Sun Agrees to Talk to IBM over Open Sourcing Java

Not very important for me by Zo0ok · 2004-02-27 05:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

For my needs and preferences, Java is "free enough". Anyone who ever has turned Java down in favor of something else, because it is not free?

Re:Not very important for me by ---- · 2004-02-27 05:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

I prefer "Unencumbered Enough", "Flexible Enough", "Fast Enough", "Supported Enough" as enough reasons for choosing Java.

Once chosen, I like how strict the OOP was, and the tools that are available.

/* ---- */
Re:Not very important for me by gusmao · 2004-02-27 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

The question is not whether someone will or will not turn java down because it is not free, but how much more wildly adopted and improved the language and the VM can become.
Re:Not very important for me by pocoloco · 2004-02-27 05:44 · Score: 0, Insightful

I haven't had the need for java yet and I will not learn it unless I have to (e.g., for work), or it is a standard not controlled by a single "for profit" entity. If two or more companies get together and I have the time, then I may take a look because of curiosity.
Re:Not very important for me by Sanity · 2004-02-27 05:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

For my needs and preferences, Java is "free enough". Anyone who ever has turned Java down in favor of something else, because it is not free?
If it isn't free enough to form part of a GPL'd application, then it isn't free enough.
Re:Not very important for me by msh104 · 2004-02-27 05:48 · Score: 1

it is easier to port to different platforms and to include in open source distro's.
Re:Not very important for me by plams · 2004-02-27 05:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hmm. Would you use Java for scripting a game? I've never seen it before, but it's not that Java ideally isn't suited for it. If it was free I guess somebody would craft a solution suited for game scripting.
Re:Not very important for me by goodviking · 2004-02-27 05:50 · Score: 4, Informative

or it is a standard not controlled by a single "for profit" entity

The standards are driven and approved via the Java Community Process which includes many people and organizations.
Re:Not very important for me by Delirium+Tremens · 2004-02-27 05:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, the question -- or the worry -- is more around how to prevent somebody from forking Java and kill the "Write Once, Run Everywhere" idiom.
Re:Not very important for me by SalsaDoom · 2004-02-27 05:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Its not a matter of freeness in many ways, its a matter of longevity. The whole position we are taking here is that Java is going to get defeated by the cheaper and better advertised C# from MS. MS is of course, going to start hyping up C# soon, and no doubt bundling it as per usual. Java as it presently is going to lose to this, so we want it to be a permanent, true feature in the open source world where it will ride with our success.

There was an article in Linuxworld that summed it up nicely, let me see if I can find it.. well, I can't ;(

But you get the idea from what I said above. OSS software is in many ways untouchable. I think this, and greatly lowering the costs of deployment, are mainly why it should be OSS.

--SD

--
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Re:Not very important for me by aled · 2004-02-27 05:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

Let me quote:
"We're not suggesting Sun open source its directory software or proprietary stuff. Java is already in the JCP [Java Community Process]. It is already a community process that many people have contributed to. It's a mistake to look at it as though Sun is the sole author, and this is not any of their proprietary products."

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"
Re:Not very important for me by jocknerd · 2004-02-27 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

If its not given a BSD-style license, but one closer to GPL, there shouldn't be a problem. Microsoft won't touch the GPL since they can't make it their own like they can with BSD code. So I doubt Microsoft would do anything with Java provided its using an open-source license which prevents it from being hijacked.
Re:Not very important for me by bogado · 2004-02-27 05:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

The answer is easy create a test suite that a piece of software can only be called java compatible if it pass this test suite.

--
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
Re:Not very important for me by sperling · 2004-02-27 05:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Funny you should say this... I can say with certainity that this is being done right now. Although java still is a memory hog, it's way faster than any custom scripting language we could make up, and a lot more flexible than most other mainstream (read: possible to hire expert developers) languages.

--
The next great MMORPG.
Re:Not very important for me by Hast · 2004-02-27 06:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

There was a vampire game for PC a few years ago that used Java for scripting. (Or rather, game logic.)

Not a very bad idea actually, there are a lot of knowledge about it and it saves you time to develop your own. You might go with other languages too naturally, like Python and such.
Re:Not very important for me by primus_sucks · 2004-02-27 06:04 · Score: 1

Anyone who ever has turned Java down in favor of something else, because it is not free?

No, but it certainly has made me look at alternatives more closely (Python, Ruby, C++, etc.).
Re:Not very important for me by BaronAaron · 2004-02-27 06:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Any fork from the Java specifications would simply not be Java anymore.

I would imagine Sun would act as a gatekeeper if Java went open source. Anything code that breaks compatibility would not be included in the "offical" Java feed.

As the grandfather post stated, this is more about portability than anything.
Re:Not very important for me by avante · 2004-02-27 06:08 · Score: 2, Troll

I am of the mind that I should move away from Java because it is not free enough. In the work I do, ensuring that something is going to remain free and low cost and not get my partners in to political trouble is more important than usual. Truth is, we can't move away, but we can choose other routes.

I know most people don't need to think along those lines, but in Human Rights work, we need to more and more. We do use Java in our software, and I would like to see Sun commit to a freer model. It would be a great relief to me because I think Java is a good platform for a number of things.

Also, maybe I won't get criticized so badly the next time I meet RMS. The last time was very embarrassing. ;)
Re:Not very important for me by AvitarX · 2004-02-27 06:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

Or it could get an original open office (or was it star) type license where non-compatible versions must be open source but if it is 100% compatible it can be closed.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Not very important for me by lauterm · 2004-02-27 06:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

But there is nothing to insure that it stays that way. What if Sun were to go bankrupt? Then at very least Java would be encumbered until the bankruptcy was settled. What if Sun was bought out by SCO and SCO decided to charge everyone $699 to use Java? I admit neither of these scenarios are that likely but that is what ESR and IBM are trying to insure can not happen.
Re: Not very important for me by er_col · 2004-02-27 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Unfortunately it is not free enough. When it is people will be able to fix it so a lot of programs out there that are otherwise great programs but for Java's terrible slowness and resource consumption will finally become usable.
FreeNet I think is the most important example. They overcame their design problems lately and now it may be well on its way to mass usage.
So please everyone support freeing Java!
Re:Not very important for me by aanantha · 2004-02-27 06:19 · Score: 1

Lua's probably a better choice for game scripting. You can embed the interpretor easily into C/C++ and easily be able to call into C from Lua.
Re:Not very important for me by Electrum · 2004-02-27 06:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

For my needs and preferences, Java is "free enough". Anyone who ever has turned Java down in favor of something else, because it is not free?

I have. It's not free enough to be included with Debian or FreeBSD.
Re:Not very important for me by Cyberax · 2004-02-27 06:23 · Score: 0

JCP is slow as a turtle. Some JSR are being developed for SIX years ("Adding Generics to Java Language" comes to mind).
Re:Not very important for me by Angst+Badger · 2004-02-27 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, the question -- or the worry -- is more around how to prevent somebody from forking Java and kill the "Write Once, Run Everywhere" idiom.

This hasn't been a problem with C, so why should it be so with Java? Sure, everyone and his brother has implemented non-standard extensions to C in their compilers --- but almost no one uses them. If you care about portability, you'll stick to the standard, and if you don't care about portability, odds are you don't care very much about Java.

If you're really into "write once, run everywhere," then an open source Java ought to be a major goal. Java doesn't run on my box, for example, because it doesn't come with my distro, and my past experiences with configuring it have been so unpleasant that I don't bother anymore. If I really could just run Java programs -- exactly as I can currently compile C programs without worrying about installing the compiler toolchain manually -- I'd probably use some Java programs.

(And yes, I know non-trivial C programs require modification to run on new platforms, but that's because C programs interface directly with the operating system without the buffer of a VM -- and the VM certainly isn't "write once, run anywere," now is it?)

--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Re:Not very important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:26 · Score: 0

Yes, I frequently turn down java because it is not Free at all.
Re:Not very important for me by Pieroxy · 2004-02-27 06:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Both BSD and GPL offer the possibility to fork and create your own branch! Why would the license be an issue for this problem?

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Not very important for me by Shirov · 2004-02-27 06:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, this is VERY IMPORTANT! I think the big advantage(s) of "open sourcing" java will be seen when things such as the mess with the logging API's and the use of the assert keyword are avoided.

It is still a mystery to me why Sun developed their own logging API's when LOG4J was widely used and accepted.

Hopefully a more open approach to Java would help projects that are housed at Jakarta and SourceForge actually make it into the JDK instead of sticking us with inferior rewrites.

The logging API is just one example. Imagine if the JUNIT implementation of assert was used, and if SWT could be combined with Swing/AWT to create better/superior user interfaces. I think Java could grow in leaps and bounds with an open approach.

Another good example of this would be the JDOM project. How long has it sat in the JCP? While in the meantime Sun implemented their own INFERIOR XML libraries.

The JCP is too political, and needs to modified/done away with. Let the people decide the direction of JAVA!

Just my .02

--Ryan
Re:Not very important for me by leomekenkamp · 2004-02-27 06:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Are you sure? Because if it were GPL, what would be keeping MS from 'adding' classes in java.lang that call win32/.NET only functionality? They have done it before, you know.

Only the calls to the underlying OS would have to be in GPL-ed code, the actual win32/.NET would not. There is nothing in the GPL to prevent GPL code calling proprietary closed code. So, MS takes GPL java, add a few classes with close integration to windows, add that whole package (including all java source) to windows and bingo: a polluted MS only java variant!

--
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Re:Not very important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:39 · Score: 0

I can't use java because its not available for my platform. If it were more 'free' I could compile it myself.
Re:Not very important for me by mcc · 2004-02-27 06:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Actually, the question -- or the worry -- is more around how to prevent somebody from forking Java and kill the "Write Once, Run Everywhere" idiom.

This hasn't been a problem with C, so why should it be so with Java? ... If you care about portability, you'll stick to the standard

My God, man, have you ever tried to move STL code between compilers???

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Re:Not very important for me by scheme · 2004-02-27 06:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

This hasn't been a problem with C, so why should it be so with Java? Sure, everyone and his brother has implemented non-standard extensions to C in their compilers --- but almost no one uses them. If you care about portability, you'll stick to the standard, and if you don't care about portability, odds are you don't care very much about Java.

That will be news to a lot of people. A lot of software uses ms, borland, or gcc specific hacks and alterations. For example, the linux kernel won't compile without gcc or icc (now that intel implemented gcc compatibility changes to compile the kernel). How about microsoft's vc++ not implementing the scoping in for loops right? vc++ doesn't follow the standard so standard code breaks. There are a bunch of other things like this around.

--
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
Re:Not very important for me by vizek · 2004-02-27 06:39 · Score: 1

You haven't worked too much with C++ on Windows, did you? MS VC++ was full of non-standard libraries, functions etc. Some of them later were incorporated in the Standard Spec, but most of them not. Now I haven't worked for the last couple of years in C, but before that I spent 5-6 years in various C++ project with a few companies. In only one of them there was a huge push (and controls) to keep the code as platform agnostic as possible. And even there it did not run on anything else than Windows withoug quite some tweaking.
Re:Not very important for me by SchnauzerGuy · 2004-02-27 06:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
Actually, for many common tasks, Java is equal to or slower at than several scripting languages, such as Lua or Python.

Benchmarks:
Overall, according to this benchmark, Java scored slightly higher than scripting languages. But if you consider memory usage, Lua/Python/Perl/Ruby all blow Java out of the water.
Re:Not very important for me by Rui+Lopes · 2004-02-27 06:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Vampire: The Masquerade - Redemption uses Java as its game scripting language, as described here (free reg required) under the "What Went Right" section, 3rd topic (3. Using Java as a scripting engine.). I guess it pretty much says it!!!

--
var sig = function() { sig(); }
Re:Not very important for me by el-spectre · 2004-02-27 06:51 · Score: 1

Not a flame (seriously), but what is the big deal about downloading java and doing a separate install? I've done it lots of times and it's easy enough.

True, it's a big download, but the versions are fairly infrequent, and you could get it overight via dialup, worst case.

Maybe I am missing something, but it doesn't matter to me that it's separate, and besides, that's 80MB of other stuff (like less-funded projects) that can make it onto the ISO, right?

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Not very important for me by maxgilead · 2004-02-27 06:54 · Score: 3, Informative

There are at least two games that use Java for processing their game logic: Vampire: The Masquerade - Redemption and Chrome released last year.
Re:Not very important for me by javaxman · 2004-02-27 06:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

They have that.

It's called the "Java Compatability Kit", and is what JVM implementations are tested against in licensing to get that spiffy Java logo. IMHO, they should be more strict about how well an implementation performs against the JCK, and include more graphical tests ( though of course those are the hard ones to write ).

