Slashdot Mirror
Beyond An Open Source Java
Karma Sucks writes "LinuxToday is featuring a intriguing article on why Sun should open source Java, as a stronger followup to the recent ESR saga that was reported here. The writer notes: 'Sun needs to do some radical things to improve its chances of survival, and all of them involve Open Source in some form or the other.' One thing the article fails to mention is the threat of Mono, which should be of special interest to Sun, with its vested interest in GNOME."
Incompatibility would run rampant. My java apps barely work for my phone as it is.
I think open sourcing it is ok, but they should do all the work on it internally and not let any 3rd party distribute their own Java.
When you have a cross platform interpreter, you need to make sure there is consistency. For example, Microsoft JVM ruined it for alot of people since developers will forget to debug it on Suns JVM, causing huge incompatibility issues that they blamed on Sun.
If you think Java is in the enterprise because it is portable, you are greatly mistaken. There are some stuff in Java that makes it a great tool for the job, and portability is only one of them: Portability, Reflection, RMI, Proxies, J2EE, ... And I did forget a lot in the process.
Qt and GTK are not even languages, what the hell are you talking about? You are comparing an enterprise level language with a GUI library! Java is not Swing!
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I'm not certain this is a move that should be made. All we need are 18 different 'forks' in the java tree like certain other open source projects. I can just see it now "No no, you need BobJavaVM-1.43.2.43 - it won't run with FastJava V 2"
...is that Sun allows Java to wallow in limbo until its development becomes unsustainable and people start using other languages and development environments like .NET, and then make it open source because it became a black hole for them.
.NET as a universal development language. You can bet diamonds to dollars that Microsoft will never open source their version though.
I mean, Sun could still have a vested interest in an open source Java and still derive revenue from custom design services and support while displacing the Beast. It isn't even like the implementation is a trade secret. Heck, the Beast has developed Java bytecode interpreters in the past. But the Beast would love to displace Java with
Hence, Sun has a great opportunity here. Will they see it?
Java is cool for uber-OO projects. . .
Nah. Java is cool for run of the mill OO projects where everyone else is using Java too, because everyone else is using Java.
If you want to look at something interesting check out Apple's Squeak, an implimentation of Smalltalk-80 where even the VM is written in open source Smalltalk.
Squeak
KFG
Microsoft effectively broke Java by extending it to allow the implimention of native windows widgets that wouldn't run cross platform and since Sun owns Java they were able to sue, and win. I think if Java were open source MS would be free to break it again. It's an old argument and one that we have heard over and over again but it has staying power, I believe, because it is true.
It's ludicrous to think that opensource in _any_ form will save _any_ company. No one has built a successful business model around opensource and Sun isn't going to do it either.
To borrow a phrase from John Stossel: Give me a break!
.Net for that matter. It's a simple matter of resources.
While Mono is cool project and, like many developers, one I've been following since it's inception, I don't see it ever overtaking Java, or
> > Which often benchmark faster than natively implemented code.
>
>You do realize that this is impossible, right?
What makes you say that? In fact, the original poster is quite correct. The JVM *can* generate faster code. You know how? By doing runtime optimizations. Compilers have to optimize for what *might* be the best performance profile at runtime. Also, they can only compile for the lowest common processor. (e.g. A pentium II) The Hotspot Java VM can optimize based on how the code is currently being used, undo an optimization if it starts slowing things down, and use processor specific instructions! Natively compiled code just can't beat that.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"Perl and Python are hardly competitors to Java, so warning Sun about Java's impending loss of market share to these two scripting languages is laughable."
How so?
The term "scripting language" doesn't have the name meaning it used to; especially where Perl and Python are concerned. They both get compiled to an intermediate form and executed...just like Java. The only difference (other than the internals of the runtime) is that the Java's development "model" is closely related to it's static typing; i.e., you manually compile your code into a binary before executing. Trying to discount Perl and Python by calling them scripting languages is silly. The real issue is what works as an enterprise development platform, not the "taxonomy" of the language. As far as platforms go, Python has got a pretty good thing in Zope/Plone etc. And both Perl and Python have libraries for damn near everything you'd want to do. J2EE may be more prevalent at the moment, but in terms of bang for buck Python and Perl present some interesting alternatives in the long term.
