them to go after microsoft for shipping tainted "java" tools which incedentally destroyed the whole premise of Java by creating applicationst that ran on only one platform.
What's kept java going so far is that Sun's been leading the way.... It'd be much better if they made a $0 license for people to have access to the source code, but retain the name to Java and only permit environments which complied with the "standard" to use the word Java in their names or descriptions.
It'll be Sun Industry Standard Source License.
Why is it an Industry Standard? Because they called it one.
Try clicking on your own URL. Kaffe put out a new release just a few months back, and announce that they'd be merging the free (Kaffe) and for-fee (Transvirtual) versions together, distributed free as Kaffe.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
As I see it, the reason most well-known projects that go GPL don't fork too much is because they already have a lot of code and a lot of inertia. However, Java is a much smaller project and if anything more well-known than Linux(?!) and therefore is liable to get changed far more in a short period of time as everyone has their own ideas about what would be best to do with it.
This is liable to lead to a slew of different versions and in the end there will probably be a "battle of the Java's", similar to the "Browser Wars", with MS picking one type, Mac another and Linux another.
Of course, it could work out fine if everyone did work together on it - but how often does that happen when companies are competing for cash?
I actually think it's quite possible. Maybe they finally realized what's keeping Java from widespread acceptance is lack of true openness. My money is on "yes", I think they'll do it, in less than a year probably.
FYI: The Open Runtime Platform from intel seems to be an open sourced VM, which happens to also be a JVM. Actually it seems similar to Microsoft's .net runtime... I'm not sure what languages it currently supports besides Java...
D'oh!
-Turkey
Whoops..your right...I should have previewed twice.
Microsoft.
Do you really think Microsoft would fork a GPL implementation and open source their improvements? If they did, would that really be so bad?
- Sam Ruby
While you consistently post as a troll, you ride the edge of believability and say interesting things (well, you shoot from the hip), so I don't mind replying.
They are talking about the releasing the java.* and javax.* libraries under an open/free license. Currently Sun's SCSL license allows you to look at the source to those fundamental libraries; but it prohibits you from sharing it with anyone who hasn't agreed to the license (unless they're a student at an accredited school). So, to an absurd extreme, they could disallow anyone of black descent to view the sourcecode, as long as they aren't a student.
It is very important for the long-term, since it can conflict with the GPL. If you're against the GPL, fine; but there are many who take a shine to the hoary old license, and don't want it to be impossible to use. There are solutions... The Java environment can be considered an "operating system" since it provides a self-contained environment, and therefore you don't have to open up the libraries' source...
But it's one of those licenses that is totally open for abuse; many people within Sun are very open to the free/open movement, but there are those who find something about it to ridicule.
That's a just plain dumb statement. Without language forks we would still be using Fortran or arguably Fortran/Cobol/Algol/Lisp.
Java is itself a language fork for christ's sake. Surely you've heard of it's predecessors C++, C with classes, K&R C, C, B and BCPL. Not to mention the many other langs it stole other idioms from!
The GPL is a like an ecology. If you don't suck, you survive. If you do, you get killed.
Maybe under GPL, Java would be able to grow up and become a champ. But if it gets it's neck snapped off by an inspired left hook thrown out of the Eiffel camp, so be it.
"There will be some magic point in the future I believe, where we'll reach critical mass. When we reach that point at Sun, you'll see us go to a much more open source."
How many forks are there in the Linux kernel? Linux is under GPL, but Linus is still regarded as the central authority for maintaining the main kernel releases. Once Java reaches the critical mass that Sun is waiting for, the advantages to forking over the source code to create an incompatible Java instance will be overridden by the momentum of general public using Java.
First of all, Sun has already released the source to the JVM, quite some time ago. It's just not under what some people consider an open license. The article was talking specifically about changing the license to GPL or something similiar.