The key is you only see the JCK after you've agreed to license Java and paid some cash. That's the only *direct* way Sun makes money on Java. If you're asking them to give that up, I Sun's shareholders will have to ask you why, and what they're going to get in return... this will likely be what the IBM conversation consists of- how to give the JCK to one open-source implementation and still keep commercial ventures going to Sun for compatability certification.
Re:Not very important for me by Lobo_Louie · 2004-02-27 06:59 · Score: 2, Funny

I agree!;
// No, I really mean you suck!
// Just joking
Re:Not very important for me by JPriest · 2004-02-27 07:02 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe if they chose GPL we could have as many JVM's as we do Linux distros.

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Re:Not very important for me by Arker · 2004-02-27 07:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Both BSD and GPL offer the possibility to fork and create your own branch! Why would the license be an issue for this problem?

Because the BSD license allows you to keep your fork secret, that's why. This allows someone like MS to come along and make a fork that puts the original at a disadvantage, and keep their changes secret (and/or patented) and effectively bar all the Free versions from being compatible. However, under the GPL they would have to publish their source, allowing the Free versions to quickly and relatively easily adapt to any such changes.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Not very important for me by Christ-on-a-bike · 2004-02-27 07:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

BSD-licensed software can be forked indiscriminately and the source need never surface again.

Using the GPL guarantees that any non-private forks can later be merged (consider gcc/egcs). Practically speaking there are few incentives to maintain a separate fork.
Re:Not very important for me by BenBenBen · 2004-02-27 07:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Actually, the question -- or the worry -- is more around how to prevent somebody from forking Java and kill the "Write Once, Run Everywhere" idiom.
Hmm, wonder who the "somebody" could be

--
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Re:Not very important for me by TheRaven64 · 2004-02-27 07:23 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, an Apache style license would be better. With the GPL, Microsoft could copy the core VM, remove a few classes, and add com.ms.* packages in large numbers that did not reference any GPL'd code directly, which would result in an incompatible implementation (they probably wouldn't, since they're ignoring Java completely in favour of .NET at the moment). Worse, another open source group could fork the project and change the behaviour of some of the core classes, making an incompatible implementation (which would still be bound by the GPL). If this implementation gained even a 5% market share it would be a problem.
With an Apache-style license, companies like Apple could incorporate the Java implementation into their OS, but would not be able to call it Java if they made any changes to the source. Sun (and possibly IBM) could then charge for performing compliance testing on a particular implementation, and allow use of the Java trademark to any implementation which passed the tests.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Not very important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 07:24 · Score: 0

Please see Arker (91948) post. Now considering that MS has 90+ percent of the desktop market and approx 50 percent of the server market, MS could in effect could shift Java for their own needs and business would follow.

Most corporations will support MS before OSS/GPL/BSD and with the source being closed, this would introduce incompatibilites into the java platform. By making it GPL, it removes the potential for MS to abuse the development of java due to their sheer size.

I support both GPL and BSD licenses, however; in this case java must be released as GPL NOT LGPL or BSD. Once again this would prevent the potential abuse of java.
Re:Not very important for me by butane_bob2003 · 2004-02-27 07:40 · Score: 1

I believe they are talking about making an open source project for the JVM. The binaries are free for supported platforms, but only the APIs are really open source.

--

TallGreen CMS hosting
Re:Not very important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the referenced page:

The shootout has not been updated since the fall of 2001, and is now frozen as it is.

Two+-year-old benchmarks? That don't, as far as I can tell, take into account startup time? One of the main ways Java is used is in persistent environments. Comparing Java's performance from the command-line is like ... like comparing the speed of running a perl script from the command-line to a similar script running under mod_perl.

I'm not going to come out and assert that Java now beats Python at, say, the word-count test, since of course Python's had two years to develop, too. However there's hardly anything conclusive about 'speed' in these tests, as thorough as the guy seems to have been.
Re:Not very important for me by Srin+Tuar · 2004-02-27 07:42 · Score: 3, Funny

>My God, man, have you ever tried to move STL
>code between compilers???

You mean there are other compilers besides gcc?
Re:Not very important for me by jaraxle · 2004-02-27 07:44 · Score: 1

It's not downloading and doing a separate install that's a problem, it's that it's simply not free enough to be in the main Debian distro (vs. in non-free, or not included at all).

What the parent was saying is if it's not free enough for Debian, it's simply not free enough, period.

jaraxle
Re:Not very important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 07:49 · Score: 0

Sun is not going to be around much longer the way they are headed. One would hope they make this open now, instead of being bought by some other company who is not so open about giving away it's IP.
Re:Not very important for me by Mateito · 2004-02-27 07:52 · Score: 0

> Sun's shareholders will have to ask you why

Why?

I've still got a few of these hanging around after the dot.com boom. At least they are only cents away from what I paid for them.

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Re:Not very important for me by el-spectre · 2004-02-27 07:56 · Score: 1

Yeah, I got that... by why does it need to be in the distro?

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Not very important for me by Tony-A · 2004-02-27 08:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, the question -- or the worry -- is more around how to prevent somebody from forking Java and kill the "Write Once, Run Everywhere" idiom.

And methinks this is where IBM is even more on SUN's side than SUN itself.
Think what needs to be the replacement for mountains of COBOL on mainframes.

I'm no expert on Java, but every time I look at it I get visions of gaggles of mainframes. (No I don't mean clusters. Clusters are a cheap hack to pretend to a non-existant level of reliability).
Re:Not very important for me by gnu-generation-one · 2004-02-27 08:06 · Score: 1

"Anyone who ever has turned Java down in favor of something else, because it is not free?"

Yeah, I'm not using Java yet, partially because it's non-free, and partially because the best IDE I have for it insists on using Windows-specific extensions.

I figure it has the potential to become another visual-basic, i.e. looks nice, easy to use, easy to design with, but ultimately subject to the whims of one company. What if Sun went SCO tomorrow, and decided they wanted to sue everything that moved? It's happened to nicer companies before.

So why bother? If the open-source world is re-writing Java from scratch (kaffe, jboss etc.), then that makes it no better than .NET or C# -- C# has also got a proprietry implementation that we hope the vendor will continue to support too, and C# has a free-software project (mono) reimplementing it too. As far as free software developers are concerned, what's the difference between Java and Visual Basic.NET or C#?

The hacker ethic says that nothing should have to be created twice, and if the Java license is forcing Kaffe developers to waste years of their time reimplementing java that they could better spend writing new software, then that means java isn't free enough.
Re:Not very important for me by LousyPhreak · 2004-02-27 08:08 · Score: 2, Informative

im not an expert here, just done a (tiny) bit of java programming but how would that be different from the current situation?

everyone can write new classes and include them with whatever they want, even microsoft. afaik the java classes are actually available as source so this is actually a non-issue.

iirc you can currently also write modules in c for java to use platform specific stuff (like the opengl stuff for java) so as above there is nothing that would change.

ms cant use the code now, cos they aint got it, and wont be able to use it if its gpl, cos they cant use it without publishing the changes.

--
-- Karma: beyond good and evil - mostly affected by posting political
Re:Not very important for me by bubkus_jones · 2004-02-27 08:09 · Score: 1

If it's 100% compatable, then wouldn't it be the same as the open version? Adding anything that the official Java doesn't have would make it incompatable, right, as would removing anything?
Re:Not very important for me by Dutchie · 2004-02-27 08:21 · Score: 1

Gimme a box with Debian and .debs for all JVM, javac, all Java classes easy database connectivity, servlets out of the box that I can apt-get distupgrade and it'll still work.

I'll sign for that. JavaSux, but it would suck a WHOLE LOT less if I wouldn't have to run around for a fragmented JVM implementation, what to choose, blackdown?, sun?, ibm? every time I want to update my Linux system.
--
- Imagination is more important than knowledge.
- - -- Albert Einstein
Re:Not very important for me by dmeranda · 2004-02-27 08:22 · Score: 1

A little off-topic from Java, but modern C++ from my experience is quite portable (at the source code level)---as long as you don't use Microsoft C++. If you stick to the STL and any number of free C++ extension libraries it works pretty well. We have very large and complex code that works equally well under Linux/gcc3, HP-UX's C++ compiler, and AIX's C++ compiler.

C++ portability seems to mostly be a big issue for those how are using old pre-standard compilers, or are using Microsoft compilers and using their proprietary extensions without knowing it.
Re:Not very important for me by javaxman · 2004-02-27 08:23 · Score: 1

Ok, so who is going to buy Sun? IBM? Apple?

It takes a lot to make a company go completely out of business. Sun might actually be able to spin off or sell off a JavaSoft component if it came to that, not that such a company would make much money, though it might _just_ be able to stay afloat.

Why the heck am I answering an AC who's predicting the death of Sun? Sun still has plenty of customers and income, they just need to manage it all a bit better and prove to the market they'll be worth something in the long run. Folks saying they're dead feel a lot to me like folks saying Apple's dead 7 years ago... I'll start to pay attention when the stock is de-listed...

more interestingly, what makes you think Sun is open about giving away it's IP ?
Re:Not very important for me by zurab · 2004-02-27 08:24 · Score: 1

In effect, BSD-type license would then encourage more incompatible forks, while GPL-style license would make incorporating others' functionality easier.
Re:Not very important for me by Mornelithe · 2004-02-27 08:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's poor form to add to java.lang. Only approved, core stuff goes in there. Official extention stuff is javax.whatever. Stuff from microsoft would likely be com.microsoft.whatever.

If Microsoft writes its own extentions for current Java, it will be known as Microsoft's unofficial extention libraries to Java to most people, I'm sure.

If Java is GPLed, and MS forks it, and changes all kinds of stuff to be Windows only, and distributes it with every copy of Windows and Visual Studio, then I'm sure for about 80% of the computing world, it will be known as Java. That is, they have the ability to make their incompatible, Windows-only version more common than the legit version. How does the GPL solve this? It doesn't matter if the code is released if you don't want it in the main version (if you don't want to use it at all).

--

I've come for the woman, and your head.
Re:Not very important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 08:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, I got that... by why does it need to be in the distro?

As an example: If a Java program called 'foo' was included in Debian, you could have it depend on Java. Then "apt-get install foo" would automatically install Java. Right now, 'foo' couldn't even be included in Debian - it would have to go into the contrib branch (unless it could also run with a free Java implementation like Kaffe).

Being in the distro provides other benefits too, including use of the Debian bug system and security infrastructure.
Re:Not very important for me by Electrum · 2004-02-27 08:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Not a flame (seriously), but what is the big deal about downloading java and doing a separate install? I've done it lots of times and it's easy enough.

It's a big deal because it's pain to have to do something non-standard to install software. I work with at least a dozen servers on a regular basis. When I need to install a new server, do I want to have to remember how to install Java, or do I simply do a cd /usr/ports/lang/python && make install clean?

Downloading Java for use on FreeBSD is not as simple as fetching a URL. You have to agree to a click through confirmation on Sun's website, which last I checked only works in one of three text mode browsers (links, lynx, w3m), but I don't remember which. Should I need to install a web browser to install Java? Why put up with that when I can install other languages using the standard install method?
Re:Not very important for me by holizz · 2004-02-27 08:43 · Score: 1

Anyone who ever has turned Java down in favor of something else, because it is not free?

I don't use Java (because it's not free) and YAST (YAST is semi-free, shush) won't let me forget it. OOo needs it, apparently.

So in short, YAST is evil and so is Java.
Re:Not very important for me by Electrum · 2004-02-27 08:43 · Score: 1

It's not downloading and doing a separate install that's a problem

Actually, that is the problem for me. I don't care how "free" it is as long as I can download it freely and install it. Java is not free enough for that and thus can't be installed via ports without manually downloading the JDK. That sucks and I won't use Java because of it.

I'm pragmatic when it comes to software. If Java was the perfect programming language, I would use it. But it's not, and there are other free languages that do the same job, so I don't need to put up with the hassle of installing Java.
Re:Not very important for me by DerFeuervogel · 2004-02-27 08:44 · Score: 1

My God, man, have you ever tried to move STL code between compilers???

Thanks. I've spent years in therapy trying to deal with that trauma and
now with just one post I have the shaking hands and bile rising in my throat
again. Even going from VCC5.0 to VCC6.0 with STL caused me to utter words that,
I hope my mother never hears me using.
Re:Not very important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 08:52 · Score: 0

Hey, Howard Dean, caps for emphasis makes you seem like a raving lunatic.
Re:Not very important for me by el-spectre · 2004-02-27 08:58 · Score: 1

Ok, I can see the point there. Thanks for the enlightenment.

I was under the impression that this was an "everything must be free" religious argument, and was thus not in agreement.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Not very important for me by mcc · 2004-02-27 09:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hey, er, I'm a longtime C programmer, starting a cross platform project in C++. Our goal is to use borland C++ builder 6 on MS 'DoH, and g++ on linux. I've been reading Bjarne, and he seems to think that most STL imps these days are pretty good. Is he smoking crack?

They've gotten better. However, this is only a very very recent development.

My plan for xplat compat is to test every day on both platforms so incompats don't creep in.

Good plan.

