Slashdot Mirror
IBM Offers to Help Sun Open Up Java
dave writes "ESR has opened the issue of
pressuring Sun to open source Java, and today IBM throws in their own
commitment toward this end. IBM has published an open letter to
Sun, proposing that the two companies collaborate on an independent project
to open source Java, saying that IBM is ready to provide technical resources
and code for the open source Java implementation while Sun provides the open
source community with Sun materials, including Java specifications, tests and
code."
A similar article can also be found at The Globe.
With the Linux community behind it, open-sourcing Java is going to mean a big leap for software development. Although they are worried about open source meaning zero revenue, this isn't necessarily the case.
...don't question it!!!
IBM has a less well known Java VM for embedded systems called j9. This was developed in a clean-room way. If IBM wants an Open Source, commercial quality VM, there's nothing stopping them from opening this one.
Everyone's read ESR's open letters, but the real, convincing, extremely well-written case was done by Ganesh Prashad in a Linux Today editorial yesterday. Ganesh lays it out in terms Sun can understand, without ESR's controversial style. This article is a must read for us, but it's also something that should be absolutely wallpapered in Scott McNealy's office, and maybe his home too.
.NET if they don't let the community galvanize and help out, and the only way to do that is to open source the Java core.
Ganesh very clearly demonstrates how Sun will lose J2EE's 'lingua franca of business logic' status to
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
What about the already existing Open Source Java implimentations?
GNU Compiler for Java is available from the FSF. There is also work to make a Mozilla plugin for using GCJ to allow Java Applets to run.
Kaffe PersonalJava 1.1 compliant Java.
Kaffe once shipped with RedHat. GCJ currently ships with most major linux distributions right now.
The program isn't debugged until the last user is dead.
Hah,
opened the architecture, thay had ISA ripped from them, I think Compaq cleaned room the BIOS which led to the clones. MCA, remember that. Token ring. SNA.
IBM in the 80s was at it's most arrogant. They had beaten everybody including the DOJ. The salesmen were insufferable. Then M$ changed the landscape by beating IBM at their own game.
Only in the last five years has IBM embraced Open Standards. Even now one of their hardware lines is still very closed, AS/400.
You're right they became a services oriented company, but IBM still has one of the largest corporate research arms on the planet... Claiming they are "fully dependent" on the open source movement is pure bullshit.
Nevertheless, I just dont understand what opening Java is supposed to mean? ANSI-Java? I don't get it, anyone can make their own JVM and release it as a Java JVM long as it conforms to the JLS right!? IBM has already done this right?
The problem is the libraries. The VM is easy -- any monkey can write a VM. Have fun writing a completely compatible implementation of Swing. And that's just one of the many APIs that would need to be duplicated.
Yes, IBM has their own VM. But they use Sun's class libraries just like everybody else does. Sun is the only game in town as far as the class library is concerned. What people are asking for is for the class libraries to be opened up.
(Yes, there have been attempts to clone the Sun class library in open-source. However, they are all targeting support for really old versions of Java -- which is a lot like cloning Windows 3.11 today.)
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
IBM could do as you suggest. Then again, they have already written their own Java compiler (Jikes), at least one of their own JVMs, their own servlet container (Jakarta), etc...
I'd recommend looking at this page for more info on IBM + Java + OSS.
IBM has already written at least one high-quality JVM implementation which is not OSS because of contracts that IBM has with Sun. Of course, suggesting that IBM work on GCJ and Classpath has some merit in and of itself. But realize that IBM has sunk untold man-hours and dolars into developing its own JVM - resources that they now wish to contribute to the community at-large as OSS. I personally can't blame them if they didn't wish to spend a similar amount of resources on GCJ and Classpath when what they've got works.
Perhaps with this Open Letter IBM is looking for permission to open up the code. Perhaps they are looking to collaborate with Sun to create an even better project. Perhaps this is all just marketing/PR bs. Time will tell.