Second, it would NOT be awesome if they opened the spec up to everyone, like an RFC. If it was, anyone who wanted to add a new API class or method or change the way a class worked would be free to do so, creating a large number of incompatible version of Java. This is precisely what Sun is trying to avoid. Now maybe they should release control of the spec to a standards body, but that is a different story. Besides, Sun created Java and they should be able to do with it as they see fit. If people don't like it they won't use Java and it will go away.
Calling Java a "fork" of C++ because C++ preceeds it and has some things in common is patently ridiculous, and appropriation of features from other languages does not a fork make.
Don't forget that Java itself is basically just a specification for a language and a means of implementation. The stuff that Sun [ is | may be ] looking at open sourcing are their virtual machine and bytecode compilers (we assume).
The "forking danger" here is that a bunch of other organizations might simply decide they want to introduce new stuff to the language and say, "Okay. This is our version of Java. So there." Microsoft licensed the technology from Sun and proceeded to do just that, completely against the terms of the contract.
(Incidentally: John Heilemann writes a fantastic article about the Microsoft anti-trust suit in this month's Wired. He asked Steve Ballmer if Microsoft believed they were signing the contract in bad faith. His answer was a bit on the long and vitriolic side, but it seemed to boil down to, "Of course we were, and the sub-50 IQ people at Sun were morons if they didn't think so too." Yes, "sub-50 IQ" was his phrase.)
Would it be so bad if someone forked the code in that manner? Maybe not. But I suspect that plenty of people are twitchy about just that possibility, given the whole J++ fiasco.
I think this is a great idea if they do it. Javadocs are cool, but sometimes, you have to go find the source to figure out how ther *^&$ thing *really* works. If you've ever had to do this, then having the class library source in convenient Javadoc format would be a huge boon. I really don't care if they opensource the JVM, but I really want the entire source code to the class libraries...
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
If they made Java a completely Open System, designed by industry consensus
Um. You kind of have to decide how you're going to design something BEFORE you do it, rather than afterwards.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
...But they still need to relax their Distribution restrictions - If java2 doesn't come as a standard part of Linux distributions, they will have hard Time trying to attract Linux users. Windows users will go with .net anyway. Which leaves OS X/Solaris as the only serious java2 platforms.
Both have the problem of running on hardware with a bad bang/buck ratio.
Hopefully their co-operation with apache project might eventually wake them up.
signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Sun is simply trying to court the open source community towards Java. Sun's reluctance to submit Java to a standards committee is justified. Standards don't garauntee compliance. Look at the C++ Standard Lib and STL.
Someone you trust is one of us.
The language definition is already out there for people to use, as are the APIs. That leaves the JDK and the various Java packages as the main thing that is not Open Source.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
First there was IBM. Then, Digital provided an alternative. Then, Sun provided an alternative to Digital. Then a whole bunch of people marketed Unix-like systems based on Free Software and provided an alternative to Sun. Sun's got to notice, and they don't want to go the way of Digital. So I think they might be getting that message.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Mind you, I'd never use the GPL either, but that's not because I don't like Free Software, it's because I don't think the GPL is free enough, for me.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Preferrably the original Gosling NeWS server, not the X11/NeWS hybrid. Both would be even better, though...
Around the JDK 1.1.5 days, I took a look to see what it would take to port JDK 1.1.5 to BSD/OS. After all, working ports for FreeBSD and Linux existed at the time.
At first I was in shock to discover that everything that had been done for FreeBSD, I would have to redo. The code supported Win32 and Solaris and that was it. Obviously, not importing any portability fixes from outside developers (who have offered them to Sun for inclusion) is a surefire way to make sure that all other platforms will always play catch up, often involving non-trivial amounts of work to backport earlier fixes to a new release. Basing the BSD/OS version off the FreeBSD work looked like suicide for my spare time to me.
I discussed the situation with a few people who had dealt with these issues, and came to the conclusion that Sun just didn't have the infrastructure to support integrating platform patches. If you look at platform support in Mozilla, you'll notice that Netscape-the-company invests significant time in keeping the source tree in shape for their main platforms without unduly damaging the other platforms.