As soon as Sun GPL'd Java, it would start to diverge from Sun's commercial Java. Sun would not be able to incorporate changes made under the GPL into their corporate version. Sure, they could maintain their own "official" GPL version, but the dual license argument is complete rubbish. Java wouldn't die, but Sun would lose most or all control over it.
[J2EE] has replaced CORBA as the way to go for
.NET is satisfactory in this environment.
large, distributed enterprise apps
Has J2EE replaced CORBA in those scenarios where either the client or server is NOT written in Java?
One of the facts of life in the enterprise is that it is heterogeneous in terms of platforms, operating systems and (maybe) network technologies. Neither J2EE nor
The article does mention that the only visible part of the J2EE iceberg (visible to the decision-makers, not the geeks) is webservers such as Websphere and Weblogic. It doesn't say anything else. It does mention open-source implementations.
What the author is talking about is a lack of the right communication from Sun on this matter. If Sun continue to advertise only WebSphere and WebLogic, they set the visible price very high.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
> Also, they can only compile for the lowest common processor. (e.g. A pentium II)
That may be true for traditional proprietary software, but NOT for F/OS Software. Witness Gentoo; I compile everything for my computer's specific processor. And surely you don't believe that the Hotspot Java VM does its optimizations 'for free'! Every runtime optimization check introduces a performance hit.
I fail to see how many of the article's points relate to Java being open source or not. While we could agree that Sun hasn't been marketing Java the best it could, what's wrong with Ant/XDoclet/JUnit not being developed/sponsored by Sun? Do we really want a single provider like we have with MS? Do we need opensourcing Java if we get many of the benefits as it is, and no bickering/forks/whatnot?
As for Mono... I will not state my opinion about Mono per se, it's not the point, but let me just say that Mono is trying to catch up on a Microsoft implementation. I fail to see how that compares with opensourcing Java, or even how it is a threat.
Just my two cents...
The revolution will not be televised.
Hmmm - didn't ESR inspire Netscape to following a similar path to "salvation" back in '98? (Netscape)
Hopefully (for Sun!) history won't fall into its old habit of repeating itself.
Last I read is that Sun doesn't have a problem with open source implementations of Java, is just that Sun isn't doing one.
"I think this line is mostly filler"
IBM is the first example that comes to mind of a company that successfully built a business model around opensource. I'm specifically referring to hardware and how IBM freely licensed the IBM architecture so that any company could manufacture and sell their own, competing, IBM Clone PCs. Perhaps you will remember the early '80's when Apple had all the market share, followed closely by Commodore and the IBM PC was a fledgling no company was worried about. What happened? They 'opensourced' their hardware architecture which Apple and Commodore refused to do. Within a matter of years Apple and Commodore were suddenly competing not just against IBM, but against scores of rival computer manufacturers. What was the end result? IBM-compatible PCs (clones) were far less expensive, parts were plentiful and easy to find, and all the software developers migrated towards DOS because that's where the market was... once that happened, most of the available software was also IBM PC-compatible which just further encouraged people to buy IBM Clones. Had Apple and Commodore been less stingy with their proprietary hardware technology, things could have played out very differently and today everyone might have an Apple and Microsoft might not even be around. But you might ask, "how is the free licensing that IBM implemented, open source?" It was open source because manufacturers were and still are free to propose and develop hardware standards designed to further improve the IBM Clone architecture and they don't need IBM's permission to do it, they need only to get approval from the various standards bodies. If this is not a clear example of how open-source has worked as a successful business model, then I don't know what is. Rather than fight over the market-share that Apple and Commodore owned, IBM just created an entirely new market -- far larger than the one it replaced. So what if IBM had to compete against their own technology they gave away to other Clone manufacturers? Which would you prefer: 10% of 50 million units, or 100% of 1 million units?
-- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
They shouldn't use the GPL, they should use a new license which says its basically open source, so as long as you follow the standards for it set out by them. We don't want variants not fully functional and implementing things in different ways, so I need to have 15 Java VMs on my machine, and we don't want it to turn out like browsers where half of them don't support most of the standards making design a PIA.
I'm only replying lest the parent might be modded up.
As a professional Java developer who works primarily in Eclipse, Java is not your problem here.
Are you using a legacy app based around AWT? Then your GUI will most likely be annoyingly limited (with a couple of exceptions on MacOS X).
Are you using a GUI app using the Swing toolkit? Okay, yes, that's going to be slow -- I'll give you that. But that's similar to saying "Linux is ugly! Just look at (GTK|Qt|Tk|whatever)!"
Seriously, I'm tired of reading this drech on Slashdot. A properly-implemented Swing is reasonably fast (see MacOS X for an example), but unfortunately the Windows implementation isn't one. Before slamming the language, however, try changing toolkits -- I recommend SWT, as used in Eclipse.
> It is still to damn slow
My god, what sort of equipment are you running Java on, an abacus?
No, Java probably will not be used in the next uber-doom type progam, but for everyday usage type programs on fairly recent computers (built within the last couple of years) it's perfectly fine.
I'm getting the impression that there are a lot of really POOR programmers out who have no idea how to make a program run fast and use C or C++ as a crutch.
I also get the feeling that there are a lot of people out there who really haven't even tried a real Java application and just continually regurgitate the MS line.
This guy must be a MS partner.........Most of the .NET development is taking place primarilly in Windows only shops. Also the great majority of .NET development is VB .NET.
After seeing how Microsft corrupted the JVM and developed J++ it's hard to see how moving Java to pure open source will help.
As for the desktop .NET is only strong because because it has the propietary features to lock people in.
While Java stays Sun's closed-source product, Sun retains control over it. Releasing it open-source would mean relinquishing that control forever. Imagine, if you will, the overthrow of an essentially benevolent dictator followed by a less desirable character seizing power.
The questions Sun needs to ask itself are (1) whether or not Java is ready for that -- or is it more likely that differing implementations would lead to fragmentation, and thus nullify the whole point of Java?; and (2) if Java is ready to go open-source {and I personally believe it is}, what would be the best licence to ensure against fragmentation whilst not putting off purists?
All these things being said, Java is only a programming language -- a means to an end. Programming languages come and go. There is no reason why another contender should not arise to solve the same problems for which Java was invented, and eventually displace Java. Mono may be that, of course. It is just as likely that something totally new could arrive on the scene and change the whole picture.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Until a couple of years ago, it mattered to me that Java was closed source and that the Java specification itself was closed. (Yes, the Java specification is not open--you can't just implement it without violating Sun's intellectual property.)
Now, I just don't care anymore. Java has fulfilled its function: it has made garbage collection and runtime safety acceptable among commercial programmers. The Java language and libraries themselves are nothing to write home about and never were. Java could have become a good, general-purpose language and a good, general-purpose platform, but it never really fulfilled its promise. It's become a mediocre specialty language mostly for some kinds of server-side hacking. Open sourcing it or opening the spec would only prolong the agony.
People should move forward and widen their intellectual horizons again. Look at languages other than Java and get over this illusion that we will ever have a single language in which everything will be done on every platform.
I don't understand why Sun is, on the one hand, so active in and dedicated to the GNOME desktop, whereas on the other hand, they're not doing a single thing about Mono becoming an important part of the desktop, pushing Java back even further.
Face it: Sun, one of the head developers of GNOME, is losing the fight of Java versus C#, which is the official language from GNOME (Linux)'s biggest enemy Microsoft. Where's the logic? I mean, if Java loses even *this* battle, then how are they ever going to keep any significant marketshare?
So yes, Sun should do something.
No, it doesn't. The second piece of code will not run on a 386 like you said it must.
Of course it won't! That's the point. The Hotspot compiler will generate the second piece of code because it notices you're using a Pentium Pro. If the JVM was running on a 386, it would generate the first bit of code, just like the C compiler.