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Re:Not very important for me by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2004-02-27 09:06 · Score: 1

Also: is there anything preventing an open source implementation of Java? If RMS wants one, then he should spearhead an independent project.
Re:Not very important for me by MountainLogic · 2004-02-27 09:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, the question -- or the worry -- is more around how to prevent somebody from forking Java and kill the "Write Once, Run Everywhere" idiom.
Actually, the question is how to kill the "Write Once, Run Everywhere" idiom. Java is a nice object oriented C language, but all of the VM, non-native UI, swing and other bagage is the problem with java. Dump the bagage and just compile java. Or I guess you could just move to Objective C and be done with it.
Re:Not very important for me by larry+bagina · 2004-02-27 09:08 · Score: 1

Try merging Emacs and XEmacs sometime. egcs/gcc didn't merge so much as egcs replaced gcc.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Not very important for me by deadmonk · 2004-02-27 09:10 · Score: 1

I'd be worried about the 'wiggle room' in this one, when it comes to something like a VM.

A company with an 'embrace and extend' philosophy could easily be 100% compatible, then push that to 110% so it does more than compatible, it does things the original can't! How can you complain about a company improving the original?

It was done once, and Sun would be fools to let it happen again.
Re:Not very important for me by Angst+Badger · 2004-02-27 09:13 · Score: 2, Informative

My God, man, have you ever tried to move STL code between compilers???

No, I haven't, but the STL isn't part of C, it's part of C++, and cross-platform standards compliance is definitely not there yet with C++.

--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Re:Not very important for me by leomekenkamp · 2004-02-27 09:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sun successfully challenged MS in a court of law because MS 'polluted' java by putting incompatible stuff in java.lang and similar packages. You cannot (under the current Sun java license) distribute any Sun java stuff if you do that.

If Sun were to place java under the GPL Microsoft could pull the same trick, and this time get away with it, thereby successfully polluting java in such a way that a lot of developers will develop for MS-java only.

--
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Re:Not very important for me by lebjoot · 2004-02-27 09:35 · Score: 0

How about free enough to come with your preferred distro?

--
Is this /.-honeypot? Oh well, whatever...
Re:Not very important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 09:36 · Score: 0

How about microsoft's vc++ not implementing the scoping in for loops right? vc++ doesn't follow the standard so standard code breaks.

That's a pretty bad example because both gcc and VC++ default to the old pre-ISO rules. And they both can be switched into ISO mode.

Almost every day I write code that compiles with VC++ and GCC, I don't see what the big deal is. I often make heavy use of STL also. With a couple minors tweeks for non-standard STL stuff (like the hashing containers) it works fine.
Re:Not very important for me by Shirov · 2004-02-27 09:42 · Score: 1

And useless posts take up bandwidth... hehehe...

oops... :-)
Re:Not very important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 09:43 · Score: 0

Not true. Also, Java is compiled. A scripting language allows you to modify code on the fly.
Re:Not very important for me by tigeba · 2004-02-27 09:45 · Score: 3, Informative

I sugggest you check out

http://www.flat222.org/mac/bench/

For a decent comparison of C++, Java and Python. This particular source if refrenced from http://www.python.org/doc/Comparisons.html

Executive summary: C++ Fast. Java medium. Python slow. Notable exception to this rule is Java's console performance, which is abysmal for some reason. Like any benchmarks, they probably wont have much impact on real world applications, so use whatever language floats your boat.
Re:Not very important for me by Moraelin · 2004-02-27 09:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hmm? Remember that Microsoft's goal was to poison the "write once, run everywhere" threat, not to have some proprietary super-Java machine.

If they simply wanted some proprietary ultra-fast Java that noone else has the sources to, they could have done so without pissing off Sun. They could have provided their extensions as DLL's called via the Java standard JNI mechanism.

Even when Sun sued them, what did Microsoft do? Used it as an excuse to bail out of providing an up-to-date standard JVM for Windows, which effectively killed Applets as a viable alternative. (Combined with Sun's idiotic approach of bloating the JDK with every single library. Nowadays it even includes an XML parser. Not many people wanted to download tens of megs on dialup just to run a stupid applet.)

Basically again: Microsoft didn't want to have a super-product and/or make money, it wanted the Java market to fragment and die.

So what's going to keep them from using Open Source to that end? So people are going to get the sources to Microsoft's fork. So some of them will get ported to Linux. All the better, no? It's just helping the fragmentation to spread farther, no?

In fact, if I was Bill and wanted to see Java dead, I'd make sure there's not just one GPL fork. I'd make sure there are 5 fundamentally incompatible GPL'ed forks! And that you need to explicitly check which version of Java and which OS you're running on, to have your program run at all.

Heck, I'd even pay some third party to port some of that incompatible stuff to Linux. As part of some MS utility pack for Linux or some such.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Re:Not very important for me by Smallpond · 2004-02-27 10:03 · Score: 1

what is the big deal about downloading java

Great. Hop over to the website and get the download for IBM AIX. Guess what. THERE ISN'T ONE. AIX competes with Sun, so no Java for you.

Java Downloads

If you want Java for AIX, go to the IBM website and get the one that't 3 revs back.
Re:Not very important for me by sudog · 2004-02-27 10:12 · Score: 1

I turned it down because I don't really have a decent, native-compilable version of Java for my non-Linux desktop!

This could be *so* big..! PLEASE SUN DO THE RIGHT THING!
Re:Not very important for me by toriver · 2004-02-27 10:34 · Score: 1

This hasn't been a problem with C

Funny you should mention C.

What IBM is doing wrt. Sun's Java implementation is akin to people going to AT&T and asking them to OS their C implementation instead of writing their own, e.g. GCC.

Why can't people throw resources onto the Kaffe project instead?
Re:Not very important for me by dkf · 2004-02-27 10:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Java is compiled. A scripting language allows you to modify code on the fly.
Java let's you do that. Write bytecode (e.g. by invoking an in-process Java compiler) and load it into yourself. Easy!

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Not very important for me by prockcore · 2004-02-27 10:43 · Score: 1

Actually, the question -- or the worry -- is more around how to prevent somebody from forking Java and kill the "Write Once, Run Everywhere" idiom.

here's a thought, why not standardize Java?
Re:Not very important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 10:58 · Score: 0

That's funny... I see a JDK 1.4 for AIX on IBM's website.
Re:Not very important for me by stateofmind · 2004-02-27 11:45 · Score: 1

I always turn it down in favor of green tea. Not because it's not free, because green tea has flavonoids.

And I need my flavonoids.

Josh
Re:Not very important for me by vegetasaiyajin · 2004-02-27 11:48 · Score: 2, Informative

If it isn't free enough to form part of a GPL'd application, then it isn't free enough.

I think you can create a GPL java application and distribute the JVM (the JRE, not the SDK) with it.
In fact, for those saying java cannot be included in free linux distros: Check Knoppix. It includes Sun's JVM (not the SDK) and use the GCJ compiler to compile (it is invoked using the command javac, just like the Sun's and has the same usual command line parameters). You can even use the Sun libraries (you are not forced to use GCJ Java library, although you can use that if you want).

--

My heart is pure, but make no mistake, it's pure evil
Re:Not very important for me by DrEasy · 2004-02-27 11:57 · Score: 1

100% in agreement. The energy they spent coming up with the Collections Framework while JGL was widely used is another example. Hope they don't rewrite AspectJ now, and I'd love to see it offered in later releases...

If Sun focussed on the API rather than implementation issues, and with a more inclusive approach towards 3rd party libraries, we would all benefit from a better quality Java.

--
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
Re:Not very important for me by NumbThumb · 2004-02-27 12:02 · Score: 1

you can do this with (nearly) any language. Just write the code to a text-file, invoke the compiler and load the resulting library. Even without support for runtime-linked libs... self-modifying assembler, anyone?

Java is cool among the complied languages has it language-dynamic features that let you do lambda-like stuff (like inline-classes and proxy objects). It's a real pitty though that there is no (standard) api that you can give java-code (or bytecode, at that) and that would return a Class-object. Like a class called JavaCompiler, or such...

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this 120 chars is too small to contain.
Re:Not very important for me by AvitarX · 2004-02-27 13:00 · Score: 1

But you could still make it faster and use less memmory possibly.

And sell it as a closed implementation.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Not very important for me by nehril · 2004-02-27 13:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

the problem with microsoft is not their keeping changes secret or closed, but the raw fact that they can pre-install their JVM on 90% of the world's computers by rolling it into windows update.

all microsoft has to do is roll out a GPLd but incompatible jvm to kill the whole show. Lets imagine... "Microsoft J++" with direct hooks to msvcrt.dll, mfcxx.dll and mdac 2.8. Just use these functions to decrease your time to market by 9 months... at the cost of not being able to run your "java" app on any platform that does not have microsoft dlls installed.

think about it.
Re:Not very important for me by Mr.+Piddle · 2004-02-27 13:37 · Score: 1

You mean there are other compilers besides gcc?

I downloaded a C++ program recently that worked only with GCC 3.3.2! How they managed that, I have no idea, but it sucks because I wanted to play around with Sun's CC to compare it with GCC. It also forced me to upgrade from GCC 3.2.2 (less than a year old!).

After a decade and a half of C++, it seems they are always only 98% implemented (and everyone has a different remaining 2%).

--
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
Re:Not very important for me by RPoet · 2004-02-27 14:09 · Score: 1

Actually, everything must not be free. If seperate applications are less than free, ok, but infrastructural software should be. This includes operating systems, drivers and major class libraries and virtual machines. Personally, this ethical perspective is the number one reason I hope there will be an Free Software Java from SUN eventually.

--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Re:Not very important for me by bogado · 2004-02-27 14:31 · Score: 1

I believe that they should only give the shiny logo to those who pay them a million but they should made the test available to those who want to one verify if the shiny logo means something, and two to those who are making their unsuported java product could also test (even thought they would not have the shiny logo and would have little attention from stupid CEOs).

of course that is just my opinion.

--
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
Re:Not very important for me by sumengen · 2004-02-27 16:00 · Score: 1

If Microsoft is able to reduce time to market by 9 months, obviously Sun is not doing a good job. I am going with C# then. That probably reduces time to market by 18 months!!!
Re:Not very important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 19:26 · Score: 0

"(No I don't mean clusters. Clusters are a cheap hack to pretend to a non-existant level of reliability)."

Wow. Someone's bitter.
Re:Not very important for me by bitfoam · 2004-02-27 23:07 · Score: 1

To minimize the success of polluted variants, we need a respected, and preferably open and independent, standards body that 1) defines the language and standard classes; 2) works with for- and non-profit organizations to ratify new features and extensions; and 3) certifies implementations to be standards-compatible.

If this were done right we might just blow away the credibility of any polluted variants before they have a chance to muster support and mindshare.
Re:Not very important for me by luisdom · 2004-02-28 03:40 · Score: 1

Worse, another open source group could fork the project and change the behaviour of some of the core classes, making an incompatible implementation (which would still be bound by the GPL).
If you think of it, this already has happened. The existing free-software implementations of java are GPL, and incompatible with the mainstream java (because they are incomplete).
Re:Not very important for me by njcoder · 2004-02-28 04:37 · Score: 1

If seperate applications are less than free, ok, but infrastructural software should be.
Why? Who made this decision? That's almost like saying all hammers should be free. If hammers were free we'd have people running around building homes because they have their new tool and we wouldn't have to worry about the homeless any more as a result. There's no value in the hammer, only in what you can do with it. Don't worry about making 12.99 for your hammer, show people how great a bench you can build with that hammer and make your money that way. I make benches. I would love to use a hammer to help me make my benches but I can't until it's free. And you could make hammers free if you made benches, or bird houses or the like. We, the community that wants you to release your hammer to the world can make quite some good money doing what we do... but for some reason, we can't seem to be able to buy a hammer.
The infrastructure takes time and money to develop, why shouldn't the person putting in that time and money be compensated for it in some way? It's not YOU that's paying for it in most cases, it's the people that need to get their applications certified java compliant such as VM creators.
Right now, there aren't many organizations that can really look over the development of Java other than Sun and in some respects IBM (thought they do some funky stuff and I don't know how comfy I'd feel about someone that had their own anti trust problems years back looking over something as important as Java). So chances are Sun will be a big player if Java gets open sourced. Probably serving a similar role as Linus servers for the Linux kernel.
The way Java is developed now really levels the playing field. First there's a specification, and the team that comes up with that specification is required to create a free reference implementation that may or may not include the source code. In addtion, they must come up with a testing suite so that others who develop to that spec can verify if they've conformed to it. I can't remember now if it's in all cases the test suite is free or that it can be free. Sun even puts a big chunk of money aside for compatability testing support for non profits and educational entities. Actually Sun's been pretty good with licensing recently on the non-prof and ed side lately.
You open source it, people start developing the stuff they want, they don't start with a specification, the're will be a lot of duplicate work and a lot of stupid work.
We're not talking about a few tens of thousands of people here that use this language like maybe some of the other open source languages. We're talkinga bout many developers worldwide, billions of dollars invested by the corporate world in implementing Java solutions. Open sourcing Java can have some very bad effects.
First of all... We ALL know what's going to happen once it gets open sourced. The OSS community will start working on it. They'll come to the conclusion that what's currently there is the biggest steaming pile of crap they've seen so they'll start rewriting it. 2 years later we'll finally be back up to compatibility with Java 1.2 and J2EE-ish. :)

--
Open Source Java DAO Generator
Re:Not very important for me by Christ-on-a-bike · 2004-02-28 05:00 · Score: 1

The point is that egcs was originally made up of a lot of separate forks off gcc. They were merged together into egcs.
Obviously this wouldn't have happened if each of the forks had different licenses than the GPL. The GPL helps keeps software mergeable.
Re:Not very important for me by stiggystiggy · 2004-02-28 11:21 · Score: 1

"Write Once, Run Everywhere" is not a good reason to use Java. In fact, I believe that ANY language can have that feature if you're willing to install 14.5 MEGS of software on the target platform (current size of the JVM for Windows).