Sun will have to devote significant resources to the management of their external developer base as well: integrating patches, verifying their non-effect on the supported platforms, and resolving disputes. They will have to anyway: the model whereby they license the code to third parties and burden them with porting the fixes forward to new releases just won't fly in this day and age. The model where outside source trees blossom in the field (e.g., SourceForge) isn't attractive to them either: sooner or later a significant fork will drive a wedge between Sun-supported Java and the Other Java.
I never tracked Java closely after the 1.1.6 release so they may have built on this already, but given their track record for fixing bugs in Solaris or defining a "Community license", I don't think they're mentally ready yet to properly manage outside contributions.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
Java is already being shaped by expert group communities, with Sun's developers at the helm having the final say. How is this different from the same way structures work with other open source projects? You're free (in most countries) to download the source code to Java's classes and runtime JVM implementation, you're just not allowed to make your own one based on Sun's implementation, and you're not allowed to call it 'Java' without paying Sun a lot of money for a license. Who cares? If you want to participate in the Java community, almost all the flexibility you need is there.
Does my bum look big in this?
Certainly kaffe exists. They will benefit, not because they cannot currently exist but because they will have to go through fewer legal hoops to get there.
-- Anne Marie
I think he meant improved startup time. :p
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
There are some things that make an OS lite enought to run properly and there are some things that are rather bad to do. I think when you start to shove things into the OS domain you really start to get bloat similar to microsoft products.
In theory why aren't people working on running OS level perl and php as well considering all the use that these languages get in the world today.
Respond to s
This is a load of rubbish. Who's "open source guidelines" are you talking about? Are you talking about those self appointed commissioners of OSS, ESR & Stallman? Open source means just that, the source is available. The terms and use of that source do not necissarily have to be GPL. Sun is a company and is not interested in the politics of GPL vs. the world, and they should not be interested in such things. They should do what is best for Java. There may be legal issues with GPL'ing anything dealing with Java, since the GPL has yet to stand a day in court. They need to protect Java from the polluting hands of Microsoft, or Java dies just like Netscape did, just like HTML is doing, and just like XML will (which is a nice buzzword with little meaning to MS).
Burn Hollywood Burn
Tell that to the folks over at OpenBSD. I'm sure they will disagree right after showing you the source to their software.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Is that "FREE" or "OPEN-SOURCE"?
This
There are already JVMs and Java compilers under the GPL. And Microsoft has already paied the Kaffe people to add support for Microsoft extensions. This isn't going to change much of anything, except make a whole lot of Java stuff easier for Red Hat, Debian and others.
ok, i'm don't use java, so I'm not sure if this really applies, but here are my thoughts:
/leading national brand/ operating system because it does most things for them, quickly and easily. this makes sense to me, when i buy a car, i don't want to install the engine myself, i just want it to go really fast when i push the gas peddle, wtf difference does it make to me if company a or company b made the engine? however, if company a made my engine, but i wanted to buy a stereo form company c, but that stereo didn't work with company a's engine i would be very upset (yes, that is ridiculous, but that's the way the software company works now isn't it?)
/leading national brand/ operating system manufacturer forcing them to bow down to them in order to get a peice of software to actually work correctly.
any programming language that runs on a proprietary operating system is going to have problems, not the least of which is the fact that the language is at the mercy of the operating system manufacturer. sun wants java to run on any platform, but must make some concessions to achieve this goal. it seems to me that it would be in the best interest of Sun to have the operating system open. it makes little difference to them if their software or their specification is open source.
i think everyone here agrees that it's the operating system that needs to be open, so that more programmers are able to write *good* code on top of that operating system. as many people have already noted, a few years from now (hopefully) the operating system will make little differnce to the user.