Also, GNU GCC compiles code for processors like i686 that still executes on i386 by not using the i686-only instructions.
As much as I wish they did, not all OSes use ELF binaries. Besides, generating binaries for multiple processors creates a great deal of bloat in the binaries. Not to mention that the JVM will be able to optimize for future processers (when they come out) while the GCC binaries will only be optimized through the current processor.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Well, you're right, but there tools that do profiling for C/C++. This thread should rather be named "(JIT) Bytecode vs native code"
.NET, but from what I heard, multiple frontends for arbitrary languages are possible.
Java".
The front-end languages C++ or java don't really do much about the perfomance (except that you can manually optimize things you can't do in java because of missing pointers etc.) (*)
IMHO, java bytecode suffers from the following things (and so do the users of java programs) - [they are the reasons,I think, why all java programs I've seen so far (and all the not-for-java-crafted benchmarks) are running considerably slower than C/C++]:
Technical:
- Java bytecode is low level enough to lose certain optimizations (JITs have to apply decompilation techniques) which you can do in C/C++. You can of course compile Java natively (e.g. with gcj), yes. But then, you lose portability.
- Java bytecode is not low-level enough that you can take advantage of the features of the particular hardware. Java's ints are 32 bit. What if you run your numerical java code on 64 bit machines?
Political:
- The java bytecode format is so specific that it is impossible or rather hard (there was once a java backend for egcs, admitted) to get other languages like C/C++ to run on it. Why does one have to chose the platform java with the language java? I don't know
I'd like to have a VM for C++ *and* Java. That would surely rock and end some of the flamewars.
(*)- The often stated security argument (java has no pointers and is therefore inherently more secure than C++) would fall with C++ on a VM.
Its full of contradictions and silly mistakes.
.Net be a threat when Microsoft is struggling (making a loss!) on the server side? Unless the Mono folks unwisely give Microsoft an escape route, the eventual rise of Linux on the desktop will squash .Net flat. This rise is starting: I develop websites for international use. If I deploy anything that requires Microsoft on the client (as do .Net apps), I soon get enough complaints to convince me otherwise!
J2EE is small and easy, not large and expensive. Anyone can build JSP pages or use Servlets on a free but high-quality App server like Tomcat - this may not involve Enterprise Java Beans (the least used aspect of J2EE), but its still J2EE and it costs nothing.
How can
Why does Java need to be Open Source to ride the Linux revolution? High-quality Java VMs are ready for Linux.
Java is the most widely requested language for development, and its use is still rapidly expanding. Sun has nothing to fear.
It's more important to get binary packages qualified (FreeBSD...). But other than that, come on, Java can be used pretty much unencumbered. What's the problem for end user apps?
Heck look at the wave of new cellphones, they all have Java and Real as far as I'm aware. This is also where the DRM fight is going to be, not on your PC (otherwise I don't use the little plastic critters at all -- don't ask me).
That's okay, because that official definition says "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups", and plenty of open source software discriminates against commercial ventures, which could be considered groups. Every description in that list sounds more like free as opposed to open source... if the two are going to mean the same thing, why have two different terms?
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Please point out to me one of the Approved Open Source Licenses that "discriminates against commercial ventures".
Note that I didn't ask for licenses that happen to be suboptimal for using copyright law to protect specific business models, but those that truly discriminate about who can use or contribute.
At first glance, it would seem that a fair share of those approved licenses were in fact authored by "commercial ventures".
Very observant. My original reply was to the poster who said it was impossible for the JVM to run faster than native. However, I realize that real world code is likely to be impacted by the time it takes the Hotspot compiler to do optimizations. (That's actually one of the reasons that Java has been such a good fit for servers.)
.5% increase in performance is not going to make a lick of difference when your code is only running for 300 milliseconds at a time. And in that 300 millisconds, a few hundred million instructions get processed.