Compare this to Perl for Windows (from Active State) -- only 8 megs. If you apply the economic principle of Comparative Advantage to the download "cost" of a portable language, it is clear that even Perl is a better choice for "Write Once, Run Everywhere" than Java.
Re:Not very important for me by spinlocked · 2004-02-29 10:15 · Score: 1

...No I don't mean clusters. Clusters are a cheap hack to pretend to a non-existant level of reliability...

In my experience, the reason you cluster mainframes is primarily to minimize licensing costs :).

--
# init 5 Connection closed.

Oh... ...bugger.
Re:Not very important for me by codemachine · 2004-03-01 08:14 · Score: 1

Yeah, I hate how all those distors have a different kernel. And all those different compilers are confusing.

Oh wait, there is only linux and gcc. Different versions sure, but that is no different from having Java 1.1, Java 1.4, etc.

The distributions tend to for the most part have all the same packages, and rarely do distro specific forks. So you always get linux-kernel, gcc, glibc, apache, bash, etc. I bet they'd all ship this new open source Java as well.
Re:Not very important for me by 4of12 · 2004-03-01 08:49 · Score: 1

Because the BSD license allows you to keep your fork secret

The GPL allows you to create a secret fork, too. As long as you alone are the only one using it.

The important difference with respect to the BSD license is that under the GPL, you can't re-distribute the secret fork as a close binary. Under those circumstances, the GPL obliges you to make the source code available. This is the key reason the GPL gives MS such heartburn, as it effectively disempowers any "embrace and extend incompatibly" strategy -- all released changes to any standards used by GPL code are source transparent.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:Not very important for me by Arker · 2004-03-01 09:08 · Score: 1

Precisely.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Not very important for me by fucksl4shd0t · 2004-03-03 23:14 · Score: 1

Well, as a Sun shareholder, I'd like to see them open source Java. :) (Although I admit I bought Sun shares because I'm hoping IBM will buy them out)

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Not very important for me by anomalous+cohort · 2004-03-05 06:10 · Score: 1

They are still pulling the same trick only now they call their COM version J++ with WFC and their .NET version J#.

Those savvy enough to tell the difference in the branding are also savvy enough not to swallow the poison pill to begin with.

Um. An? by ackthpt · 2004-02-27 05:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Sun officials planned to meet with IBM as early as Thursday to discuss the merits of whether the company should work with IBM on an independent project to create an open-source implementation of Java.

Wait... an .. implementation?

Rick Ross, president of Javalobby Inc., of Cary, N.C., an association of Java developers with more than 100,000 members, said, "On the surface, Rod's reply indicates a clear willingness on IBM's behalf to invest in an independent, open-source Java implementation that would benefit everyone"

What? Two Javas? This sounds weird. Obviously an open source implementation will grow and respond to demand rapidly and outpace something proprietary, yet it sounds like there will still be a proprietary version. Can anyone shed light on this? I'm confused.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

I think it only makes sense by robslimo · 2004-02-27 05:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

As Sun has already stated (in response to criticisms) that they have no problem with someone working up an Open Source version, as long as the spec is adhered to. Now someone with serious manpower is offering to do exactly that.

I'm not surprised at all. Quite pleased, actually.

Re:I think it only makes sense by aled · 2004-02-27 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem is that open sourced java means something different to everyone, thus most people rants about different things. Many are shouting the "open source good" mantra, without stoping to think what to open source or how (a language, an implementation, a licence, a platform?).

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"
Re:I think it only makes sense by Christ-on-a-bike · 2004-02-27 07:26 · Score: 4, Informative
I don't understand anyone's puzzlement here.
1. The Java language is an open specification -- you are free to implement it.
2. Sun/IBM are thinking about releasing an open-source implementation.
3. An open-source implementation by definition has an open-source license.
4. Any Java implementation is a platform because it provides a runtime environment, libraries etc.
5. An implementation of Java may not use the 'Java' mark unless it is compatible with the spec.
What is confusing or perplexing here? I think it's obvious what most people want -- an open-source (hopefully GPL!) Java implementation. Obviously we also want it to conform to spec.
Re:I think it only makes sense by aled · 2004-02-27 10:49 · Score: 1

The problem is not technical, is the human factor :-)

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"
Re:I think it only makes sense by ajagci · 2004-02-27 11:04 · Score: 1

As Sun has already stated (in response to criticisms) that they have no problem with someone working up an Open Source version, as long as the spec is adhered to.

That's a contradiction in terms. Open source doesn't make sense if someone can place significant restrictions on how the source is modified. You can't have "an open source version" that is required to adhere to a spec.
Re:I think it only makes sense by Tokerat · 2004-02-27 21:38 · Score: 1

So....you can't write an Open Source version of a TCP/IP stack then?

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Re:I think it only makes sense by ajagci · 2004-02-28 00:34 · Score: 1

So....you can't write an Open Source version of a TCP/IP stack then?

Nobody has any legal power to force you to make your software actually compliant with the standard. In fact, almost all TCP/IP implementations contain serious, known violations of the standard.

In contrast, Sun has copyrights, licenses, and patents to force you to make your Java implementation compliant with their specifications. And they aren't kidding about it either: they have sued Microsoft over it, and they can just as easily sue open source projects.
Re:I think it only makes sense by Tokerat · 2004-02-28 20:08 · Score: 1

Code carefully. :-D

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?

Sun reply by Espectr0 · 2004-02-27 05:41 · Score: 4, Informative

I wonder what IBM has to say on Sun's reply, which is covered by techworld

Apparently they don't understand IBM's position on Linux

--
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication

Re:Sun reply by Espectr0 · 2004-02-27 06:27 · Score: 1

i'm sorry, something went wrong when posting the link.
The link is here

--
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication

Microsoft's Stand? by GTsquirrel42 · 2004-02-27 05:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

So, what does M$ have to say about this? Will they be in favor of open-sourcing Java, or will Steve pull the "open-source-is-dangerous" rabbit back out?

--
"I was raised by a cup of coffee" -Homsar

Re:Microsoft's Stand? by KillerHamster · 2004-02-27 05:56 · Score: 1

Why should Microsoft care? They don't like Java anyway.
Re:Microsoft's Stand? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because it's a competing technology?

Because it involves two powerful companies that for one-reason-or-another don't like MS?

There are plenty of reasons for Microsoft to care. Just because you "don't like" something doesn't mean you don't (or shouldn't) care about it....

Just wondering by captain_craptacular · 2004-02-27 05:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

Don't hate me, but has anyone ever thought that this might not be a *good* thing? As irrational as it sounds there are probably a number of companies out there who are using Java just because the PHB's have decided that since it's "owned" by a major company like Sun, it must be good/stable/etc... These same cover your arse PHB's may not like the fact that the language they depend on has no "official support"... I'm thinking of the type of boss who would deploy RH or SuSE but not Debian...

--
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security

Re:Just wondering by bhsx · 2004-02-27 05:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's being spearheaded by IBM and Sun. I don't think anyone will have issues about poor corporate backing.
Not an issue, not even for the most retarded PHBs.

--
put the what in the where?
Re:Just wondering by bc90021 · 2004-02-27 05:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

That is likely why they would dual-license it, ala MySQL. The PHBs and the CXOs get a version that comes with Enterprise support that they pay for, and the Geeks get an open source free version that they can use that has no support.

It's being done quite successfully with MySQL, so Sun would be remiss if they didn't at least explore their options. IBM has proven that they will support open source (as it furthers their ends as well), and doing this for Java would help with their server offerings as well.

Really, I can't see how everyone won't win.

--
libertarianswag.com
Re:Just wondering by microbox · 2004-02-27 05:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

PHB's, as annoyingly ingornant as they are, will generally follow the advise of their experts unless they have some agenda of there own. Now, computer experts are going to say cheap, no vendor lockin, no hidden features, and most can understand that even if they don't understand the process

Now, what about that agenda... Bill and Steve can only play golf with only so many PHBs. Perhaps M$ can start hiring idiot business graduates to play golf with the CEO's?

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Re:Just wondering by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 05:51 · Score: 0

Who says Sun won't give "official support" after making java open-source? Of course, I doubt they will make it open-source, but we can dream, cannot we?

--Coder
Re:Just wondering by supergiovane · 2004-02-27 05:55 · Score: 1

Chances are that the same boss, knowing that respected SUNMegaCorp released its enterprise-class, bleeding-edge, award-winning, buzzword-collecting Java thing as open source, could start thinking:
"Hey, this Open Source can't be that bad, I must tell my computer guys to try that IBM Lunox, and check if it's good and if I can really save some bucks with it!"

--
Signatures are for stupids.
Re:Just wondering by allelopath · 2004-02-27 05:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's a valid point, but when I was selling Java to the boffins i work for, their concern was the weakness of Sun, so I had to convince them that Sun was not going out of business anytime soon.
Re:Just wondering by nolife · 2004-02-27 06:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

These same cover your arse PHB's may not like the fact that the language they depend on has no "official support"

ANY commercial software and physical product or device risks losing support. How many times have you heard that you need to upgrade to version x+1 to be able to do that or that specific functionality you need is fixed in x+2. Support and riding the upgrade train are two different things. What some companies consider a fix, others consider a feature.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:Just wondering by Tony-A · 2004-02-27 13:44 · Score: 1

The PHBs and the CXOs get a version that comes with Enterprise support that they pay for, and the Geeks get an open source free version that they can use that has no support.

Good summary, but the ecology is actually a good bit more complicated than that.
Big Business: "We're paying top dollar for what the Hackers got for free last year."
Hackers: "We're being used as free unpaid debuggers for Big Business software."

True, but so what.
Big Business is paying for the privilege of not going through the blood, sweat and tears that the Hackers endured. Big Business is also paying for the displacement of the bugs found and fixed by the hackers.
Hackers wind up with cutting-edge software they otherwise couldn't afford.

Encountering, finding and fixing a bug is enormously cheaper when done by Hackers than when done by Big Business. Hackers won't find them all (some bugs can be encountered only at enterprise volumes and levels), but every bug the Hackers keep away from Big Business helps enormously.

Really, I can't see how everyone won't win.
Exactly. (Assuming nobody gets greedy;)
The wins are not small. You don't really think IBM is backing open source because it's cheap, do you?

Re:Um. An? by cynicalmoose · 2004-02-27 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

In other words, there will be an open source java implementation, but you can bet your bottom dollar there will be better tools and IDEs for the closed version initially.

Then there will be enough libre programmers to make decent libre IDEs etc, and the proprietary Java will wither away (and Sun with it).

Though I hope Sun doesn't die, because they can stand up against Microsoft.

--
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org

Sounds good by BCW2 · 2004-02-27 05:42 · Score: 2, Redundant

An open source Java would definatly benifit all of us. Faster bug fixes, more creativity, this universal language will shine, and it's good now. Anything to overpower that bastardized version that M$ did, it doesn't even work with windows half the time.

It might be arecord, 15 inches of snow in High Point, NC as of now.

--
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.

Re:Sounds good by TrebleJunkie · 2004-02-27 06:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

See, I don't know about this. I think that if you open-source Java with a free softwareish license, and folks have the ability to use, modify, distribute, etc... Java, then you run the risk of *more* "bastardized versions", and close-but-no-cigar java variants, I would think, as people decide to add their own hooks into it for their own purposes. The thought of which gives me the heebie-jeebies.

--
Ed R.Zahurak

You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Re:Sounds good by BCW2 · 2004-02-27 07:55 · Score: 1

The whole idea is to follow Sun's standards. No more forks. Then it will work.

--
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Re:Sounds good by BoysDontCry · 2004-02-27 08:09 · Score: 1

So what if there are more "*more* "bastardized versions", and close-but-no-cigar java variants"? You don't need to use them if you don't want to, and the best version will win out in the end. It's just like when people claim that there are too many GNU/Linux desktop managers, or too many distributions. Choice is good! Just use whatever works best for you.
Re:Sounds good by TrebleJunkie · 2004-02-27 09:26 · Score: 1

If the code is free-as-in-speech, how do you stop/prevent forks?

