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.'"

60 of 422 comments (clear)

  1. Much needed by nate1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Much needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK i keep seeing this .NET stuff and never ask about it cause obviosly so many know and i'm not in the know. And i admit i'm somewhat behind things sometimes, so obviosly i missed this somewhere. What is .NET exactly?

    2. Re:Much needed by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 5, Informative

      .NET is Microsoft's newest programming language offerings. Basically the purpose is to integrate the web into windows applications. There is VB .NET, ASP .NET, C#, etc... The languages are actually pretty usable in a windows enviroment, and are OO. This makes them a little more powerful. I use Java, but its nice to bust out a VB .Net proprietary app that runs cleaner/ faster on a windows system. The down side is similiar to Java though, in order to run Java apps, you need the JRE, with .NET stuff, you need the HUGE ass .NET framework installed.

      --
      ymmv
    3. Re:Much needed by nate1138 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. The bytecode format is what MS claims is "Open". Never mind the little fact that without a full library implementation it means absolutely nothing.

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    4. Re:Much needed by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, they would just have to release all the specs for all the API's. We wouldn't need code, just the method name, expected input, and expected output.
      And that means ALL the api's, not just the end-user ones, but the internal communications ones as well.

      If MS does that, then .NET would be an actual standards-compliant language. We'd do the cross-platform work for them. But that would cut into their bottom-line.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    5. Re:Much needed by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) The .NET Framework has a SLIGHTLY smaller footprint than the latest version of Java (46.5 vs 47.3 on my workstation). And it does more stuff -- a lot of the add-on packages for Java, including all of their J2EE crap, parellels what's already in the Framework. Not that it matters...including the framework on an install CD is trivial, and most Windows Update and XP users have it already.

      2) .NET does NOT integrate the web into windows applications. .NET allows users to create web apps in much the same interface as standard windows forms, using a system called WebForms. It also allows regular ASP pages to be compiled into faster versions a la JSP/Servlets. But bringing the web into windows...no, it doesn't really do that, not like you think anyway. Web Services are just a fancy way to perform data transformation. What's cool about .NET is that the IDE supports all sorts of really useful data transformation and reporting mechanisms using SQL/XML/etc built right in...no rolling your own data access methods (though I end up doing it anyway).

      3) .NET is better than Java for apps that will always be used on a Windows PC, because:
      - It has a much faster graphics interface, while maintaining a robust graphics toolkit.
      - It has a better messaging mechanism (Events/Delegates are a GODSEND and are the single most useful thing in the framework)
      - It interoperates quickly and pretty thoroughly with current COM APIs, and wraps up nicely for use in non-.NET apps
      - The Studio environment is faster to work with and has a more mature debugger than any Java IDE I've seen, including Netbeans
      - ADO.NET is pretty nicely done, and things like DataAdapters parellel structures I always end up writing in Java anyway.

      Anyway, the runtime filesize argument is just crap. The java guys need to get that GUI speed up to par or .NET's going to roll right over them. Eight months ago I'd have never said this, but Java isn't my favorite language anymore. C# is. And even association with the vile and repugnant Microsoft isn't enough to sour it.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    6. Re:Much needed by sbrown123 · · Score: 5, Informative


      vs 47.3 on my workstation). And it does more stuff -- a lot of the add-on packages for Java, including all of their J2EE crap, parellels


      I am guessing you are stating that Java has more stuff since .NET does not have J2EE anything. Microsoft cannot have anything past the 1.1 J2SE framework due to license conflicts with Sun. Also, the J2EE framework is a seperate package from the standard java runtime (J2SE).


      CD is trivial, and most Windows Update and XP users have it already.


      I have XP and had to download the .NET framework from Windows Update to get it.


      What's cool about .NET is that the IDE supports all sorts of really useful data transformation and reporting mechanisms using SQL/XML/etc built right in...no rolling your own data access methods (though I end up doing it anyway).


      This is covered by JDO in Java. Theres also a really nice opensource reporting library call JasperReports. Along with that theres iReports which is an opensource IDE for creating JasperReports.


      3) .NET is better than Java for apps that will always be used on a Windows PC, because:
      - It has a much faster graphics interface, while maintaining a robust graphics toolkit.


      See the SWT project. It uses native graphics rendering and widgets in Java.


      - It interoperates quickly and pretty thoroughly with current COM APIs, and wraps up nicely for use in non-.NET apps


      SWT has OLE/ActiveX support.