Now here's the catch-22. All this stuff about making code perform better on the processor is BS. Unless you happen to have a platform designed for HPC (such as a Cray), your processor is otherwise spending that time doing nothing. (Memory wait states, cache misses, and other annoyances.) The thing to pay attention to is that the lost cycles don't matter. A
Unless programmers have a justification for a few thousand extra instructions a second (e.g. crypto cracking), their time would be better spent writing portable and maintainable code. The time they save from that maintainability can then be put into adding new features, and making their applications that much better. Especially since Java excels in the area of libraries. Dream up the most complex program you want, and I'll guarantee that 60-90% of the hard work has already been done for you.
Compare that to DLLs and staticly linked libs. Using C and C++ libraries back in the day, was more an exercise in frustration. Eventually you just said, "screw it!" and rewrote it yourself. Today, there are some very good libs for Unix, but there is still nowhere near the wealth of libs as Java has.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
There is now a very effective non-proprietary persistence solution - Java Data Objects (JDO). This typically requires no more than a couple of supporting files in each application no matter how many classes you wish to store. Its far more powerful than EJB, with a portable query language and inheritance. There are many high-quality implementations of the javax.jdo.*
classes.
Doesn't follow. Open source or not, it would be trivial for them to use some feature which is only available on Windows. Sun can have all the source code they want, but if it can't run on other platforms (without effectively porting chunks of Windows too), then they're stuffed.
Open Source is wonderful for apps with a known interface. But Java isn't an app; it's a platform. One of its greatest advantages is its platform neutrality. While having a single company like Sun in charge of it may prevent Joe Bloggs from adding his whizzy new feature, it also prevents M$ from doing the same, which IMO is far more important. I think Sun have steered a fine line between locking Java up so tightly that no-one feels safe using, and opening it up so much that no-one can choose which of the multiple subtly-incompatible versions to use.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Actually, I don't think MS would bother. If they released a new version of Java it would look like a they had no confidence in .Net.
If you download the SDK, you've got the source. It's usually in src.zip.
You can change it. You can give your new stuff to whoever.
You just can't call it "java", you'll need to think of a new name,
like "java++".
If you want to make changes and call it java, don't be an ESR and whine, just joint the JCP. Java is "community guided" open source. It's a new concept I guess, but new concepts do come up sometimes.
If you reject any new variants of "open source" you still have plenty of options - there are many existing open source java implementations.
By ignoring all these facts, the article is effectively saying
something quite different than what the title indicates. An open source java is not what is wanted -- that already exists in many forms. What's the problem then?
I can only explain by analogy-
let's pick Gimp. It's open source. Photoshop isn't. Now, I write
a paint program called BozoPaint, give away the source, but
say that, to keep some level of compatibility, changes to
the BozoPaint file format have to be proposed and voted
on by the BozoPaint steering group, which anyone can join.
Completely reasonable...
The author of this article evidently cannot tolerate an article
in which BozoPaint (and Photoshop) exists.
This is the thing that really bugs me about the Linux community.
Linux is great, but so many of the people who speak up about
it are wacos.
Kind of like how Linus Torvalds completely lost control of Linux? </sarcasm>
Sun would retain copyright and the right to relicense or dual-license. The scenario could be parallel to Mozilla or Qt, but with Sun Java's existing huge userbase.
If the JVM (at least) was Qt style relicensed GPL, we might perhaps see some performance enhancements on Linux, as well as integration of Sun's JVM into GNU/Linux distros like Debian and Fedora Core. Sun would surely like that.
This makes a lot more sense than relicensing under BSD, as that would enable MS (say) to quickly release broken/incompatible JVMs in their future OSs without breaching their legal obligations and without giving the source away.
To sum up, My answer to your query (2) is 'GPL'.
No, you misunderstood again. See, copyright is immediately assigned (regardless of license) when a work is produced. You don't have to do anything. If you write an e-mail, it is immediately copyrighted to you. You can optionally register the work as yours, to prevent others from claiming it belongs to them, but under copyright law, you are implicitly protected.