You can't.

--
Ed R.Zahurak

You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

If done right... by brasten · 2004-02-27 05:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Wow... despite my skepticism in previous posts, I do think this CAN be done and done right. I think it would be VERY smart to get IBM and Sun to work *extremely* closely on this. In much the same way IBM is defending Linux currently, Java would still need that corporate support to defend it against outside challenges.

But, it could work...

this would be great... by chrisopherpace · 2004-02-27 05:43 · Score: 1, Troll

If Java became OSS, this could really be somewhat of a groundbreaker here. Here we would have this OSS, cross-platform, supported in darn near every browser programming language. Maybe some improvements could be made over its speed as well, as Java is really slow compared to other languages. Sun isn't going to really be making any money soon over their SDK (its free as in beer anyhow). I personally don't see why this wasn't done a long time ago. Hopefully there won't be any modification of the standard though, with every person having their own little flavor of Java. That would suck.

--

Bored? Why not join a decent mess

Re:this would be great... by MSBob · 2004-02-27 05:56 · Score: 1

as Java is really slow compared to other languages
Which?

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Re:this would be great... by Liselle · 2004-02-27 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Maybe some improvements could be made over its speed as well, as Java is really slow compared to other languages.
Calling Java "really slow" in comparison to other languages is almost a troll, at this point. This is not 1995. Java is a memory hog, sure. But as far as speed as concerned, it's more than fast enough, especially with JIT compilers and the like. The gap between Java and more cryptic C-like languages is narrowing as computers continue to get faster and faster.

Other /.ers can defend Java's speed more eloquently than I ever can, but I didn't want to let that little comment slide in a +5 Interesting. :P

--
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Re:this would be great... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:10 · Score: 0

Good enough is the enemy of the great.
Re:this would be great... by IntergalacticWalrus · 2004-02-27 06:18 · Score: 1, Informative

You just answered your own question. The fact that it's a memory hog plays a great part in Java's slowness.
Re:this would be great... by Endive4Ever · 2004-02-27 06:24 · Score: 1

So, really, what you're saying is that Java can use up all the new hardware performance we've paid for.

Maybe, but you'd better accept that said 'cryptic C-like languages' run rocket fast on said hardware.

It's amusing how the advocates of bloatware make their compromises.

--
---
Re:this would be great... by Liselle · 2004-02-27 06:28 · Score: 3, Informative

The fact that it's a memory hog plays a great part in Java's slowness.
Only in regards to initial load times, though. Insofar as processing speed, how much memory it takes doesn't mean much. It's a price you pay for garbage collection and using interpreted code for cross-platform operability (amongst other things), but... the price is getting a lot cheaper, so to speak. The compilers are getting very good.
You just answered your own question.
I didn't ask a question...

--
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Re:this would be great... by Brad+Mace · 2004-02-27 07:00 · Score: 1

Hopefully there won't be any modification of the standard though, with every person having their own little flavor of Java. That would suck.
Everyone calm down about this. If a bastardized version pops up in the woods, and no one uses it, who the hell cares?
new flavors won't be a problem, for exactly the reasons everyones getting worked up about. No one wants to break compatibility, and no one wants to keep 5 different jdk variants installed.

What *will* happen is bug fixes, like in swing support for international character sets, which is in a pretty sad state currently. This type of problem would benefit greatly from an international developer base.
Re:this would be great... by Srin+Tuar · 2004-02-27 07:48 · Score: 1

Calling Java "really slow" in comparison to other
languages is almost a troll, at this point.

I find that a lot of Java code tends to be slow because of the programming style it forces on you.

Sure, you can work around it if you are an expert programmer, but you shouldnt have to fight the language to get decent performance. (read about the travails of the freenet project)

Programming in C++ youre less likely to get a reeking pile of bloat, but the language is like a knife with no handle: you have to be quite competent to use it safely.
Re:this would be great... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 08:16 · Score: 0

Also, there are ahead of time compilers, nowadays. I'm not sure that ahead of time compiled code is clearly superior, but if you want to try it out, gcj (part of gcc) can do it for you. You can even build programs that use SWT with gcj. There is even a sourceforge project dedicated to distributing a native buildable version of SWT.

It is called "libswt." You can check it out if you want.
Re:this would be great... by ninewands · 2004-02-27 10:55 · Score: 1

Quoth the poster:

Programming in C++ youre less likely to get a reeking pile of bloat, but the language is like a knife with no handle: you have to be quite competent to use it safely.
... or as Stroustrup allegedly said, "In C it's easy to shoot yourself in the foot. In C++ it's not so easy, but when you do, you blow your leg off."

--
utter rubbish

This could be very good indeed by seldolivaw · 2004-02-27 05:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's well-known within IBM (I worked a summer there) that IBM's implementation of Java on Linux and Windows is a lot faster than Sun's own. IBM for a long time has wished it had a way to make its implementation the standard for this reason. Sun must also be aware how slow their implementation is, and this gives them an honourable way of getting their hands on IBM's code without handing over control to IBM. It's a win-win, so hopefully this will happen.

Re:This could be very good indeed by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-27 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think IP is likely to be shared. At least, not early on.

However, as an open source project, you can apply more coders than just IBM's and Sun's.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:This could be very good indeed by greg_barton · 2004-02-27 06:53 · Score: 3, Informative

IBM's implementation of Java on Linux and Windows is a lot faster than Sun's own

This used to be the case, but I'd say these days the VM implementations are about equally matched, at least for number crunching.
Re:This could be very good indeed by Knetzar · 2004-02-27 09:58 · Score: 1

I'm also worked at IBM for 6 months and most people there thought IBMs products were better. But we have to remember that these are IBM employees saying that IBM is better, chances are that an independent 3rd party might not think so.

Re:Um. An? by tesmako · 2004-02-27 05:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

What? Two Javas? This sounds weird. Obviously an open source implementation will grow and respond to demand rapidly and outpace something proprietary, yet it sounds like there will still be a proprietary version. Can anyone shed light on this? I'm confused.

I cant see clearly at all that an open-source java would necessarily outpace a proprietary version, why do you assume that that would be the case? I'm confused.

My guess would be that... by cnelzie · 2004-02-27 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

...Sun is attempting to buy some time and save face by stating that they will look into it with IBM, rather then ignore IBM and the OSS community by continuing their existing party-line.

What they may attempt is to persuade IBM to understand their side and perhaps even join them in keeping Java a closed environment.

It will be interesting to see how this will all turn out in the end.

--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?

Re:My guess would be that... by Joseff · 2004-02-27 07:15 · Score: 1

Yeah I agree.

But also, with all the support that IBM is getting from the open source community due to the SCO conflict, Sun -- who has a stake in the Open Source Community as well, may just not want to have any chance of being compared to SCO.

In our buisness today (IT) it's a bad thing to be compared to the Anti-OSS (SCO).

Much easier to say "Yes, we'll talk about it." and patrinize than saying "No. It's our IP and it stays closed!"

Just my two cents.

--
--- Lost Sig. Reward if found.

Stop beating up Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

While I hope that Sun does this someday, I really think that Eric and some others are out of line for beating up on Sun.

Sun is in trouble... nothing is really working for them. The Opteron is going to kill the Sparc, and they don't make much money off software. They need to figure out ways to make money from what they're doing or they're going to go under and take a lot of really cool stuff with them when they do.

I am personally an old fan of Sun. I think they're a great company. Their lukewarm support for SCO (I personally think they were just straddling the fence so they'd be on the winning side no matter what) is disturbing, but I understand their desire to stay out of the way of a litigous monstrosity like this. I want Sun to survive.

Sun has done a great job with Java so far. If they had opened it in the beginning, it would have been embraced, extended, and extinguished by you-know-who and we'd now have Microsoft Java.NET for Windows. Cross-platform Java would be dead. Sun did the right thing, and have been great stewards over this wonderful technology.

So, as we call for them to OSS Java, please keep their interests in mind. They deserve some reward for developing such a wonderful thing. We should not just blindly beat up on them for no reason, and we should keep in mind that IBM may have entirely selfish reasons for "leaning" on Sun here.

(IBM has done the community some great favors, but that doesn't entitle them to some kind of blind religious allegence.)

Re:Stop beating up Sun by Swamii · 2004-02-27 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

So you're asking us to give Sun a free pass if they say no to IBM's proposal?

In the previous /. headline we hear about Richard Stallman telling us that software for money == bad morality, and we all nod our head. Now we see Sun keeping Java closed, trying to make money off it, and you tell us to look the other way?

Hell, that's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

--
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Re:Stop beating up Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Stop following Stallman like a sheep and think about the bigger picture here.

You use too much "we" in this message. Try using the word "I" and thinking for yourself.
Re:Stop beating up Sun by jsebrech · 2004-02-27 07:07 · Score: 1

Sun has done a great job with Java so far. If they had opened it in the beginning, it would have been embraced, extended, and extinguished by you-know-who and we'd now have Microsoft Java.NET for Windows.

Not true. Sun owns the trademark on java. You can wield a trademark independantly from a copyright. They could have opensourced java under a bsd license (so ms could extend and redistribute it) and still forbid ms from naming their tech "java." Holding on to the code as tight as sun serves no one. Not sun, since they're not making any money on java itself. And not the java developers, who see sun as a bottleneck for java development.

Besides, if they had opensourced it, they could have released it under the gpl. Microsoft would have been unable to extend and extinguish it, since the gpl makes such tactics essentially impossible. This is the model trolltech follows with qt. The gpl'd version is invulnerable to people who might want to hijack it, and if someone wants to do something the gpl doesn't allow, trolltech is more than willing to sell them a license.

The reality is that sun didn't think open source was going to mean anything in their market. Open source is a disruptive technology, and sun realised that too late. They're eating humble pie now for their lack of vision. Sun did great things for the tech community, and continues to do them, but it's not like they didn't make strategic mistakes and paid the price for it. IBM realised what open source meant, went for it, and is raking in the dough, sun didn't, on either counts.
Re:Stop beating up Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 08:27 · Score: 0

we hear about Richard Stallman telling us that software for money == bad morality, and we all nod our head.

If software for money is bad, medical services for money is even worse! How about medicine for money? How about schooling for money? Face it, money has nothing to do with it - MONOMPOLY does. And boy, is the medical field monopolized. Medical schools have kept the same admission for 20 years while the population grew 30% and the scope of services expanded several times. This field is heavily regulated, competition is kept down by the government. So it is far far more moral to sell software for money.
Re:Stop beating up Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 08:57 · Score: 0

> we hear about Richard Stallman telling us that software for money == bad morality

That's bullshit and you know it. You're trying to say Stallman of the "free as in beer" opinion, while in actuality he explicitly emphasizes "free as in speech". If you cannot comprehend the difference, that's your problem.
Re:Stop beating up Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 09:03 · Score: 0

...Richard Stallman telling us that software for money == bad morality...

Ummm, not to be rude, but fuck that Grace Hopper award hippie. How does he want me to pay for my apartment? Bottle his aroma and sell it to new age jackholes?

Getting paid to produce software is not bad morality any more than getting paid to produce food is.

I shake my head vigorously at that notion.
Re:Stop beating up Sun by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 09:06 · Score: 0

"You use too much "we" in this message. Try using the word "I" and thinking for yourself."

Aye, aye, Ms. Rand.
Re:Stop beating up Sun by swillden · 2004-02-27 09:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

If they had opened it in the beginning, it would have been embraced, extended, and extinguished by you-know-who and we'd now have Microsoft Java.NET for Windows.
Good post otherwise, but I don't think this is true, for two different reasons, either of which would be sufficient.
The first is trademark law. Even with an open source implementation, Sun can wield the Java trademark like a club to ensure compliance. If your Java isn't Java you can't call it Java.
The second is the simple fact that open source software is really quite resistant to the MS embrace/extend/extinguish approach, and Free software is basically invulnerable.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Stop beating up Sun by karlm · 2004-02-28 02:00 · Score: 1

Sun realizes SPARC is in trouble. They recently announced they will be ditching SPARC and partnering with AMD and building high-end x86-64 systems.

--
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.

Re:Um. An? by smackjer · 2004-02-27 05:45 · Score: 2, Informative

I think you might be reading too much into it, granted the language is a bit vague.

It doesn't say that there will be 2 versions of Java, one open source, one closed... just that an open source Java may be a reality.

--

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

OS/390, z/OS by Espectr0 · 2004-02-27 05:45 · Score: 1, Redundant

Seems we won't be getting free OS goodies:

"When asked whether IBM would be as willing to create open-source versions of its OS/390 or z/OS, Sutor said: "We're not suggesting Sun open source its directory software or proprietary stuff. Java is already in the JCP [Java Community Process]. It is already a community process that many people have contributed to. It's a mistake to look at it as though Sun is the sole author, and this is not any of their proprietary products.""

