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."

34 of 475 comments (clear)

  1. How nice of IBM.. by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Just playing Devil's Advocate here: IBM sounds touchy-feely about open source but how would they react if Sun were to offer to help IBM open up AIX?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:How nice of IBM.. by __aaveti3199 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well Java is not really an operating system and it does seem perfect for an open source project but I take your point. As long as IBM ask nicely and no one takes offence if Sun say no in a rather emphatic manner, it can't hurt.

    2. Re:How nice of IBM.. by dnoyeb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Without a doubt. I can't help but smile at the whole thing. I am sure Sun would rather die than allow IBM to 'help' them.

      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?

    3. Re:How nice of IBM.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure that this comparison is totally valid. IBM isn't marketing AIX as a counter-culture product that challenges the dominance of the 'evil monopolist' Microsoft.

      Sun is trying to have it both ways- claim their language will "free" them from the clutches of MS while trying to clutch the language specification/certification for its own.

    4. Re:How nice of IBM.. by LibrePensador · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am with you on this one. Sun opens up Java and IBM does the same with their Lotus suite?

      A gesture is met with a gesture and we all win.

      It will never happen.

      --
      Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
    5. Re:How nice of IBM.. by egomaniac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, please calm down and wipe the froth off of your mouth. Thanks.

      I said "any monkey can write a VM". I stand by my statement -- any reasonably competent code monkey could do it.

      You, however, seem to have interpreted my statement as "any monkey can write a VM that is every bit as fast and reliable as HotSpot, including a JIT and/or other dynamic compiler".

      I did not say that. There is a big difference between "a VM" and "a top-tier VM competitive with the best efforts of Sun and IBM". However, I still feel that it's way, way easier than trying to duplicate the entire frickin' class library.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    6. Re:How nice of IBM.. by AstroByte · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I admit by first post was a bit OTT -- it's been a long and hard day today (it's 20:15, and I'll be here a while yet). No, it isn't working on a VM :)

      I agree that there's a long way between a basic VM and a state-of-the-art one. However, you were making the point that the libraries were the stumbling block to a truly free Java implementation. My point was that it is the sheer size of the class library that's making this difficult, not the complexity of the code per se.

      While it may be possible to write a _very_ basic VM in a couple of months(*), it'll be just as unusable as a half completed swing implementation would be. We need both a complete class library and a state-of-the-art VM. One without the other is pointless.

      (*) Having said that, there's been a lot of feature creep in the VM to keep up with the ever expanding APIs. Support for Reflection is fairly non-trivial as is class-loaders. Neither of these are covered in the VM spec (class loaders obliquely in places). Nor is GC support for weak, phantom, etc. references. In fact, you don't need a GC to fulfill the spec. A toy VM will not only be slow, but very incomplete as well.

  2. Nice. by NegativeK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a win-win situation for IBM. If Sun goes for it, IBM gets it's hand in the development of an open implementation of Java. If Sun doesn't, IBM can say that they tried. Either way, IBM appeals to the open source community.

    As for Sun, it's almost lose, lose. If Sun goes for it, they lose complete control over Java, which is a cash crop for them. If they don't, they look stingy to the open source community, and alienate a lot of us.

    Poor sun, nice IBM. .

    --
    This statement is false.
    1. Re:Nice. by nsayer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If Sun goes for it, they lose complete control over Java, which is a cash crop for them.

      If they dual license it, then they get to retain complete control over the commercial fork of it. Sun would be unique in that no other entity would have the rights that Sun does to use Java other than under the GPL.

      I think that would keep Sun pretty firmly in the driver's seat.

      If IBM is serious about this and Sun refuses to play ball, then I'd be surprised if IBM didn't suddenly decide to champion the Kaffe project or perhaps even start their own open Java system.

      IBM, being, well, IBM, will have an open Java one way or another, if that's really what they want.

  3. I suspect that Sun is likely to request this by toesate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and IBM may likely do it, to put their AIX stuffs behind Linux, given what they have already done.