Now, by default, copyright law affords no right to any party to copy, distribute, use, eat, burn, whatever any work that does not belong to them (in the sense of copyright law). Therefore, licenses were born. These say "we agree to allow you to use the work we wrote, on condition x, y, and z." That's why licenses are legal even if you don't sign anything. Because if you don't accept the license, you have no rights.
Now, getting to open source. The intrinsic problem with open source lies in the creation of a derivative work. I write some source code and post it on the net; as sole author, I "own" (in the sense of copyright) the work. However, if you come along and edit my code, you own the portions you wrote, whereas I own the portions I wrote (assuming that my licensing allows the creation of a derivative work.)
So, for example, Linux is not copyrighted to Linus Torvalds -- parts of it are, but the vast majority of the code is copyrighted by the individual people that make contributions. So in this case, Linus cannot "relicense the code" under some other license, because he does not own it all.
Now, being based on the GPL, MySQL cannot prevent anyone from making a derivative work and maintaining copyright on their changes; however, they can state that any would-be-submitter of a patch or change to the main MySQL tree must assign his copyright to MySQL, and not reserve those rights for himself. Nothing prevents Joe Bob Hacker from saying "fuck you", but he'd have to fork the project. So if he wants his bug fixed and put into the main tree, he needs to accept that his code will be copyrighted by MySQL, and not by himself.
Still with me?
So, because of this, MySQL "owns" (in the sense of copyright) the entire MySQL source tree, despite the fact that they are not responsible for much of the code. Because the source belongs to them, they can license it in any way they choose.
So, they don't need to keep two forks. Does that make any sense?
I call bullshit on this. If Sun released a GPL'ed version of Java, as they own the copyright to it, they can include whatever changes they made in their GPL'ed version into their own commercial version. On top of that, as they own the copyright to the name "Java", they could set the standards (as they already do) where if implementations did not conform to their standard, then the implementations could not be called "Java".
The real danger, which until now fortunately has been avoided, is when developers are presented with the choice of either having to open their source code when using the GPL Java, or paying Sun a fee for using the commercial Java. How can this be considered more "free" than the current situation where you can do what you please with your own software? If you want to GPL your software, go ahead. If you want to keep it closed, you are free to do so.
Currently as far as I understand you can implement Java any way you wish, as long as it conforms to Sun's standards. Isnt this what the OSS community has been calling for? Open standards? This appears to present us with both the advantages of OSS and commercial software. A central controlling body for the standard, with the openness to implement how anyone sees fit.
I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!
First, I do know WFT[sic] I'm talking about. I've used quite a few Java apps, from Ant to Netbeans to a little JSP/Servelets. I've also written a lot of C++ and C. It's ridiculous to say that Java is always as fast of faster than C and C++. In certain heavily optimized situations, it can be. But simply due to the extra overhead from GC and the VM, there's a significant slowdown compared to any language that compiles to native machine code. I'm excluding Java code that's natively compiled, because that gives up much of what makes Java good.
You're completely avoiding the real issue here. You can say "Java is as fast as C++" as much as you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that most Java apps ARE slower to the end user. This may be because the libraries aren't loaded or the UI isn't as responsive, but the bottom line is that Java isn't keeping up.
You refer to "cheating-ass windows programs". I assume you're referring to programs like Office or Mozilla who have a quickstart option that loads the program into memory on boot. That's a whole different issue. Most native code programs start fast because there isn't much to start up, not because they cheat. There's a lot more to it than that, but my post is getting long already, so I'll explain the rest if you really want to hear it.
In short, just because a lot of people claiming Java is slow are idiots doesn't mean that you can just dismiss their complaints. There are a lot of smart people who want a faster Java too.
Karma: Contrapositive
Take a look at .NET
.NET with all it's propietary extensions to the standard. The standard itself is gonne mean nothing.
IT has open ECMA specification - and Microsoft made a great P on that.
But the real programs will be made upon MS
Projects like www.DotGNU.org understands it well, so they are running behind (and trying to chase) the very MS libraries, not only the standards.
And Microsoft said that it is their strategy - add new technologies so fast, that competitors have no time to invent their own one.