--
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication

Re:OS/390, z/OS by browncs · 2004-02-27 07:40 · Score: 1

Linux runs on all the IBM hardware platforms, so I don't get the point.

Spencer Brown (IBM)

I want free Starbucks by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 05:45 · Score: 0, Funny

Open up your latte for all the java lovers.

Re:Um. An? by lpp · 2004-02-27 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

An OSS version that comes with no support and little in the way of guarantees. A commercially licensed version that does.

Companies will make the same choice they make with other dual licensed OSS projects.

Mad Hatter by almaon · 2004-02-27 05:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

I wonder if this will have any impact on the development and direction of Mad Hatter, with IBM's ongoing journey to bring linux to a wider audience. These two companies in bed, in marriage, could produce some interesting offspring for Java and ultimately could very well trickle down to Mad Hatter.

Could this venture open up doors for Mad Hatter to become a part of IBM's fleet of products? Any thoughts?

Re:Mad Hatter by jared_hanson · 2004-02-27 06:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

A IBM/Sun combination could make for some interesting happenings. I think most people would agree that Sun has made some costly mistakes, and it is bringing them down. Conversely, IBM has made the opposite decisions, which is starting to really pay off for them.

IBM is quite interesting to watch. They've largely thrown their weight behind Linux. The also holding the high cards at the Java table. They are trying to leverage their chip advantage to get Sun to meet their demands. Iterestingly, they also are a big investor in the whole Novell/SuSE/Ximian deal, the people leading the .NET and Mono charge. They've also got numerous other OSs, chips, and other products within the company.

My take on the situation: Linux is at the point where it needs to rally behind a driving force. I'm all for choice and all, but you don't beat Microsoft by constant infighting and fractured ideas. As the old saying goes, united we stand but divided we fall.

I think IBM should outright buy Sun. Sun is failing and would be a cheap aquisition. Waiting any longer will just give Microsoft a bigger advantage as the .NET platform gains steam. The primary reason for the aquisition would be for Java, but a lot of other interesting products would come along. I've always thought IBM's product line needed some consolidation. For instance, Sun would bring in Solaris and IBM should move to a dual OSs strategy: Linux and a proprietary, high-end UNIX that combines Solaris/AIX/etc. There is room for both those products. A lot of work would have to be done on integrating and perhaps open sourcing various middleware and application servers.

On the development side, I believe it would be tremendous if IBM (with Sun and Ximian under their wings) would step up and iron out both Java and Mono, along with providing a tight IDE with Eclipse. This could make Linux the development platform of choice.

Of course, development isn't worth much if you don't have an installed base to deploy to. With Novell/SuSE/Ximian, IBM could generate a nice, consistent, integrated desktop environment and provide the corporate sway in convincing businesses to switch from Microsoft.

In short, I think IBM has the most incentive to see Microsoft fall from dominance. They've shown their willingness to get behind an open platform. The community should show their support and get behind IBM. It will yeild the greatest long term benefit.

--
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
Re:Mad Hatter by Christ-on-a-bike · 2004-02-27 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think IBM should outright buy Sun
I think anti-trust might be an issue here. These companies are already pretty huge. Even if an acquisition was announced, the sheer amount of work needed to unify all the product lines is enormous. That would scare investors and IBM's share price would crash.

Re:Um. An? by ackthpt · 2004-02-27 05:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

Then there will be enough libre programmers to make decent libre IDEs etc, and the proprietary Java will wither away (and Sun with it).

This, aside from Sun withering away, is what I see, too. Or possibly worse, a fork. Anything added to the OSS that finds its way into Suns would likely fall under the GPL, how's Sun feel about that? Clearly Sun and IBM have some things to sort out.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Crossing my fingers! by provoix · 2004-02-27 05:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

From the article - "Sun officials planned to meet with IBM as early as Thursday to discuss the merits of whether the company should work with IBM on an independent project to create an open-source implementation of Java."

Well...perhaps they've seen the benefit of the OpenOffice project.

what's the point? by OPTiX_iNC · 2004-02-27 05:46 · Score: 0

Most commercial software becomes open-source because the company no longer wants to pay to continue development. Sun is doing a great job developing java as it is.

On the other hand, it can be seen as both IBM and Sun telling SCO to "stick it."

Talk is cheap by Pig+Hogger · 2004-02-27 05:47 · Score: 4, Funny

Saying that "one might talk" is even cheaper.

Re:Um. An? by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-27 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Neither company wants to release their own IP into an open source project. However, IBM providing the manpower, with Sun providing the specs, is a good combination for a new product.

It benefits Sun because A) it keeps Free Software advocates off their backs, and B) it promotes the continuance of Java, a flagship product, and one of the ways they as a company become known to many others.

It benefits IBM because it A) improves their image with the free software community, B) helps keep them in a leadership position for corporate attitude towards open source, C) it keeps investor opinion high.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)

Took them long enough by InsaneGeek · 2004-02-27 05:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

I gotta think that Java operates at a loss for them, they've basically been using Java as loss-leader to buy their other sutff lately. With all their corporate wide financial difficulties spinning Java off, letting other people do their development for them makes a lot of $ sense. They've gotten enough brand naming out of Java, so it will always be linked with Sun, so they aren't losing much branding. Why spend lots of money & resources on a free product when you are strapped to the gills with financial problems.

Re:Took them long enough by Albanach · 2004-02-27 06:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

I gotta think that Java operates at a loss for them
Really? Have you looked at a mobile phone recently? Every new phone comes with Java. That suggests almost every new phone means a royalty payment to Sun. Mobile phone sales are back on the up thanks to mobile multimedia content - mostly delivered through Java. I suspect Sun are raking it in.
Re:Took them long enough by Endive4Ever · 2004-02-27 06:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's far from certain that people are going to buy into 'mobile multimedia content' on portable phones. Right now it's as iffy as Java itself was in 1995, when the 'growth industry' was in writing hyped books and columns about Java.

It could be that people will grow tired of paying for cellphone capacity just to do 'multimedia' nonsense. There is definitely an opening for a cluefull company to clean up on sales of cheaper no-frills communications.

--
---
Re:Took them long enough by InsaneGeek · 2004-02-27 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

But how much are they getting for royalty per phone; It can't be very much. $.50-$1/phone would probably be pushing the cost limits (especially lately with M$ & Linux putting out competing embeded OS). Put out a few cell phones and it can come up to a bit of money; but still development costs for Java and sustaining it is more then they are making back from it. If it was the other way around, Sun would be intentionally separating java income from their other income and shoving it in everybody's face.

I might be wrong, but I just don't see them making any gross profit directly from selling Java royalties.
Re:Took them long enough by toriver · 2004-02-27 10:54 · Score: 1

I gotta think that Java operates at a loss for them, ... unless they make money from licensing, compatibility testing, training, certification, conferences etc.

Which they do.

NOT free enough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 05:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

It is NOT free enough because it cannot come by default with linux distros. License states that third parties cannot distribute java development kit. It will be free enough for me when I can do:

apt-get install j2sdk-1.4.2

Now it is not. Of course having source available and having the right to mofify and distribute your own version (f.e. optimized for athlon or modified to conform to debian-standards) of java would be a HUGE bonus, but it is not THAT necessary.

--Coder

Re:NOT free enough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Nice.

You managed to incorporate Debian, Free software and apt get into one troll that the /. Crowd loved. I'm going to save this to post any time anything concerning Java comes up. Know what else should be free, Hookers. I won't be happy until I can get free hookers at the local Salvation Army.
Re:NOT free enough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:05 · Score: 0

hey, that guy is correct.

the license is that way.

which just makes a pain to others that have to download it manually.
Re:NOT free enough by 74nova · 2004-02-27 06:17 · Score: 1

granted, there is not apt-get goodness, but it wasnt that hard to get it and netbeans rolling on my linux box. for me, java is plenty free if i can acquire it for free and install with minimal effort. just my .02

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Re:NOT free enough by BigGerman · 2004-02-27 06:19 · Score: 4, Informative

>>License states that third parties cannot distribute java development kit
where does it say that?
from jdk 1.4 on my machine:
B. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including, but not limited to the Java Technology Restrictions of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file) and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file), (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.
Re:NOT free enough by Joseph+Lam · 2004-02-27 06:19 · Score: 5, Informative

Slackware 9.1 comes pre-installed with Sun's JDK 1.4....is it in violation or what?
Re:NOT free enough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:21 · Score: 0

It's sad state of affairs when you're not even ubiquitous on the various linux distributions.
Re:NOT free enough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:25 · Score: 0

Well it says so here:

(i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file) and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs

I.e. you cannot distribute it in a distro. You can distribute it to run your programs. AFAIK there were discussions to work around this by bundling JDK with HelloWorld.java. But this is an ugly hack to work around licensing terms, and better solution would be Sun coming to its senses.

--Coder
Re:NOT free enough by dsouth · 2004-02-27 06:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

You mean like
cat "deb ftp://ftp.tux.org/pub/java/debian side main non-free"\ >> /etc/apt/source.list apt-get install j2sdk1.4

Yes, it's non-free/evil/etc. For those of us that like debian and need java, it gets the job done. [Please note use of "like" vs "need" in the above sentence. One implies a preference, the other implies a (temporary) work necessity.]
Re:NOT free enough by dsouth · 2004-02-27 06:40 · Score: 1

oops, make that sid and sources. :-)
Re:NOT free enough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:45 · Score: 0

Either I missed something, or these packages contain Blackdown's (www.blackdown.org) JDKs, not Sun's. I don't really care, so I'm not gonna try to install them, I just read descriptions.

As I quoted Sun's licence in previous comment:

(i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file) and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs

So it cannot be distributed just as JDK without some program it is supposed to run. Maybe that does not apply to Blackdown's JDKs, I don't know.

--Coder
Re:NOT free enough by Chuck+Bucket · 2004-02-27 06:53 · Score: 1

What about Blackdown?

CB

--
free ipod and free gmail!
Re:NOT free enough by Guillermito · 2004-02-27 06:53 · Score: 2

And how about distributing it along with a real application that required the JDK, for instance Tomcat, or Eclipse? I think that wouldn't be a hack.
Re:NOT free enough by dsouth · 2004-02-27 07:04 · Score: 1

Yes they are blackdown's ports of the Sun JDK in deb packaging.

Which means that they are closed/evil/etc, but they are free (as in beer) enough to apt-get in without a hassle. Personally, I prefer C++, but if the job requires java, there is a way to get it under debian without resorting to alien, waiting for Sun to open source them, or (gasp) using another Linux distro.
Re:NOT free enough by JoeBaldwin · 2004-02-27 07:11 · Score: 1

knoppix@joebox:~$ apt-cache search j2sdk
j2re1.3 - Blackdown Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition
j2sdk1.3-demo - Blackdown Java(TM) 2 SDK, Standard Edition, example and demo files
j2sdk1.3-doc - Java(TM) 2 SDK, Standard Edition -- Documentation Installer
j2sdk1.3-src - Blackdown Java(TM) 2 SDK, Standard Edition, source files
j2sdk1.3 - Blackdown Java(TM) 2 SDK, Standard Edition
j2re1.4 - Blackdown Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition
j2sdk1.4-demo - Blackdown Java(TM) 2 SDK, Standard Edition, example and demo files
j2sdk1.4-doc - Java(TM) 2 SDK, Standard Edition -- Documentation Installer
j2sdk1.4-src - Blackdown Java(TM) 2 SDK, Standard Edition, source files
j2sdk1.4 - Blackdown Java(TM) 2 SDK, Standard Edition
knoppix@joebox:~$

IDIOT FOOL! Java is in Debian if you add the correct sources to /etc/apt/sources.list.

--
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
Re:NOT free enough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 07:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

Hmm, personaly I use Sun's original JDK, download it manually and unpack in /usr/local. I've had some compatibility troubles with Blackdown in the past, so i don't really trust them yet, althrough last time I tried Blackdowns JDK seemed quite solid.

Oh, and personally I prefer Java. I develop web-apps for a living, and Java is absolutely the best language to develop for web. C++ is very powerful, but it requires a lot of training and experience to be used the right way (=higher development costs).

And I'm not switching from debian to another distro for any reason. Oh, almost any reason. Recently we had to develop on oracle, so we got ourselves a RedHat box. Guess what, oracle sucks on RedHat as much as it does on debian. Compatibility problems and strange bugs and other queer stuff all the time. I already spent 4 days solving problems and still didn't get everything working right. And oracle development tools (like report builder) suck so much on Linux they are practically useless. Seems like i'll have to get myself a win2k box :((

--Coder
Re:NOT free enough by pyros · 2004-02-27 07:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Sections i and ii of the license clause you quote state that you can't distribute the jre/jsdk without an aditional product. So companies who care about such legal issues, like Red Hat, have to write some java app and distribute that, and have the jre/jsdk be included in that package. They would have to make it a part of every package which depended on it. I suppose they could keep two versions of each package which needs it, and the first package would get the fat version. In turn subsequent packages would see that it is installed and get the thin version instead.