    It makes a lot of business sense for IBM to get open source Java, especially for their application server space.

    --
    Hey, that's my password you are typing
  4. Re:A Question by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What changed, specifically?

    IBM are being very intelligent. They are moving with the market.

    It used to be that everyone in the IT world was closed and proprietary. OSS is changing that, and IBM know it. IBM are going with the flow, not fighting it.

  5. ESR: not so bad after all? by Hrolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So does this mean the Slashdotters who claimed that ESR damaged the open source community via his letter to Sun will now retract their views? It seems we're closer to an open source Java as a result of his opening salvo (little gun-toting humor there) than we were before he wrote his letter.

  6. Re:Why doesn't IBM open source it's own VM? by pragone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps they acknowledge that if a standard is desired, they should contribute to a popular JVM rather than keep working on one themselves. I think that's a good way of thinking for OS.

  7. Missing the point by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think most people, and obviously IBM, are missing some key points to why Sun treats Java how it does.

    Things are tight fisted because Sun wants a solid, CONSISTANT platform. This was a MAJOR REASON for the lawsuit that they fought and WON against Microsoft and their VM implementation.

    Opening it up not only kills that idea (anyone can alter the platform specifications for whatever selfish reasons), but it would undermine all of the fight they have put up at this point.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:Missing the point by CaptnMArk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are sugesting a fork in Java development.

      This will only happen (in a bad way) if Sun are neglecting Java development and not doing things people want.

      (I do personally belive Java could stand some cleaning up, but it doesn't have to happen overnight)

    2. Re:Missing the point by DavidNWelton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The code can be open without the specification and the name being open. You can download Apache and hack it, but you can't call it Apache, for instance. Same goes for TeX.

    3. Re:Missing the point by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Things are tight fisted because Sun wants a solid, CONSISTANT platform. This was a MAJOR REASON for the lawsuit that they fought and WON against Microsoft and their VM implementation

      And, open-source software would be inconsistent because.......?

      Inconsistent, like Apache?

      or, perhaps, MySQL?

      I get it. You mean inconsistent like this, this, or this?

      Oh, the above aren't languages, like php or perl?

      Eh, wait a minute. These are all *successful* projects, that are consistent?

      If Sun were to open Java sources, it would be trivial to introduce a license (EG: GPL) that would largely offset forking of the codebase. Their best bet would be to pull a "QT" - open the source as GPL, then sell commercial licenses.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  8. With the eclipse project, Sun felt left out... by expro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With the eclipse project, Sun felt left out. Now, it is time for them to put up or shut up, and if they refuse and IBM decides to open source their own stuff regardless, Sun has no one to blame but themselves.

  9. Re:A Question by segmond · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now a days, they are for open standards? The same guys that opened up the PC architecture, right? in early 80's or wait, say 20 years ago? As far as I know, that is the biggest open standard look how it changed the world, look at the companies it built. Whenever people talk about how IBM acts as they see fit, it is usually history lessons that they read about the 60's and 70's...

    --
    ------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
  10. Re:Linux + Java = Profit!! by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, they already give you Java for free. If they make it open source, they might cut development costs, and also get much better attitude from community. I don't see any reason why not to go OS. They still could control it - no one will prevent them to add any new feature.

    --
    No sig today.
  11. Re:A Question by Wudbaer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also IBM has not too much to lose. Sure, they produce and sell a lot of software. But they are still one of the leading hardware companies and are moving more and more towards a consulting and service oriented business model. So what do they have to lose ? Some unsold AIX lincenses ? DB2, Domino and WebSphere can or will soon be able to run as well on a RS6K machine (or what they are called this week) running Linux than on a RS6K machine running AIX. Sure, AIX still has a lot to offer Linux does not, but for that they still will move a machine with AIX.