looking at the real world now, i think linux will reach it's saturation point soon because as much as i like it, it's a tool for people who like to know everything that's going on and like to configure every little detail (pretty much known as 'geeks'). Most people are happy with the
soooo.... companies like sun and aol/timewarner/glowfax mega corp that have software that they want as many people as possible to use would greatly benefit if the operating system made no differnce. i don't know about sun, but i'm pretty sure aol gets it, yes they have proprietary software, but they give it away. look at nullsoft, i'm sure aol is thrilled everytime j frankel and gang do something "subversive" and give it away to 50 million people, because it just gives them more and more users.
so basically this off topic (i don't think i've ever been on a topic) rant comes down to a question: what more can companies like sun and aol do to force operating systems open?
the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and i think our 'friends' need to band together to do something about
ok, that got kinda long and disconnected, but i'm at work, and i'm doing 20 things at once. and nobody asked you to read this or agree with it. mod it down and it will go away.
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
The statement "Sun wants everyone to use Java on every platform - without putting forth the effort to port it to every platform themselves." is only contrdictory if you assume that to have java on every platform then Sun will have to port it to every platform. If they open-source the code (under whatever restrictive license they need to keep control of it) then OTHERS will do the porting for them. They will have it on every platform, they will have control over it, and they'll only have to expend a fraction of the resources they would expend if they ported it themselves. This also lets their user community decide which ports get done and how quickly, rather than Sun guessing which port has the highest priority.
-Adam
Whether they have a problem with people changing it the way MS tried changing it depends entirely on what they source and how they license it.
I doubt Sun is opening all of java, and I doubly doubt that they will use a licensing scheme which allows others to 1) fork the code and 2) change the code significantly without their stamp of approval.
-Adam
...which I'm sure many of you will do. ;)
If they open source Java - wouldn't it be very easy at that point to incorporate it at a very low level into an operating system (especially an open source OS like Linux)? Thereby increasing performance and usability...
Just a thought.
BlackNova Traders
Just make it Open Systems! If they made Java a completely Open System, designed by industry consensus and completely backward compatible with a publicly available spec, anyone could create a complete Java implementation, open source or not. This is far more important than availability of source, but then again Sun has been more against Open Systems than any of the UNIX vendors, historically.
They are in a good position if they were to do that. Suppose everyone and their mother were able to use java and then they were able to sell some rather niftly little software extensions and the like for java and make a good profit? I think that is their overwhelming concern.
Respond to s
...there will exist a JVM that isn't broken? The Java Virtual Machines are known for their memory taking and process slugging performance. If they open source this, I can't wait to see what an incredible increase in performance this will mean for Java programs!
.sigs??
-- Don't you hate it when people comment on other people's
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
First of all, M$ version of Java is pretty much dead. Secondly, why would this harm IBM's Java? If they open-sourced their Java and the community found it to be a better app., don't you think it would become the de-facto Java VM? The problem with all of this idiotic thinking is the open source community thinks it has the ability to write VMs. VMs are an extremely complicated beast, best left to the experts w/i these companies who spend their lives devoted to writing them. Some 2-bit hack isn't going to sit down and improve the garbage collector over night.
--- One world, one chance Doc.
I've found that having the source is excellent for knowing how the foundation classes are implemented, and for learning more advanced Java. Javadocs are really nice, but they don't explain how the data is actually stored inside the class, for instance. I think this is important for optimization. Also, the source isn't included with the JDK that you download. It's a seperate download (at least that's how I did it).
"Java" can't be open sourced--it's a specification, not a program. So is he talking about releasing the source to their implementation (which would be largely worthless*) or about opening the spec up to everyone to modify like with RFC's (which would be awesome)?
My guess: Neither one. The guy was speaking at ApacheCon, he was just using "Open Source" as a buzzword. At best, we'll see the source code of some (not all) of their implementation.
*Obviously this would provide immediate help to projects like Kaffe, but it wouldn't be all that useful long-term.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Java was also lacking in the printing capabilities for a looonnnggg time!