      - The Studio environment is faster to work with and has a more mature debugger than any Java IDE I've seen, including Netbeans


      Eclipse project works real well. Its very fast (again, uses SWT to render widgets) and has a very mature debugger.


      - ADO.NET is pretty nicely done, and things like DataAdapters parellel structures I always end up writing in Java anyway.


      Its JDO in Java world.


      Anyway, the runtime filesize argument is just crap. The java guys need to get that GUI speed up to par or .NET's going to roll right over them.


      Yes, check out Eclipse (www.eclipse.org). I have been using SWT in combination with GCJ to create native windows applications that dust anything created in VB (though C/C++ apps are a couple milliseconds quicker).


      Eight months ago I'd have never said this, but Java isn't my favorite language anymore. C# is.


      I liked .NET. It has some interesting concepts that will spur Sun to improve Java. I think SharpDevelop is a nice IDE worth checking out for anyone wanting to get into .NET without buying Visual Studio. Also of interest is the Mono project (www.go-mono.org) which is a open source implementation of .NET framework.


      And even association with the vile and repugnant Microsoft isn't enough to sour it.


      I think both Microsoft and Sun suck at being at the helm of both languages. Borland does a better job with C/C++ over Microsoft and IBM does better work with Java compared to Sun.

    7. Re:Much needed by TummyX · · Score: 3, Insightful


      It has a better messaging mechanism (Events/Delegates are a GODSEND and are the single most useful thing in the framework)


      The event mechanism is good but delegates suck ass. Here's why:

      1) Delegates are slower than interfaces (they're really just classes with an Invoke method and object+function pointers which requires two levels of indirection).

      2) Delegates break OO. Suddenly you have something that works differently from other clases for no real benefit.

      3) Anonymous inner classes allow you to define the function close to where its used. With delegates you can have a method body pages away from where it is registered with the event. And the method often has very little to do with the class that contains it. Anonymous methods in V2 are a good start but you still need anonymous innner classes (implementing IComparer for example -- which is an interface and not a delegate!).

      Now, events are good. Having the "event" keyword and automatic wiring is useful. But there is no reason why the "event" keyword couldn't work with interface types instead of delegate types. Having worked extensively with delegates I've gotta say that they simply complicate the type system.

  2. Microsoft learned a tough lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    About making their own Java not built to standards and without Sun's support. It looks like RedHat learned it, too.

  3. Native Java by buckinm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Having a open-source version of Java should allow swing to be compiled via GCJ. There would no longer be anything holding natively compiled Java back.

    --
    This isn't any ordinary darkness. It's advanced darkness.
    1. Re:Native Java by Cereal+Box · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, I think what's holding back Swing support for GCJ is the fact that you actually have to IMPLEMENT all those AWT classes (Swing is built on top) using native GUI libraries. It's a bit harder to make Java's GUI stuff work natively than, say, linked list classes and the like. An open source Java will not make it any easier to get Java's GUI libraries natively ported to every single platform that GCJ runs on.

    2. Re:Native Java by Dingleberry · · Score: 5, Informative

      Java not being open source isn't "holding" this back. Look at the GCJ web site FAQ. They are currently writing peers in GTK and XLIB for AWT. Once that's finished Swing will follow.

  4. Gosling favors Open-Source Java by Domino · · Score: 5, Informative

    James Gosling, the creator of Java, recently mentioned that he favors an Open-Source Java. (See Infowork article).

    Some people withing Sun seem to be scared though that an Open-Source Java standard could be "polluted" by Microsoft.

    1. Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java by FatherOfONe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The issue is that RedHat has made a decision to only ship open source software in their distro. So you won't get the good video drivers or a good JVM.

      This could easily be solved if they just shipped Sun's JVM with it, and had the installer agree to the terms.

      Personally I would love a separate RedHat CD or DVD that had "NON GPL" software. I then could load stuff like a good JVM, and good video drivers.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    2. Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java by MagikSlinger · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Newsflash: Microsoft has gone and made a better Java -- C#, and funnily enough they not only standardized it with recognized standards bodies (which Sun has never done with Java), they've also released their own shared source version and have not at all stood in the way of third parties making their own implementations (dotGNU, Mono, etc).

      Newsflash: Microsoft patented the CRL layer, so all those "third parties" could be toast anytime Microsoft finds them "inonvenient".

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java by Omnifarious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't. I like the pressure it puts on companies to Open Source their stuff. Non-Open Source software is inherently untrustworthy because you can't get an independent review of exactly what it's doing.

      I don't want to end up with a security nightmare like you have on Windows desktops where it seems like every other program has some kind of call home feature that essentially turns the program into a trojan.