  12. Re:Doubtful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *Cough* OpenOffice *Cough*

  13. Re:Doubtful... by egomaniac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone actually think this is actually gonna happen? Sun has always impressed me as a Microsoft wannabe. The only reason they are currently allying themselves with Linux is because "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    Oh, bullshit.

    When Microsoft wants to include a new technology (such as their web browser), they integrate it in such a way that you are forced to use it, can't replace it with something else, and end up using it for unrelated functions whether you want to or not. And half the interface is undocumented and inaccessible to people outside of Microsoft.

    Sure, you can download and install your own web browser, but IE is always there, sucking up resources, no matter what you do.

    When Sun wants to integrate something new into Java, the JCP develops a standard API for accessing it. Sun develops or licenses their own implementation of it, but allows you to use any implementation you choose so long as it implements the standard. Other VM distributors are free to replace Sun's implementation with their own. In fact, it's remarkably easy to be completely unaware of which implementation you are using.

    If Microsoft had developed a standard web browsing API which allowed you to swap out IE in favor of Mozilla, and allowed computer manufacturers the right to do so on preinstalled machines if they chose, nobody would be complaining about the IE integration.

    Well, that's exactly how Sun would have chosen to do it, based on their track record. They make it remarkably easy to swap out portions of the runtime library with alternate implementations.

    --
    ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
  14. Re:What about gjc? by vidarh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    IBM already has it's own Java compiler: Jikes.

    IBM doesn't NEED Sun's help with providing the software, but without a commitment from Sun IBM would be in the same situation with them as with Microsoft: They can change the specs whenever they feel like it to keep their competitive advantage over other tools.

    Frankly I see IBM's comments as an ingenious PR move. Either Sun opens Java, and it will be a great PR win for IBM and great for business, or Sun doesn't in which case it's a big PR win for IBM towards customers (look guys, we're promoting open standards, but Sun just doesn't want to play ball - do you REALLY want to get tied in to a company like that?)

  15. Why an open letter? by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is playing to an audience (us) when the writer knows that the addressee won't go along. Otherwise a private letter would suffice. It's just a statement of position, don't expect anything to come of it.

    Do open letters ever achive their overt goals?

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  16. Re:The Death Of Java by wayne606 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    C is pretty darn portable (if you do non-portable things like call system routines, that's not the case, of course).

    When has it happened that an open-source language has become fragmented and incompatible? Perl? Tcl? Python?

    Maybe the *BSD split some years back is an example of this. But in this case it seems clear that the egos of some of the participants took precedence over the common good. This also happened at a time when there was not as much at stake (BSD was small potatoes compared to Solaris, etc).

    Has the Linux core fragmented? MySQL? GCC?

    Well, okay, we do we xemacs vs GNU emacs. But these are rare exceptions.

    This idea that open source = fragmentation and chaos is just Microsoft FUD.

  17. Re:A Question by gnuru.org · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What changed, specifically?

    IBM lost the OS wars, so selling OS's became a minor part of IBM's business. Sure, there is still a niche market for AIX, but it is pennies for an outfit like IBM.

    So, IBM had nothing to lose if it jumped on the Linux bandwagon. In fact, it has been a boon because they've been able to market one OS for their entire server range from the i386s, to the PPCs to the mainframes. And they've been able to pitch a single unified vision around Linux, in particular, IBM hardware running Linux, Apache, and WebSphere.

    Also, IBM has understood that the commodity OS market is not the place to be, rather they have a very profitable consulting division (IBM Global Services) that loses nothing and gains everything by promoting Linux.

    All in all, hitching its fortunes to Linux has been a very, very smart move on IBM's part. The alternative might have been to end up like Sun!

  18. Re:A Question by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful
    But they are still one of the leading hardware companies

    Exactly. I spent some time contracting at IBM, and that's the main thing I learned about their business model: all the software stuff they do has the goal of selling IBM hardware. That's a plan that plays quite well with open source / free software.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  19. Re:A Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IBM ceased to be a computer company.