The JDK1.2.0 was very "funny" in this respect:
- it had the JDK1.1x printing API which was deprecated which means that in theory you could still use it, in reality it wasn't working anymore.
- it had the brand new Java2 printing API which was barely working: it used gobs of memory, was really slow, you had to do weird things such disable the double buffering, etc..
The Java language is not bad, but the set of libraries need some bug fixing!
Maybe opensourcing it will help, there are bugs in the BugParade for which more than 100 people asked to be corrected, the bug report was opened 2 years ago and it is still there!!!
To be fair the JDK1.3 fixed a lot of bug, so it is getting better, it is just taking a lot of time..
This is really just a reaction to C#. Rather than trying to submit Java to a standards body and let everyone make their own Java compilers (instead of Java - like compilers) Sun wants everyone to use Java on every platform - without putting forth the effort to port it to every platform themselves. But more importantly, they want everyone to use their compiler/runtime/etc
This may or may not happen, and it may or may not benefit them. But if it does happen, it can only benefit us.
-Adam
It's no match for Larry-Boy and his Super Suction ears!
"spluh, spluh, spluh, spluh, spluh"
How do you make a squeeking, suctioning sound in cyberspace?
like flamebait but its not meant to be, but doesnt it seem like SUN is trying really really hard to get into the liking of the OSS community. If so, I ask you this.....Why bother? Sun is an icon already, much like 'IBM Compatible' pc. They dont have to do much more to impress us, what is compelling them to go out of their way to kiss up to the OSS community? (ie staroffice, solaris etc etc.) is it possible sun is in financial trouble?
"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
Then they cannot use a GPL license. It's one thing for an editor like emacs to fork, another for a language to fork.
They must use a different license, where forking is somehow not allowed. I think that's understandable for a piece of software on which millions of other pieces of software are based, such as Java. Although they want it to grow and change quickly, they want it to stay in one version, if only to keep sanity in the ranks of millions of Java programmers (like myself). Can you imagine if someone came out with a Java++ with new features and incomplete support for new initiatives that came along?
Oh wait...
So I support Sun, as a Java programmer still. And I understand why a "pure" GPL license probably isn't the answer in this instance.
-Ben
The security problem is an OS-level problem. The OS enables the admin to give permissions per user/sysobject and that is insufficiently granular in world with ubiquitous network connections and applications.
A user should also be able to reduce his own permissions when he doesn't trust a particular executable.
Example:
The admin gives user "Jacky" a particular set of permissions. If I am user "Jacky" and I want to execute an executable from source "www.donttrust.com", I should be able to set permissions for "Jacky-www.donttrust.com" that are a subset of the "Jacky" permissions and hence further reduce the potential havoc that source "www.donttrust.com" could create.
So, the internet has created a need for 2-level sysadminning. The sysadmin gives the user a subset of root, and the user gives a particular application source a subset of his own rights.
You could conceivably create a workaround, by creating new users, but in a normal context an ordinary user does not have the permission to create new users, nor should he have this permission.
In fact, this is a general OS problem to raise with the kernel and filesystem people.
It is totally unrelated to the Java *language*.
They will never fully open source it. The fear fragmentation is too great. They'll probably do it only to allow people to make bugfixes, etc.
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore. Vote Third Party to disrupt the process.
But a third party vote is a vote for Bush or Gore.
And how is voting, which is part of the process, disruptive?
Vote for the candidate that best represents your interests, Bush, Gore, or anybody else.
For me that's Gore. YMMV.
Steve M
What Sun can do is use a certification program and trademarks to enforce the Java definition. If you modify it, you can't call it Java(R) any longer, and you can't display their certification badge on your product's packaging and literature.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Designing an ASIC to run Java byte code native might sound appealing at first, but it is ultimately a losing proposition. General purpose hardware (in this case, commodity microprocessors) ramp so incredibly quickly that investing in a special purpose "accelerator" is almost always the less cost-effective approach.