    4. Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java by alext · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...)

    5. Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java by RickHunter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Strangely, this fact seems to be constantly ignored by those driving the .GNU and Mono projects. I wonder why?

  5. Time to start up the pool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How long before SCO claims that Java is a derivative work of the Unix kernel?

  6. Sun's Support by Devil+Ducky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'We're in discussions with Sun. We'd like to do this with their support.'

    It'd be hard to do it without Sun's support since they have been known on occasion to get very mad about people making versions of Java without their support. Of course that was mainly about a non-standard version, so maybe it wouldn't matter as long as it followed the standard.

    How far is RedHat into this? Planning, Writing, Compiling, Marketing? If they're only planning it, java may finally be dead before it gets done; of course java may outlive me, of course I may die this evening, we just don't know.

    --

    Devil Ducky
    MY peers would get out of jury duty.
    1. Re:Sun's Support by alext · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they have been known on occasion to get very mad about people making versions of Java without their support.

      Yes, they don't like having their platform polluted. This helps my applications stay portable.
      I sincerely hope they continue to keep implementors in line. Don't you?

  7. There by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 4, Informative

    is already some source code available. :)

    1. Re:There by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It sounds like they're interested in doing a clean-room implementation that isn't tied down by proprietary licenses like the one Sun provides (and the link you gave). This is a _good_ thing.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
  8. Its actually fairy easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Java's source is really, really simple, actually.

    Just take one pound of fresh, dry-roasted beans (I prefer Sumatra myself, though Peruvian and Venezuelan are nice, too). Grind these to the desired consistancy, depending on one's brewing method of choice (I'm a 'french press' kinda guy myself, but auto-drip is the norm). Next, load the beans into the appropriate container (filters for the drips, wire mesh baskets for us pressers). Apply nearly-boiling hot water, allow a moment for the beans to steep. Pour into your favorite cup and voila! Instant Java.

    Jeesh. Why everyone makes such a big deal out of that, is just beyond me. No wonder all these tech companies go out of business - they can't even make a goddamn cup of coffee!

  9. eh, not likely by m750 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/dev elopment/java/story/0,10801,82286,00.html?nas=AM-8 2286 'Should Java be made fully open-source? The problem with open-source is that [victory] goes to volume, and that's evident in the Linux community today where ISVs [independent software vendors] are qualifying to Red Hat and abandoning everyone else. Why? Because Red Hat has volume. 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. And to the victor would go the spoils of that nefarious action. '

    --
    www.underonesky.com
  10. sun should go for it by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It would be a win-win situation for them, and they can use their trademark to protect the 'purity'. I.E. if it's not "Pure java" it can't be called "Pure java". And microsoft seems to have gotten out of the java game anyway, so their corruption isn't much of an issue. I doubt the open source maintainers would allow contributions that would violate sun's standards, and Microsoft would never fork a GPL project since they hate the GPL so much.

    And plus, sun wouldn't need to do any of the work themselves :P

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  11. Blackdown? by mickwd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does Blackdown have any role in this ?

    1. Re:Blackdown? by triskaidekaphile · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      @HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
  12. Good for the web by narfbot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't use java with mozilla because it's bloaty and not very open source friendly. This it sometimes a pain though, not having it available. And of course there are those java programs I can never try. Having an open source version with Sun's support will improve the current mess.

    Somebody make a current open source shockwave plugin!

    1. Re:Good for the web by Thorgal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sir, it does really sound weird for Mozilla user to complain about Java's bloat.

      --
      "Man in the Moon and other weird things" - wfmh.org.pl/thorgal/Moon/
  13. RedHat's Rawhide by thule · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Recently Rawhide had Eclipse and Tomcat in it. I was pleasantly surpised to see Eclipse running on ppc Rawhide! It looked like they were running it against gcc's java, but after reading that article I was possibly mistaken. Did anyone else look at the Rawhide version of Eclipse?

  14. be careful by 73939133 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Sun's Jonathan Schwartz Opposes Open Source Java by tomkerigan · · Score: 4, Informative

    SAN FRANCISCO -- Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice president of software at Sun Microsystems Inc., spoke with Computerworld during the recent JavaOne conference here about the possibility of Java becoming open-source, the potential market for Java in mobile devices and Java's relationship with IBM. Excerpts from that interview follow.