    No, really. IBM was a company that sold big iron, and they did it for years. But then the market shifted to minicomputers, and IBM suffered. And the market moved to microcomputers, and IBM found itself unable to compete with Compaq and later Dell, while the high-margin parts of the system were monopolized by Microsoft and Intel.

    So IBM regrouped, and became a serivces company. Oh, sure, they kept a number of legacy buisnesses together; there's still bits of a computer company still in IBM. But, in the main, they're a services company. And the thing about being a services company is that the more your customers spend on the hardware and software, the less of their IT budget they have left to spend on your services.

    IBM wants cheap, standardized software and hardware the same way your local restaurant wants cheap, high-quality meat and produce. The restaurant isn't selling you eight ounces of cow muscle and a potato for $20; it's selling you the services of the cooks, the waiters, the dishwashers, and the rest.

  20. I've been wating for this by seancallaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been waiting for Sun to open up Java for a long time. If you're giving it away for free, their is little purpose in keeping it closed source, especially when other people have JVMs out there, too. The only point of freeware v. open source is that people must use your software or visit your website to get it, but that's not the case with Java. I hope Sun goes for it.

  21. IBM made a funny by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Without a doubt. I can't help but smile at the whole thing. I am sure Sun would rather die than allow IBM to 'help' them.

    Maybe IBM is doing this as underhanded payback for Sun's "offer of assistance" moving IBM to the so-called Java Desktop a month or two back.

    As for OSS Java from what I understand, creating the VM is a well understood engineering problem. OSS VMs and compilers already exist. The problem is that a complete implementation of Java includes an immense number of classes that would have to be implemented for real application compatibility.

  22. Just wondering... by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but is there an "Open Source" C? or C++?

    I mean, these are Open Standards right? So the Language spec is not really OSS, but I can down load it from ANSI and implement it if I like, right?

    So, why doesn't somebody just get the freely available Java spec and implemented? Isn't that what the GCJ is doing? Isn't that Open Source? Why doesn't everyone whine to IBM to Opensource THEIR implementation of the spec, or BEA JRockit or Apple?

    Sun acts as the keeper of the flame for the various Java specs, in concert with the JCP (which is an open organization BTW). Those specs are free to read and implement. FWIW, I think Sun has done a great job of keeping Java open and compatible, especially when MS tried to "embrace and extend" in '97 - '99.

    I say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    --
    Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
  23. Re:How nice of IBM.. ??? by jarich · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Are you serious??

    First, Sun doesn't sell Java. IBM isn't asking them to give up a revenue product.

    IBM contributes to Linux (kernel and otherwise), they contribute to (and ship) Apache. IBM contributes to open source all over the place!

    IBM has ~tons~ of open software http://alphaworks.ibm.com/ (not everything here is free, but check the place out!)

    IBM is a real friend to the open source community. Having Java in the public domain would (in their opinion) help everyone.

    If you want to put your anti-Redmond hat on, why should IBM and Sun and Blackdown and Gnu all have competing JVMs? Let open source pull in the best of breed and continue to improve the platform.

    .Net is one platform. Not quite so with Java. HP has a version. IBM. Blackdown. Gnu. etc

    Open sourcing Java would let people beyond Sun fix bugs. It would let projects (potentially) merge. I see tons of benefit.

    Sun gets more help with a product that they get no money for anyway... and they get tons of community relations points (which they need).

  24. Re:Dual Licence by dspeyer · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yes but no.

    Yes, Sun could offer Java under a dual license. However, once IBM takes the GPL version and adds all the performance tricks from their JVM, the GPL version will jump ahead of the proprietary, and no one will want to use the latter.

    Even if IBM would agree to let Sun take their contributions dual (which is possible), most of the open source community wouldn't be very happy about it. Part of the point of going open is to gather the support of the larger community.

    Another possibility is to BSD it, in which case everyone probably will contribute under BSD and let Sun take the code in, but that would mean MS could use everything, and Sun would never accept that.