But they can't distribute the jre/jsdk by itself.
Re:NOT free enough by warkda+rrior · 2004-02-27 07:48 · Score: 1

How about javahelloworld-1.0.rpm ?

--
You need to install an RTFM interface.
Re:NOT free enough by pyros · 2004-02-27 07:50 · Score: 1

How about javahelloworld-1.0.rpm ?
I'm guessing it would have to be at least a clock, or a text editor, something that actually provides function. The license said the program has to add substantial value. :(
Re:NOT free enough by curunir · 2004-02-27 08:17 · Score: 1

Since Red Hat is part of the Eclipse project, they could distribute the JDK along with Eclipse or SWT...Both would probably be welcome additions to a distribution.

--
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Re:NOT free enough by CanSpice · 2004-02-27 08:18 · Score: 1

Then why don't they distribute it with some little Hello, World program?
Re:NOT free enough by LousyPhreak · 2004-02-27 08:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

hmm...

add:
deb http://www.tux.org/pub/java/debian sid main non-free

to your sources.list and (same goes for j2sdk1.4):

kistl:~# apt-get install j2re1.4
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
gsfonts-x11 j2se-common
The following NEW packages will be installed:
gsfonts-x11 j2re1.4 j2se-common
0 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
81 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 21.4MB of archives.
After unpacking 54.6MB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]

--
-- Karma: beyond good and evil - mostly affected by posting political
Re:NOT free enough by pyros · 2004-02-27 08:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Then why don't they distribute it with some little Hello, World program?
From the license: (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software. I don't think "Hello World" satisfies this clause.
Re:NOT free enough by gnu-generation-one · 2004-02-27 08:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

>>License states that third parties cannot distribute java development kit / where does it say that? [Included section B of jdk 1.4 license]

Howabout the "non-transferable" bit? If I give my mandrake CDs to someone, have I infringed the java license?

Howabout "for the sole purpose of running your programs" -- (a) they're not my programs, they were written by various GNU authors, and (b) java would be included just because it's useful, and not to make any other particular program run

Howabout "you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests" -- how am I supposed to know what Sun is interested in, and am I supposed to modify the distribution CDs based on that guess?

Howabout "you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs..." -- I'm supposed to provide insurance for sun, at my own cost, against any damage caused by the people that I'm giving distro CDs to for free?

And as for "that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software." -- err, which programs?
Re:NOT free enough by jkczyz · 2004-02-27 11:12 · Score: 1

How about using the spacebar? :P
Re:NOT free enough by cdc179 · 2004-02-27 11:49 · Score: 1

This is right on and one of the major problems. If Java was opened sourced and any branch of the origional source had to meat some testing to ensure compatability with the offical code base we wouldn't have all these issues.

As it is, each Java app has to come with it's own JRE. This is rediculous. Why does one need 20 JREs on one machine? The only thing that should chage should be the custom classes for each application included by:

$JAVA_HOME/bin/java -cp $CLASSPTH

End the madness!
Re:NOT free enough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 12:18 · Score: 0

How about "you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software", which prohibits distributors from providing both Sun Java and Kaffe/GCJ/SableVM/Classpath/gjdoc/SwingWT?
Re:NOT free enough by stor · 2004-02-27 12:55 · Score: 1

I'm guessing it would have to be at least a clock, or a text editor, something that actually provides function. The license said the program has to add substantial value. :(

That's one wierd-ass prerequisite.

You could argue that javahelloworld adds substantial value as it helps programmers take that first step into Java programming. 8)

Cheers
Stor

--
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Re:NOT free enough by gnu-generation-one · 2004-02-27 23:52 · Score: 1

"How about using the spacebar?"

RemovedItForRoutineMaintenance,Sorry...
Re:NOT free enough by True+Grit · 2004-02-27 23:54 · Score: 1
1. Java is absolutely the best language to develop for web
I dare you to make this claim on comp.lang.python. :)

Seriously, you can find quite a few ex-Java users that use Python as their "glue" language for web development now, and most will be happy to tell you the horror story that caused them to switch. Python's only real disadvantage to Java is the lack of JIT compiling technology as part of the "platform", although if you are using Python on x86 hardware, there is a kind of JIT compiler called Psycho, that pretty much closes the gap.
Re:NOT free enough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-28 08:20 · Score: 0

Well, I won't argue with that. When I was looking for technologies I would want to use for web/information system development, I tried perl, PHP, CGI, all kinds of things, and finally decided on java. Python was still in its infancy at the time, so I have no experience with it. From what I hear, its supposed to be a pretty cool language. Maybe some day, when I have less work to do, I'll try it out.

Just curious, what about application servers? How do I run a python web application? CGI? Apache plugins? Tomcat/other java servlets server? I'll probably find this after some RTFM myself.

Besides, what about horror stories? I don't see any horror with java web development. Of course, I use Velocity instead of JSPs, I use MVC model 2 and I use my own web application framework. I intend to make it open-source some day, but first I have to write some docs and at least a tutorial.

--Coder

Re:Brain dead moderator alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 05:49 · Score: 3, Funny

Help! The only punctuation key that works on my keyboard is the exclamation point! What am I going to do!

Re:Um. An? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 05:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

I think that it could be an excellent test case to either prove or disprove some notions of OSS. It would be interesting to see where OS is a better solution to proprietry, and vice-versa.

The multi-platformness of the java language makes it an ideal test bed. Personally I feel that OS is better at picking up faults and errors, whilst proprietry would be better at implementing new ideas.

Well... the type of... by cnelzie · 2004-02-27 05:50 · Score: 1

...boss that will deploy RH or SuSe and not Debian is simply covering the corporation's rear and is making a sound business decision.

All Linux distributions are not created identically, if they were, then there would be only one. Instead, every distro has its own unique way of handling particular issues. Some are painfully annoying and others and are ingenious solutions to issues.

Going with a distro that holds a strong commercial support structure provides a serious back-up is something were to happen to the in-house support teams and also provides the possibility of holding a support contract holding corporation a reasponsible party to fall back on.

AFAIK, Debian by itself does not provide a support contract for major corporations. I do believe that for Debian to do so, they would be going against their non-corporate, community only driven distribution system.

--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?

Conflict of Interests by a!b!c! · 2004-02-27 05:50 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Why do you think Slashdot is posting two stories a day about open sourcing Java for Developers?

What does OSDN stand for again?

Sorry, if others have mentioned this already.

GCJ - The gnu compiler for java by stripmarkup · 2004-02-27 05:51 · Score: 4, Informative

There is already an open source java compiler. It works pretty well but its missing the UI functionality. It compiles to bytecode or native code on Windows or Linux. It does not support awt or Swing yet. This should be the obvious starting point for IBM.

--
See charts for twitter trends on Trendistic

Re:GCJ - The gnu compiler for java by stripmarkup · 2004-02-27 05:54 · Score: 1

corrected link here.

--
See charts for twitter trends on Trendistic
Re:GCJ - The gnu compiler for java by tdrury · 2004-02-27 06:08 · Score: 4, Informative

This should be the obvious starting point for IBM
Wouldn't it be smarter if IBM started with their own SDK/JVM? If IBM wants open-source Java so bad, let them open their SDK and JVM.
Re:GCJ - The gnu compiler for java by javatips · 2004-02-27 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

They probably can't do it. They licensed the Sun JDK and they modified t and created a new VM implementation. They probably be able to open-source the VM implementation (it's very likely that there is no Sun code left in it) but they will not be able to open-source their implementaion of the class library because most of it is still Sun code.

It will get faster to an complete Open Source JDK if they can get Sun to agree to release the class libraries under an open source license.

Note that it would make sense for Sun to do it because they will have to spend less money on fixing an enhancing Java.
Re:GCJ - The gnu compiler for java by Thomas+Miconi · 2004-02-27 08:36 · Score: 1

There is already an open source java compiler (...) It does not support awt or Swing yet. This should be the obvious starting point for IBM

Kaffe supports AWT and limited portions of Swing. And it works great.

Oh, and there's this Jikes stuff, written by a little company called, well, IBM. Yes, it's free and libre. If Sun collaborate with IBM towards an open source Java, this will be the implementation they will use - not Sun's, and certainly not gcj !

GCJ is a great project but it's still pretty much that - a project. Kaffe is usable, Jikes is production-stable.

Thomas Miconi
Re:GCJ - The gnu compiler for java by ttfkam · 2004-02-27 09:37 · Score: 1

Support for Java is at version 1.1.4? That is your "works great" for Kaffe? AWT and Swing are a relatively minor issue. What about Collections, JAXP, scrollable database cursors, non-blocking I/O, references, etc.?

gcj, on the other hand, has much better support for these but only rudimentary support for AWT/Swing.

I'll take the latter thank you. If Kaffe's your metric for sufficient quality, I've got a C compiler compiler for you. It's missing stdlib.h and support for function pointers, but other than that, it works great.

--

- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.

It's all about IP by Mr.+Competence · 2004-02-27 05:52 · Score: 1

Specifically, IP that is licensed by Sun, but not owned by them. IBM's implementation of the JVM has similar issues.
I can almost guarantee that is one of the largest impediments to opening the source.

--
Those who open their minds too far often let their brains fall out.

Hooray by ximor_iksivich · 2004-02-27 05:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic

At last I can create "Blue Java" Goodbye cruel case sensitivity :D

Anyone else think this senario might happen..?

Re:Hooray by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:15 · Score: 0

No way. Think "backward compatibility".

Quite important for me by qortra · 2004-02-27 05:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

I use Debian, and generally speaking, if it isn't free enough for Debian, it isn't free enough for me. Beyond my hatred for the lack of JRE in the main unstable tree (which is really annoying), there is also an ethical ideal of truly free software that is being violated by Java.

Many people believe RMS is too hardcore about sticking to his guns on this issue, but I do believe he has a good point. Many programs are "free" for temporary use, and Java is one of them. Other examples of superficially free software are Windows Media Player and Adobe Acrobat, for which there are no guarantees of future freedom. These programs, like Java, introduce standards and structure that other people build on. If the freedom of these platforms was to be compromised, many poeple could stand to lose a great deal of work. The only way to guarantee the possibility of future support is to open source it.

Re:Quite important for me by v01d · 2004-02-27 06:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

The only way to guarantee the possibility of future support is to open source it.

That's not true. The API's are fully documented and there is nothing preventing their implementation. Those API's are decided on by the JCP which is a community process.

Open sourcing Java would give people an implementation, it would not significantly affect the characteristics of the language. I don't see the openness of Java being significantly different than that of C/C++/C#/Ada; the languages are tightly controlled by a small group with anyone free to implement the standard to whatever extent.

What is the difference between the relationship of Java to the JCP and C to ANSI? You and I can't directly influence either; but we are free to implement either language.
Re:Quite important for me by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-02-27 06:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Many people believe RMS is too hardcore about sticking to his guns on this issue...
I think many people believe that RMS is so hard-core idealistic that his positions are not alway practical in the real world.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:Quite important for me by kikta · 2004-02-27 07:37 · Score: 1

I think you're misunderstanding what he was getting at in that sentence (or at least the way I took it).

Yes, if Sun goes crazy a year from now, we can implement our own Java. But that fork means that the Free Java now has to compete with the Official Sun Java. Which standard will people follow?

Having the Official Java be Free at the same time will mean that the chances of people following after a non-Free fork will be greatly diminished.
Re:Quite important for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 08:07 · Score: 0

You sound like a fag.
Re:Quite important for me by prockcore · 2004-02-27 10:50 · Score: 1

The API's are fully documented and there is nothing preventing their implementation.

There's also nothing preventing Sun from deprecating half the API on a whim.. in fact, they do that all the damn time.
Re:Quite important for me by WebMink · 2004-02-27 16:54 · Score: 1

There's also nothing preventing Sun from deprecating half the API on a whim.. in fact, they do that all the damn time.

I'd love to see you support that statement with facts. As far as I am aware, Sun categorically cannot "deprecate half the API on a whim". Like everyone else they are bound by the Java Community Process and have to implement what the Expert Group has specified for any given Java standard (JSR).
Re:Quite important for me by greenrd · 2004-02-28 07:38 · Score: 1

Most of the stuff that gets deprecated is fixable with a trivial rewrite. Also, most deprecation warnings can be ignored for years and years (possibly "for ever").

--
Female Prison Rape in NY

Open Source by jefu · 2004-02-27 05:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'd have thought that Sun might have learned something about opening source by now. NeWS, the rather radical window system that sun built in the late 80's probably failed mostly because it was kept proprietary (at least many who used it thought so). When X was openly and freely available, it was tough for even the excellent technical solution NeWS was to compete.