    Should Java be made fully open-source? The problem with open-source is that [victory] goes to volume, and that's evident in the Linux community today where ISVs [independent software vendors] are qualifying to Red Hat and abandoning everyone else. Why? Because Red Hat has volume. 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. And to the victor would go the spoils of that nefarious action. To the extraordinary credit of the Java Community Process [JCP], we have a uniform compatible standard that now spans hundreds of millions of devices, hundreds of millions of smart cards, hundreds of millions of desktops and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of servers. So you have to really be careful in understanding the distinction between open-source and open standards.

    More at http://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/dev elopment/story/0,10801,82286,00.html

  16. Re:What was Blackdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    No. Blackdown was not a clean-room implementation, and was based in part on Sun's Java. Especially in the class libraries area.

  17. That'll never happen! by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 4, Funny
    According to a ComputerWire article, RedHat is in discussions with Sun about launching an open source version of the Java platform.
    Ha! That'll happen when pigs fly, and when Apple comes out with a system that is faster than a PC. Oh wait...
  18. Re:Cool by nostriluu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's right. The best thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.

  19. Isn't it Kaffe? by Jungle+guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to the Kaffe website, it is a "a clean room implementation of the Java virtual machine, plus the associated class libraries needed to provide a Java runtime environment. The Kaffe virtual machine is free software, licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License."

  20. Re:What was Blackdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    No - Blackdown was simply a port of the Sun JDK to Linux. Same source base.

  21. Why start from scratch? by jyoull · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So they already have source code that works... tell me again why someone has to start from scratch in a "clean room" to build something that validates against the API ? I must have slept through that part.

  22. Um, Classpath? by deblau · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The guys over at GNU are already working on this. The project is called Classpath, it's distributed under a modified GPL so it doesn't contaminate projects it's only linked with, and it's far along already. Most Java 2 classes have been implemented, even though they only claim to be 1.1 compliant.

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  23. I don't see the need... by Cnik70 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a java programmer, I have never found java to be limited as a closed source language. The overall structure of the language is easily expandable and adaptable enough to fit my daily needs. And by introducing a new non-sun version of java leads to the same problems that M$ had with J++ where 100% pure sun java code is incompatible with other flavors. Sometimes I believe that certain things, especially programming languages, are better left untouched by multiple sources. It strengthens the language when it remains uniform.

    --
    -Cnik
  24. Was this Larry Ellison's idea? by Mannerism · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how long it would take Oracle to turn an open source JVM into an Oracle product in much the same way as they turned Apache into 9iAS.

  25. OT: THANK YOU! by Dalcius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  26. Java making progress by nepheles · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems that Sun is recognising that Java in general was in danger of stagnation. Recently, we've had a major push into the mobile phone arena, the bundling of JREs with Dell and HP PCs, SDK 1.5, and now this.

    This might well be in reaction to the threat posed by .NET, but it seems that Sun are actively seeking to innovate once again, before .NET has a chance to catch up

    And that's, long-term, probably a good thing for the development community
    --
    ((lambda x ((x))) (lambda x ((x))))
  27. That's the point of copyleft by yerricde · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  28. Isn't blackdown OpenSource? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I was under the impression that the Sun sponsored blackdown project was already opensource. THey have ported Java already to sparc/linux and I believe have a lintel port.

  29. Re:Wasted effort ? by deanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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 .NET, because that blows your whole argument.

  30. Done Before, or done right now? by CptnKirk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I personally like this idea. I think that open sourcing Java would allow other projects to take off much easier (I'm thinking gcj, but I'm sure there are others).

    However how is this effort different from:

    Kaffe - Open Source, way behind the times, in general more annoying that useful, IMO.

    Blackdown JVMs - Best Java JVM available for free on Linux (again IMO). Uses Sun's code, has valuable contributions, but isn't maintained by a large group. As far as I know, only a handful of dedicated people, and only one or two are very public.

    Also, why would Sun suddenly be willing to Open Source Java now when they weren't before? Have any of the open issues changed?

    As far as I know it's a compatibility/brand issue. If Java were open source, anyone could grab the source, tweak it and release their own JVM. If there are a zillion JVMs running around it's possible some won't be compliant.

    What about the JCK? It works fine, but you still run into the embrace and extend issue. Someone takes Java 1.4 and builds custom enhancements to support his/her own Javaesque features. Programms written for this JVM now no longer work on a stock 1.4 VM. Is this VM now legal "Java". I think Sun would say no.

    What about the Java Community Process? Many anti-fork advocates might suggest just contributing to Java via regular channels. Do these channels work? If not, should they be repaired instead of or in addition to Open Source Java?