Why? Well remember JVM and how Microsoft corrupted the compatiablity? Java's goal is to be cross platform and to do so means there needs to be a centralized development effort. If suddenly there are 50 versions of J2EE on the market, each with its unquie traits, which do I run? How do I know that the app I program will work on the others? If it doesn't run on everything, hasn't the point of Java been defeated?
I once worked for a company that was looking to port some of its Solaris & AIX Applications to Linux, but 3 months into the project, the question became what distros to support. They tried porting their application with some modifications. Got it to run fine on RedHat 5.x (it was a while ago), but then it took some playing around to work with SuSE and we never did get it to compile on Slackware. When they said they planned to support RedHat default only, meaning if system admins were using a tweaked box or kernal, we would not offer support. Needless to say, potential clients scoffed at the idea and after 6 months they decided that the Linux Market wasn't worth the hassle until some standards had emerged. This is why a lot of developers won't port to linux, especially desktop applications: too many variations.
I see the same potential of Java, to become slpit into so many forks, that it defeats the purpose in the first place.
I like opensource applications, but I don't think that Opensource is always the answer. Another good example is a good friend that is developing a support ticket application for the company he works for. I asked him, "Isn't there several GPL'd apps outhere that could installed within a couple hours?" He responded of course, but he put it this way: "I like to use my own code and not other peoples. Its a lot less messy that way." and I see his point.
IF it wasn't for opensource, I would have never learned how to program in PHP, PERL, and various SQL databases, it was a great learning tool, but like every tool, there is the correct tool for the job. I say this as I switched from Linux to Macintosh almost two years ago now and I am willing to pay for the luxury of having everything work. Just like we now pay for managed instead of self-managed servers for our business. There is only 3 of us and we now have enough business that its costing us more to run our own servers than to pay a little extra for managed services where the keep up with the updates and such.
All I am saying is that projects have goals. Sometimes Opensource meets those goals, but its not a cure all. The beauty is that we have the choice of using Opensource or to use a propritary solution.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
While Java stays Sun's closed-source product, Sun retains control over it. Releasing it open-source would mean relinquishing that control forever. Imagine, if you will, the overthrow of an essentially benevolent dictator followed by a less desirable character seizing power. I'm getting sick of everyone saying this - Sun has actually given up a lot of their control with the introduction of the Java Community Process. Please research you facts! Will.
Some benefits:
1. Tomorrow, Sun might decide to charge for a JVM. Then you will be screwed.
2. They might decide to drop Java, closing all future to all your beautiful programs.
3. What if Sun decide not to support your favorite platform? (Say BeOS, or Linux on PS/2, or HP48SX...)
With open-source, this is less likely to happen - though still possible. We can imagine for Java that we will always have some geeks ready to give a hand even if Sun dropped the whole thing.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I seem to have missed the facts part... too.
.NET system that is getting scaled right NOW to zillions (approx.) of users.
Orkut is another example of a
Granted they are hitting some bumps, but I've seen java based shopping sites with bigger problems and fewer active users. They ended up taking the site down for weeks. Not to mention the site was unusable while up.
Just goes to show that it's not the language... it's how you use it.
Interactive Visual Medical Dictionary
the GNU Compiler for Java (GCJ) posted a very nice and
much more pragmatic request to Sun. Reproduced below:
rmathew.com
Sun has copyrights on one of many JVMs, which is closed source, and they control the name "Java" by holding the trademark. This is all, and this is not enough to effectively control the use of the language, even if they wanted to screw customers.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
If we mean we can obtain the source code and read through it then it is defiatly open.
If you beleive that it has to be available under a GPL license, then it is not.
However the JVM spec and the language spec is unrestricted, the words "shut up and hack" come to mind.
I think it basically comes down to design intentions. The Oak project was intended to provide WORA with a sandbox model to reassure people that it was safe to run applets. The CLR, OTOH, was designed to allow people who already knew any VS language to write for .NET. I don't know quite what that means in terms of sandboxing, but I haven't noticed MS release an applet-style plugin.