Obviously, graphics cards are the exception today. The reason? Graphics processing is incredibly hungry, and parallel by nature. Rendering and texture mapping can be parallelized far more easily than other desktop-style applications.
It is less clear that an ASIC JVM would make sense. Recall the early days of software mp3 players. When you were running an inefficient software decoder on a P100, you could notice the performance loss. Many people talked about how cool it would be to have a special ASIC run the algorithm in hardware on your sound card. Well, ramping up a project to design, market and sell such a device would have taken so long that by the time it hit shelves, everyone would be P200's with better optimized players and no longer care.
As long as CPU cost / performance keeps ramping like it is, hardware accelerators for special functions are not going to be attractive. I just can't see the demand for such a device. Besides, how much speed improvement could the device really buy you without being a fairly advanced processor itself?
rambling on a Wednesday,
Lenny
I'm certian this decision is a long time coming, and that it has been discussed for the past several years at various times. But I would not be surprised if the decision was tipped toward open source (not free software, read the article) due to MS's NET strategy, and integral part of which is C#.
And I doubt Sun is anywhere near an understanding that 'the Free Software paradigm is the future for computer infrastructure'.
-Adam
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Java is definitely C++ done right, as a language.
.class and(!) native .obj files that your application needs (and nothing more) and link them to one executable?
.class files your application needs but the .obj files as well?
Unfortunately, the whole virtual machine approach sucks like a 2-dollar hooker.
Why not have to linker grab the
It would solve a large number of problems that are now plaguing Java applications:
(1) A need to deploy the run-time
(2) another need to deploy the run-time everytime you upgrade the jdk.
(3) an unnecesary requirement for the run-time to remain backwards compatible.
Why not take the sealed jar approach to the logical point where it not only contains all the
In such case, an executable would have all its dependencies, contained in its own file, and there would be no need to remain backward compatible. The new executable would simply contain the new dependencies!
Second, I would like to see:
import org.myorg.somefunctionality.1.99.* As some
Instead of:
import org.myorg.somefunctionality.1.99.*
It prevents global name space pollution, and it clearly indicates what namespace the classes and methods come from. Now you would have to write the horrible:
org.myorg.somefunctionality.1.99.someClass myvar=new org.myorg.somefunctionality.1.99.someClass()
I would like to see instead:
some.someClass myvar=new some.someClass()
Open-sourcing is definitely needed, so that we can finally move the thing forward!
As an attempt to please the developer community, I think they'd do better with some standardization of the core product (language,vm,core classes).
I know standardization is slow and can inhibit development (and the ground is well trodden), but developors' need that reasurance that what's written today doesn't need rewriting tommorrow.
-- Hob - Java Spectrum Emulator
Did anyone consider that this might just be a rumor? Or even a misquote? I highly doubt Sun is going to OS Java. Unless there was a major shakeup, historically Sun wants to maintain it's ownership of Java.
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
I mean, get real. Sun is spitting out this merely as a publicity attempt. Will it go open source? Who knows, not even them at this point. But that doesn't top them from using the open-source frenzy from grabbing a little publicity.
"There will be some magic point in the future I believe, where we'll reach critical mass. When we reach that point at Sun, you'll see us go to a much more open source," said George Paolini Sun's vice president of technologies advocacy and community development in the conference's first keynote speech.
"I believe".... not "Sun will"
I'll believe it when when I see it!
- It's anarchy baby. Suck it up.
Hate to say it, but Microsoft's .NET strategy is a pretty compelling vision. While it "embraces" Java, it will always play second fiddle in Microsoft's eyes. As with everything M$, it will take 2-3 years before .NET becomes decent.
.NET snowball in being a foundation for the coming net centricity of virtually everything.
Open sourcing Java now will allow it to evolve with a much higher degree of innovation than it has to date. IMHO, this will give it a strong fighting chance to stay ahead of the
I think this would give Sun a huge advantage over IBM and Microsoft's version of Java. It would completely blow them out of the water or force them to do the same.