  31. A reason to enlist Sun's Cooperation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Many people have asked why RedHat needs to enlist Sun's cooperation in order to implement a clean room Java. One important reason, is to gain access to the JCK (Java Compatibility Kit), that contains approximately 20,000 test cases that you need to pass in order to be certified as Java Compliant.

  32. oh boy, here we go... by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 4, Informative
    Newsflash: Microsoft has gone and made a better Java -- C#, and funnily enough they not only standardized it with recognized standards bodies (which Sun has never done with Java), they've also released their own shared source version and have not at all stood in the way of third parties making their own implementations (dotGNU, Mono, etc).

    • Microsoft still have options to deter the development of an open-source .NET implementation if they want to. They have the patents.>
    • EMCA standards do not garantee much. EMCAScript anyone? We're still coding for JScript, and Javascript, even if EMCA "standardized" the language.
    • Sun has the JCP @ JCP. Most Java standards development has been done through the JCP for years now. Sun recently had 4 of they JSRs turned down! They won't happy, but had to accept that the specifications won't be accepted as they are. I believe the specific standard increased the minimum requirements for Mobile Java. The process is open and does work.
    • Oracle, IBM, and some of the largest software development companies in the world have billions riding on Java. These companies have always had and continue to have a say in how Java is done. I'd trust that situation over a bought specification to a patent-protected technology owned by a monopolist anyday.

    I suspect Microsoft will tolerate dotGNU, Mono, as long as they see it beneficial to do so. Also, the language and runtime is not much. The true power of .NET and Java is in the wide amount of libraries available to these languages. I really wish the Mono team good like to replicating that in a source compatible manner. It would be no small feat.

    --
    Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
  33. No, it's more likely GCJ by Per+Bothner · · Score: 4, Informative

    Remember that GCJ was developed at Cygnus (starting in 1996), and that Red Hat bought Cygnus. While Red Hat has not put a lot of resources in GCJ, they still employ some of the early GCJ engineers, who are still active in GCJ in at least on a part-time volunteer basis. In Red Hat 8.0, what you get when you run "java" is the interpreter component of GCJ. And it looks like they are getting serious about Java, and GCJ.

    My guess (as original "inventor" of GCJ, but no longer associated with Red Hat except as share holder): To the extent that Sun is willing to open-source parts of JDK, they'll use that; if Sun is unwilling, they will use GCJ.

    1. Re:No, it's more likely GCJ by Per+Bothner · · Score: 5, Informative
      gcj only makes native binarys from java source, INFO or byte compiled java code to run on a virtual machine. it is NOT a virtual machine.

      Wrong. The program gcj is a compiler, like javac, but the GCJ project and run-time includes a virtual machine. The command gij is a plug-in replacement for the java command (except for unimplemented features and bugs, of course).

  34. too little, too late by agslashdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:too little, too late by alext · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Real competitive advantage revolves around integration and portability, not dumb little language tricks.

      Most people will appreciate JDBC drivers for their local database, flexible security, true cross-platform working etc. Conversely,, we can probably get by without "attribute annotations" for a while.

    2. Re:too little, too late by f00zbll · · Score: 5, Interesting
      furthermore C# has several useful notions ( delegates, boxed types, attribute annotations,assemblies etc ) not in Java.

      Ok, sounds like you bought the whole PR pitch hook line and sinker. I can say from first hand experience C# is not all it's advertised to be. C# has some nice stuff like properties, but several important pieces are seriously hobbled for enterprise class server applications.

