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."
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
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
qnonsense
·
· Score: 3
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...
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.
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...
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.
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!)
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?
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
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.
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).
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.
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$, it will take 2-3 years before.NET becomes decent.
Open sourcing Java now will allow it to evolve with a much higher degree of innovation than it has to date. IMHO, this will give it a strong fighting chance to stay ahead of the.NET snowball in being a foundation for the coming net centricity of virtually everything.
I think this is a great idea if they do it. Javadocs are cool, but sometimes, you have to go find the source to figure out how ther *^&$ 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: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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
...
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
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"...
--
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
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...
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.
...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.
"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!)
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?
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
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.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Yeah, but without printing capabilities!
What's Java going to be missing, sockets?
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.
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'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.
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:
;-) 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.
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
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"
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