Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Plans Open Source Java
sthiyaga writes "According to a ComputerWire article, Red Hat is in discussions with Sun about launching an open source version of the Java platform. 'There's always been an interest in an open source implementation of Java developed in a clean room that adheres to the Java standards,' Szulik told ComputerWire. 'We're in discussions with Sun. We'd like to do this with their support.'"
With so many java API implementations being open source (JBoss, Tomcat), it only makes sense to create an open source version of the core platform. This would go a long way to combat .NET, which claims to be an open standard.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
Sun has promised a lot in the past for Java and then gone back on their word. For example, Sun promised an open Java standard but then pulled out of two standardization efforts.
If this gets dragged into the JCP process or stays under Sun's "community source" umbrella, it will not be open source in the way that we know it. If people aren't free to "corrupt" the open source Java in any way they like, it will not be open source; for example, one project of key importance for Java on Linux would be native bindings to Gnome.
A closely related question to be answered is what the patent situation around any such "open source" version of Java will be; Sun currently holds several patents that effectively block fully compatible open source implementations. Will Sun dedicate those patents to the public domain? Or will the "open source Java" adopt a license that makes the code open source but lets Sun retain control over who gets to use it through patents?
To Sun, Linux is as much as a threat as Microsoft, and their strategy is the same: make the OS irrelevant by replacing it with a Sun-controlled platform that runs on top of the OS. The Linux community should be as paranoid about that occurring as Microsoft management is. Sun is, ultimately, not a friend of Linux.
Maybe Sun is serious about creating an "open source" version of Java in the sense we all use the term. But I will reserve my judgement until there is something concrete on the table. So far, every promise of opening up Java by Sun has turned out to be a smokescreen and a distraction.
I know some Red Hat/Sun folks are reading this. As a person who is learning Java in his spare time, I really want to say thanks -- I pray that this goes through. Combining Java and OSS with Red Hat and Sun support, in my mind, is enough to kill .NET and set Linux up for good.
This might be the final kick in the ass that gives Linux the momentum to move on top.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
If Java were open-source, Microsoft could take it, deliver it as they saw fit and drive a definition of Java that was divergent from the one that the community wanted to be compatible.
Assume that Microsoft would have called this divergent platform "J++".
If the Java platform were open-source and under a license similar to that of X11, what you quoted would be the case. On the other hand, if the Java platform were open-source and copylefted, Microsoft would have to publish the source code of its J++ platform.
Will I retire or break 10K?
http://saveie6.com/
Ok on the first two points, but complete FUD on the last one. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how Java was created, why some of the design decisions were made. If you don't like Java, fine, program in whatever the hell language you want.
.NET, because that blows your whole argument.
Don't blame your bias on the language design, especially when you don't name anything to back it up.
What's the "much more modern approach to networked programming than Java?"
And don't say
Ah yes, it's 19:29 Groundhog Standard Time and the "C Sharp is a standard platform" post makes its due appearance. And we in turn recite the standard rebuttal, viz:
1. C Sharp the language is a standard, but this counts for little since the platform (corresponding to J2SE or J2EE) is really the Dotnet framework, which is not standardized and remains proprietary and patented.
2. Shared source is not open source, in fact, I doubt if many people here would be willing to accept the terms for looking at Rotor, let alone using it.
3. "Not stood in the way of" (yet) other implementations is a little different from actually supporting them. With the Java Platform, not only are there already multiple vendors and dozens of separate implementations, but the legal permission for their development has been set forth in the JSPA. No equivalent exists for Dotnet whatsoever.
(Yawn. Hope I'm not missing anything good on TV...)
shouda done this 6 years ago.
don't get me wrong. i love java, its the only thing on my resume, sole bread-n-butter for past 6 years, etc.
but the C# designers really know the market.
when i first read "C# = java done right" in a PR article, i said, "yeah right, what absolute BS".
but then, i attended my first c# training seminar last month, & having just completed a major java-to-c# porting project, i can say this much - C# has definitely won the windows-only-client-side battle. if you are developing an app that front-ends on a windows client ( that's pretty much ALL of wall street, given the heavy use of MS-Excel ), C# is simply the way to go.
6 years ago, i recall graduating from school & deciding to go into a Java-job. classmates were like - "what's java ? unproven stuff. use MFC. that's were the $$ is".
how wrong they were! C# is now in the same position - poised to skyrocket.
every single java concept has made it into C#.
furthermore C# has several useful notions ( delegates, boxed types, attribute annotations,assemblies etc ) not in Java.
finally, cross-language interop is a dead reality - i can write a C# class, my VB class can inherit from it, and my C++ class can inherit from my VB class, and call functions in Perl - the CLS & the common type system makes it easy for even a casual novice pgmmer.
once's the mono project attains fruition, c# on linux will be the defacto pgmming style - need i say more ?
from a reluctant C# convert