Dom
C was supposed to be portable and multiplatform when it started off as well.
ANSI C is portable and multiplatform. Unfortunately there were no ANSI graphic libraries that addressed the issue of a legit GUI. As a result, MFC / Mac Toolbox came about and made things much different. However, Java shouldn't have that problem because it does contains graphic libraries that are already written. There would be no need to create another version of Java that did the same thing, and even if someone did, it probably wouldn't have much of a following.
http://www.rustyrazorblade.com
Here.
Jakarta is neither a servlet container, nor an IBM project. Jakarta is the general project which groups all the Java related work within the Apache Foundation, so there isn't really a Jakarta product as such. The servlet container within Jakarta is Tomcat, but again, that's not an IBM project.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
I HAVE written a VM from scratch, and worked on Sun and IBM's Virtual Machines. I can tell you from experience that writing a VM is definately not a trivial task. In fact, it is probably harder than the libraries. The libraries are by definition Java code. The major problem is the sheer size of them.
A modern VM on the other-hand, covers a wide range of techniques. Writing an efficient thin-locking implementation is far from trivial - the code is extremely complex, and even a slight mistake can lead to race conditions, leading to unexpected behaviour which is very difficult to track down.
Likewise, a modern garbage collector is an advanced field in itself (e.g. parallel collectors, generational collectors, etc.). Again, a simple mistake can take weeks to find.
Have you also forgotten about the JIT? Or more accurately a DAC (dynamic adaptive compiler). Whereas a standard compiler can spend as long as it likes optimising the code and be slow as hell, a modern VM must profile the code on the fly, and transfer control between compiled and interpreted modes efficiently. Again, not trivial.
Even following the spec is non-trivial. There's enough grey areas to cause a VM implementor to pull their hair out.
Sun and IBM have large teams working on these VM's, many from research backgrounds and with PhDs (including me). Thanks for calling us all monkeys.
Sun could always dual-licence Java. GPLing code still allows you to sell it for proprietry use.
Wikileaks, no DNS
If Microsoft "borrowed" GPLed code and tried to hide it not only would they open themselves up to a serious lawsuit from the copyright holders (with serious monetary penalties), but they could theoretically end up having to share any source code that came in contact with the GPLed code.
This is what the FUDsters would have us believe, but it's not true. As Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the FSF, has repeatedly pointed out, the GPL is a license, not a contract.
One of the consequence os this is that you can't force someone to open up their own code if they link against GPL'ed code in violation of the license. At most, you can force them to stop using the GPL'ed code.
See this lengthy rebuttal by Pamela Jones of Groklaw fame, or this more accessible, shorter version.
Ulrik
Database engine for analyzed or annotated text
Nevertheless, I just dont understand what opening Java is supposed to mean?
I think few people do.
ANSI-Java?
Yes, effectively. The only way any open source implementation of Java are above question would be if Sun actually drops their formal conformance requirements.
Note that you can do with ANSI C whatever you like: you can implement or not implement whatever parts you like. Not so with Java under the current licenses.
I don't get it, anyone can make their own JVM and release it as a Java JVM long as it conforms to the JLS right!?
Any implementation that has enforceable "conformance" requirements placed on it cannot be an open source implementation. Enforceable conformance requirements are intrinsically incompatible with what people mean by "open source".
IBM has already done this right?
No. IBM's implementation is derived from Sun's implemetation. But even if it had been written from scratch, IBM could not actually release it under an open source license without technically violating their license from Sun (whether Sun would tolerate that is another question--they have tolerated many violations of their licenses already, but they have also enforced some).
Just two points:
1) Java may be slower than C for some tasks, but it doesn't suck that much anymore. Your mileage may vary but server apps usually perform very well.
2) Java is hardly interpreted. All modern JVM use JIT compilers to compile to native code at execution time when the JVM sees it fit.
"I think this line is mostly filler"