As far as getting C/C++ to run on a JVM is concerned, I think someone with enough dedication and compiler skills could probably write a compiler which got most of it to run. Most pointer idioms can be rewritten, autogenerated mixins can simulate MI. Variant fields in structs could be tricky, although I think they could be hacked up. The question, though, is why people would want to run C++ on a JVM. Surely the reason for using C++ is obsession with speed or a desire to do really low-level stuff? If you're obsessed with speed, you should take to heart the mantra "Don't optimise. (For experts) Don't optimise yet", and if you want low-level stuff then you don't want a VM in your way.
I don't know about the libraries, but Sun should definitely open source the JVM. I mean that's something where Sun would really benefit, and would still maintain control. Much like the way Apple benefits from developers working on Darwin, without losing control of OS X.
Then it's conceivable that GNU, IBM, Sun, and Apple could all work on a unified JVM.
Are you saying that the problem is that they can not download it and put it on the Debian CD for redistribution?
Yes. Other more subtle problems of a similar nature lurk here as well.
If that is the entire problem, why can't they do it like the BSD port system, where the makefile downloads the most recent one and installs it?
That isn't the entire problem, but even so a BSD like port system is not a good solution for everyone. For example it doesn't work well for people who have low bandwidth or inconsistent connections. Obviously you're right to point out that Java is somewhat accessible to Debian and FreeBSD users, but that is not what Open Source means. I use the Sun JDK on Fedora for everything GCJ doesn't currently do. Still, significant problems would be solved if Java were more open.
I am not clear why you prefer AWT.
I am more pleased with the concept of AWT than with the actual implementation. As you say, it is dreadful. However, as I understand it -- do correct me if I'm mistaken -- Swing is built on top of AWT, which means that while it doesn't have to be slow, it can't plausibly be much faster. Also, AWT is certainly as cross-platform as anything else in Java.
Do you mean that the look and feel varies by platform? I consider that a good feature in principle since I prefer applications to be consistent across a desktop. Clearly that's a matter of taste though, and there's no accounting for it. Naturally the lack of GTK+ and Qt based AWT implementations makes things much uglier than they need to be in practice.
I usually find myself implementing lighweight components in AWT, but then I generally use HTML and forms backed by Python for everything they can support and wheel out Java only for custom widgets. I suspect that if I were writing entire applications with Java I would grudgingly prefer Swing in spite of the look and feel issue.
Since the Java chips are 32-bit with only 8-bit operands, they are able to grab 4 instructions and use 1 every clock cycle, [...]
This is not an advantage that is unique to Java. Donald Knuth's MMIX architecture has the same property and there is a GCC back-end so C, C++, Fortran, Java and other languages can be used with it easily. Unlike the alleged .NET language neutrality no changes to syntax are required. Even standard libraries only need to be changed enough to make low level system calls work.
What do you mean by ["the advantages of Java are application focused"]? Do you mean that it is no good for server software (which it is even better for than GUIs), or do you mean that it is not good for things like device drivers?
I mean the latter. (I don't dispute the utility of Java for server software, but I prefer Python for a variety of reasons.) Well, actually, I mean that the advantages of Java are not especially compelling for system software in general. A Write Once Run Anywhere kernel seems a bit nonsensical. Similarly, running system daemons on top of a virtual machine seems unlikley improve anything.
USB device drivers are an interesting counter-example, though I think the notion that software which communicates with a device over a USB bus is a "device driver" is a bit misleading and conceals what makes USB great: it transforms something that was once clearly system software into something more like application code.
Every single time you see any application crash in your OS, that is a runtime exception.
That's an interesting way of looking at things. Are you saying all exceptions ought to be checked exceptions? Does that include NullPointerException and OutOfMemoryError? Plenty of shoddy software that doesn't deal with these gets sent to customers. What makes exceptions useful in the first place is that they allow parts of a program to ignore problems that they couldn't reasonably do anything about. Checked exceptions take that advantage away, often tearing enorm
Not all those who wander are lost.