But under a different license it wouldn't be illegal to produce a bunch of MS-specific changes (as long as they release the source). You can say everyone would reject such stuff, but the mass of MS pre-installs and re-installs (as part of, say, an IE 6 installation) is a formidable group of folks that would not reject it.
But even if everyone rejected the MS tools and libraries it wouldn't matter that much to MS since the desired effect is disruption and distraction, not a strategic platform effort. Any success their stuff had would be gravy as long as the forking blunted java's progress.
Think dog-in-the-manger defense. I don't think an intentional fork (under the guise of extra goodies for the consumer) is a hard scenario to envision.
Cris E
St Paul, MN
I'd have to disagree with you on that one there.
Far too often I've seen bad coding implemented for the sake of 'optimization' and 'work-arounds'. While I'm not dismissing knowing what's going on, it's far more important to do things cleanly and to test things. A good test case run against multiple VM's is far better than a stroll through the code. Especialy if in that stroll you pick up some assumptions on how things work and missapply them later.
Also, I've seen 'fixes' people have put in that later break things worse when stepping up the VM. Just switching to IBM's VM, or from 1.1.x to 1.3.x should not cause any problems.
For an example of vendor-specific class sources, compare java.lang.String.valueOf( int ) in Sun's 1.1.x and IBM's 1.1.x. Some would recommend going with Integer.toString( int ) instead as an 'optimization'. However, it makes the code less clear and less reuseable, and, more importantly, in IBM's VM doing that is actually slower. And even in Sun's VM doing the 'optimized' thing is not significantly faster. So why then do some recommend that 'optimization'??? Because they looked into the Sun 1.1.x sources and decided to change their application's code based on their examination of the Sun sources.
you're just not allowed to make your own one based on Sun's implementation
A Java platform compatible environment, with all the class libraries, would AFAIK have more lines of code than the Linux kernel.
you're not allowed to call it 'Java' without paying Sun a lot of money for a license
Free software reimplementations of the UNIX platform are called POSIX standard compliant systems. What will free software reimplementations of the Java platform be called?
Will I retire or break 10K?
>Yeah, which Java? Java the language? Java the security model? Java the Virtual Machine? Help me out here.
Merchandising! Merchandising!
Java the T-shirt! Java the Coloring Book! Java the Lunch Box! Java the Breakfast Cereal! Java the Flamethrower!
(sorry, I know this post will probably never be seen so late, but I couldn't help myself)
-----------
-----------
"I used to live in Real Life(TM), now I live in my computer"
Open Sourcing of Java is not magical pixie dust. It won't lead to anymore developement than it has now. Sun should release full OSS Java Compilers, along with detailed sample code and headers with the purchase of a $20 book. You need to get the hearts and minds of poor college students, then once they are in the industry you can move to screw Microsoft.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Yeah, but without printing capabilities!
did anyone fix it?
Respond to s
If "open source" (what ever their definition of it is this week) is what Sun has to say to get folks attention then hell thats what they'll do. An "open source" java from Sun means nothing without Java itself being submited to a standards body like ANSI. More lip service from Sun's marketing to make them look like the nice guys while they plan their next points of attack against MS and the Linux/Unix world.
Peter
--
www.alphalinux.org
www.alphalinux.org
Open sourcing java (if they mean the jdk) may work much better than projects like mozilla and openoffice.
Mozilla and openoffice are both more or less monolithic, huge heaps of source code. It is very difficult to handle them in open source projects. (X11 is a similar thing, and XFree has long been developed by a relativly small, well organized bunch of people).
The jdk consists mainly of two parts: The virtual machine and the class libraries.
Huge parts of the libraries are written in java, and their interfaces are somewhat documented, so it may be easy to subdivide it into smaller projects.
The VM may be split into a base system and a a JIT compiler, both are reasonably sized for an open source project.