      1. delegates - sounds great on the surface until you realize that writing a multi-threaded/thread-safe application means all calls have to go through delegate. this means for each call to a application running in a dedicated thread, two threads are used. One is used by the delegate. Not only that, for server applications, what you really want is to have direct access to that thread.
      2. assemblies - well recently I experience the same old DLL hell with .NET 1.1 colliding with .NET 1.0. Guess what, there are other critical issues like dynamic loading which do not work as well as Java class loaders. In order to dynamically load/unload assemblies, they have to be loaded in a separate appDomain.
      3. attribute annotation - is nice, but it's hardly critical. Not only that, if you work with a bunch of VB guys, they are so far from annotating their code that you'd have a better chance of getting an experience Java programmer to use attribute annotation correctly. I annotate my code aggressively to point out design decisions and their impact down the line. I also include suggestions and ways to modify the code should the functional requirements change.
      4. thread management using the default threadpool class is weak. There was an article recently in .NET magazine that covered async request handling. The article showed that IIS 6.0 uses the stock ThreadPool, which means improving performance requires writing your own thread pool library.
      5. the caching and default threadpool is really intended as an object cache and isn't well suited to complex multi-threaded applications that manage themselves.
      6. currently there is no object persistence application or layer in .NET. At first glance it doesn't seem like a big deal until you need to handle concurrent access to shared data across multiple systems. Say you have 100 clients that need to access a webservice. The webservices is load balanced across n servers. If multiple users modify common data, how do you manage it? Do you lock the table and use pessimistic locking, or do you naively say we allow for delay and don't care? There are third parties providing object persistence layers for .NET.
      7. stateful application server does not exist in .NET and MSDN states it doesn't plan on providing the support in the near future. For the next several releases the focus is on improving .NET CLR and performance.
      8. session replication across n webservers is not supported natively by IIS. The way it's typically done in IIS is to use database sessions. Tomcat 5 will have session replication built in. There are numerous Java application servers and servlet containers that provide true clustering with fault tolerant sessions.
      9. database clustering is not available as a stock option in Sql Server 2000 or Sql Server 64bit. Typically you have to setup Sql server in partitions and manage the data access with ADO.NET or DAL. Normally when Sql Server is setup in a cluster like TPC benchmarks, it's a custom embedded module. Ask any Sql Server DBA is real-time replication works reliably in Sql Server?
      10. there is no enterprise class messaging server and won't be until Biztalk reaches it's second or third release. If you don't believe me, try to use MSMQ to handle thousands of message per second with tens of thousands of subscribers. It will take 5-8 years before Biztalk can even get close to IBM MQSeries.

      .NET has it's advantage like the XmlTextReader. The default XML parser in Jav

  35. If you don't like swing... by Dalcius · · Score: 4, Informative

    You might consider SWT. It's an open source Java widget toolkit (GUI API) that sits on top of native system widgets. I just started developing with it, so I can't speak for much, but it seems to be quite fast and is pretty easy to implement.

    Some info:
    The Eclipse project (of which SWT is a part of)
    SWT Guide (good intro to SWT)
    SWT API Specification
    SWT Articles (many regarding topics internal to the API) -- scroll down to SWT

    --
    ~Dalcius
    Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    1. Re:If you don't like swing... by buckinm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      SWT is very cool except for two things:

      1) In contrast to the rest of Java, you have to remember to explicitly free everything you create.
      2) Cross platform stuff goes out the window, unless you can make sure a SWT lib is installed everywhere you want it

      At the very least, with an open source Swing, you could ship say, a linux binary, but also ship the class files for other clients.

      --
      This isn't any ordinary darkness. It's advanced darkness.
  36. Re:Wasted effort ? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 3, Insightful
    First off, let me say that I don't necessarily support RH's plans. But, I wanted to further discuss some of your points, so....

    It's free enough for the uses of almost all users and that should be enough for everyone.

    RH has already made the commitment to include only Open Source software in their distribution. Backing down from this would potentially damage some business relationships and alienate some of their users. Until now, they have included only partially complete OS versions of a Java VM. If you wanted the full Java VM, you had to get it from Blackdown, SUN, or some other vendor. RH probably feels they will be more competitive if they can include a full version of Java with their distribution. Open Source is the only way they can do this, and they are probably tired of waiting for the various other "clean room" efforts to meet their needs.

    They should take into account the effects of potentially success of SCO attacks on IBM and Linux.

    No, they should be wary of any contracts they enter into with SUN.

    Especially creating a clean room implementation won't help anymore, it will always be SUN's IP.

    Not true. IBM's trouble with SCO was not over a clean room implementation, but over the suspicion that a contract to view "proprietary" material was violated, and the fruits of that contract were implemented in other competing operating systems (IE, Linux). Also, SCO is trying to consider all components of AIX as a derivative work of Unix, and thus under their control. Provided that RH doesn't ask for any development help from SUN, the same situation shouldn't arise. Of more concern would be patents that SUN holds.

    Why spend any effort on Java at all ?

    Because it's still alive and well on the server side. Having an open source version of java would enable Red Hat to ship "ready to run" web application servers to enterprise customers.

    --

    GreyPoopon
    --
    Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

  37. Too Late by shrhoads · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As mentioned before, Java is already headed to the land of fully open source native cross platform binaries. The fine GCJ folks have already implemented most of the 1.4 JDK with libjava. Throw in SWT and you have the holy grail of open source software applications development. A single code base that compiles to native binaries for Windows, Linux, MacOS, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, etc.