<offtopic>
Does anyone know if there are implementations of NeWS available as open source now? Has anyone working on one of the "X Is Icky - I have a Better Way" window systems looked at NeWS for a model? Enquiring minds (however enfeebled) want to know.
</offtopic>

Re:Open Source by aanantha · 2004-02-27 06:47 · Score: 3, Informative

I guess NeXTStep/OpenStep are similar, in that all of them use DisplayPostscript. Sun was considering switching to OpenStep at one point in time. MacOS X (OpenStep 5, sort of?) uses DisplayPDF. And Keith Packard is working on a DisplayPostscript-like extension for X called Cairo.
Re:Open Source by spitzak · 2004-02-27 11:53 · Score: 1

No, NeWS is vastly superior to Display Postscript.

Too many people think the purpose of NeWS was to display Postscript in a window. That was a minor but nice detail. What NeWS provided was an interpreted language that was run on the display server end that did *ALL* drawing. Creating a window was a postscript command. Moving or resizing a window was a postscript command. Waiting for an event and interpreting the event was postscript. Widgets were created in postscript (plus some rather nice object-oriented additions to postscript). It was also extremely nice that you did not have to use a different language when you finally got around to drawing graphics. In addition the window manipulations reused the graphics, for instance a window had a current transformation and an outline path, allowing rotated and scaled windows, and windows with arbitrary shapes including disconnected pieces or holes inside them, and this was all cleanly supported by the same code that drew graphics.

Display Postscript and NeXT, and apparently the PDF support in OS/X, are all terrible in comparison. All of them rely on you creating a window and "context" with completely unrelated calls, before you can finally draw in Postscript. Making the window the same shape as an object you draw is incredibly difficult or impossible. Passing the same color you are drawing to some other interface is difficult or impossible. Synchronizing your drawing with changes to the windows is difficult or impossible. Getting a mouse event and figuring out what part of your graphic was clicked is often an enormously complex and obtuse API.

Unfortunatley, even when I was working on NeWS at Sun, it was being broken by people who thought it's entire purpose was to preview PostScript. If the Apple LaserWriter had a bug, it had to be dupliated in NeWS. For instance you cannot use a nul as a dictionary key in real PostScript, but NeWS took huge advantage of this. You cannot use a type other than boolean in an 'if', and NeWS took advatage of this. But people complained that they didn't want their preview working if it would not print on an Apple Laserwriter. Instead of just replacing the statments for them (which would be easy to do) they broke the entire server because so many people thought it served no purpose other than preview.

NeWS is a huge loss. I think the entire browser, and certainly all of Flash and SVG and all streaming media, and obviously X and Windows, would all not exist now, as NeWS did everything needed for them, and far better.
Re:Open Source by Keybounce · 2004-02-28 18:56 · Score: 0

Quote:

Display Postscript and NeXT, and apparently the PDF support in OS/X, are all terrible in comparison. All of them rely on you creating a window and "context" with completely unrelated calls, before you can finally draw in Postscript. Making the window the same shape as an object you draw is incredibly difficult or impossible. Passing the same color you are drawing to some other interface is difficult or impossible. Synchronizing your drawing with changes to the windows is difficult or impossible. Getting a mouse event and figuring out what part of your graphic was clicked is often an enormously complex and obtuse API.

Reply:
I played around with this back in the 3.2 days. Creating a windows WAS a postscript call. A simple one. It would give you a block of whitespace on the monitor that you could draw in. It was NOT the same as an appkit window, which was additional stuff based on this postscript window.

If you want to create an Appkit-level window in DPS, then you have to move all of appkit into DPS.

While I'm not an X programmer, it looks (based on using X, and a lot of different X apps and window managers) like X is more based on "Give the programmer the ability to tweak arbitrary pixels on the screen, let them limit their drawing into this clipping region (window) if they want, and give them (and only them) control over the content of this clipping region". All the "window" stuff comes from another program called the window manager. Well, that low level, "you control the contents of this clipping region" is exactly what DPS gives you.

Similarly, display contexts are manipulated with direct postscript. Oh sure, there's nice ObjC messages to make it fit the language. But it's in DPS at the low level.

Synchronizing your actions with the display?
windowdeviceround
if I remember correctly does that, as a zero argument postscript command.

Mouse and/or keyboard events?

There was a global postscript file that affected the system. All events went through this file before going to apps. With a relatively simple mod (and this was where I started learning postscript, learning how this worked) you could modify all the system level behaviors, such as keyboard commands for cycling windows, activating windows, etc. Yes, you could read the keyboard, and send commands anywhere; you could check what the mouse was doing, etc. The only problem with this? It triggered the nasty swap space bug in NeXTStep 3 (bug was still there in OpenStep 4, btw -- massive growth and non-shrinking of swapfile).

Window the same shape as your drawing? Best I could recommand is to draw a 100% transparent clear into your box first. Then draw normally. 100% clear will pass the mouse through, and will act like it's not there.

Where is the mouse compared to where my window is? I think you could ask the window manager, in postscript, to tell you either the 4 corners, or 1 corner and two lengths; you get the mouse position from the event (in postscript), and do some adds and subtracts.

Scaled windows? Not sure. Rotated windows? No. Disconnected parts? 100% transparent plus clipping path.
Re:Open Source by spitzak · 2004-02-29 05:54 · Score: 1

Yes you are right, the NeXT system had PostScript commands to create windows, and sort-of it handled events using PostScript. I was talking about DPS and OS/X, where they seem completely disconnected.

Even the NeXT system (which I did write a bunch of stuff in and tried to bypass the AppKit, like you did) was way inferior to NeWS. The window-creation command was unrelated to the rest of the drawing, it only made rectangles. NeWS had "turn the current path into a window" which was much more clever and useful. The event handling seemed to be added at the last minute and it was obvious the entire purpose was as a cheap method of multithreading (basically whatever was done in PostScript worked even if the applicatin was blocked). I would prefer either none, or all, event handling in the server, the NeXT method was just a kludge and not at all pretty. Granted events and communication in NeWS was also pretty bogus and it forced you to do everything in the server, one part NeWS failed at was making a nice way to communicate back to the C program (I was actually writing something to do this while at Sun when they killed the entire project).

Re:Um. An? by RailGunner · 2004-02-27 05:54 · Score: 1

I think this is a non-start of an issue. Clearly, there is room for both Netscape and Mozilla, why wouldn't there be room for a Open Source JVM and a proprietary JVM?

And I would suspect that while the Open Source JVM included new features more rapidly, I think the proprietary JVM would be the "debian-stable" version, and the only one that Sun would officially support.

Nothing to fear here - this is just giving developers like myself more choices, and more tools to work with.

Full artical text by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 05:54 · Score: 0, Redundant

In response to an open letter from IBM asking Sun Microsystems Inc. to join the company in developing an open-source version of Java, Sun plans to meet with IBM to discuss the issue, Sun sources said.

Sun officials planned to meet with IBM as early as Thursday to discuss the merits of whether the company should work with IBM on an independent project to create an open-source implementation of Java.

According to Sun, the company is in agreement with IBM's letter in many ways, and over the last two years Sun has made "significant" Java contributions to open source through The Apache Group; portions of the XML processing engine, through the Web Pack contribution last year; and the Java 2 Enterprise Edition processing engine known as Tomcat. "Sun is closely evaluating the effectiveness of the process," a Sun spokesperson said.

Sun said it will make an official statement about IBM's offer later on Thursday.

Meanwhile, Bob Sutor, IBM's director of WebSphere Infrastructure Software, in an interview with eWEEK, said, "We need an absolutely official open-source implementation of Java."

To read the full interview, click here..

Sutor said IBM is not trying to change things right away. "We're trying to walk before we run on this," he said. "We're not looking for the world on Day One."

But what IBM is offering is "to put people on this and to donate source code."

Sutor said IBM has proven its open-source mettle with its experience with the Eclipse open-source Java-based development platform, its success with Linux, and work the company has done with Apache.

In addition, Sutor said an open-source Java implementation will spur innovation and help generate revenue for developers. "This would be a boon for Linux," he said. "If every Linux distribution had a full implementation of Java, it would spur innovation. The money is not in this base-level plumbing, it's in what you add on top."

When asked whether IBM would be as willing to create open-source versions of its OS/390 or z/OS, Sutor said: "We're not suggesting Sun open source its directory software or proprietary stuff. Java is already in the JCP [Java Community Process]. It is already a community process that many people have contributed to. It's a mistake to look at it as though Sun is the sole author, and this is not any of their proprietary products."

Moreover, on the issue of Sun ceding control of Java should an open-source implementation surface, Sutor said: "They'll have less control, but they speak very highly of Linux," noting that Linux is not controlled by any one vendor but many benefit from it. "This is the logical next step in progressing the platform."

IBM's vice president of emerging Internet technologies, Rod Smith, sent the letter Wednesday night to Rob Gingell, Sun's chief engineer, vice president and fellow.

Citing an eWEEK article as inspiration (see "Sun: 'Secret Negotiations' on Eclipse Continue"), Smith said IBM is ready to work together with Sun on an open-source Java.

In the article Smith cited, Simon Phipps, Sun's chief technology evangelist, asked: "Why hasn't IBM given its implementation of Java to the open-source community?"

Wrote Smith in his letter: "Simon's comment appears to be an offer to jointly work toward this common goal. IBM is a strong supporter of the open source community, and we believe that a first class open source Java implementation would further enhance Java's position in the industry by spurring growth of new applications and encouraging new innovation in the Java platform."

Moreover, "IBM has been calling on Sun for years to open up Java because it will spur innovation," said an IBM spokesperson. "Now IBM is throwing down the gauntlet."

Rick Ross, president of Javalobby Inc., of Cary, N.C., an association of Java developers with more than 100,000 members, said, "On th

Probably too little, too late by ShatteredDream · 2004-02-27 05:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Mono is making good progress with its VM and core libraries. It is getting very functional on Win32 and Linux, and the PPC/OSX version is slowly, but surely, becoming useable.

What IBM should do is offer Microsoft the ability to integrate any of IBM's contributions to Mono in exchange from litigation immunity for Mono on patents. Hell, even go so far as to help Microsoft get J# J2SE 1.4/1.5 compatable or something.

IBM would be better off working on an existing open source VM and slowly moving Java-the-language to another VM that is not controlled by a rival. Hell, maybe even parrot.

--
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!

Re:Probably too little, too late by petabyte · 2004-02-27 06:08 · Score: 2, Informative

IBM would be better off working on an existing open source VM and slowly moving Java-the-language to another VM that is not controlled by a rival. Hell, maybe even parrot.

Or you know, IBM could work on their own virtual machine. :)
Re:Probably too little, too late by Tim+C · 2004-02-27 10:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hell, even go so far as to help Microsoft get J# J2SE 1.4/1.5 compatable or something.

Why on earth would MS want to do that? Don't you think that they already would have done so?

The only reason that the MS VM is at the level that it is (1.1.2, iirc) is because that's the last version that they developed that they can ship, having lost the court case that Sun brought against them. Now, I don't know the exact terms of the agreement, but I suspect that it simply prevents them from shipping an infringing JVM. I would have thought that they would be free to remove the code that broke the licence in the first place, but they have chosen not to.

Instead, they've developed an entire VM-replacement (the CLR) and Java replacement/competitor, C#. J# is intended as a stepping-stone to get Java developers to migrate to C#, in the same way that VB.NET is generally regarded as being intended to lure VB developers to migrate to C#, and Managed C++ to lure C++ developers to C#.

If they shipped a modern, fully-compliant version of J#, Java developers would have less reason to change to C#. I don't think that's what MS wants.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

IBM may already have Java libraries ready... by kbonin · 2004-02-27 05:56 · Score: 4, Informative

This reminds me of an interesting experience I had once 3+ years ago. I worked for Cisco on a line of security products being implemented in Java. We (I) spent a lot of time talking w/ engineers at Sun about problems and limitations of various API's that we would have LOVED to get improved or expanded, there were far too many things we just couldn't do without rewriting many packages from scratch so they could be extended.

The response from Sun engineers I talked to always amounted to some version of - 'those APIs are the result of too many meetings between vested parties, for political reasons it would be nearly impossible to extend them in the way you want'.

At the same time, I spent some time talking with my counterparts at IBM (at conferences.) Over and over again I discovered (through completely non NDA conversations at these conferences) that they already had rewrites of just about all of (if not in fact 100%) the libraries. They had already rewritten everything from scratch so they could make the needed extensions themselves, they just didn't have permission to give them to anyone else. (So I had to do the same, at least for all the java.security and JCE stuff I needed...)

So its entirely feasible that IBM has had for years a parallel implementation of all the libraries, and releasing them as open source would be relatively trivial. The only issue holding them up is the Java license terms regarding package naming, i.e. I believe they would need explicit permission to release packages named 'java[x].*'

Re:IBM may already have Java libraries ready... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

So... did Cisco or you ever release the rewrite as open source? Or is it sitting locked away somewhere as shelfware? Or is it in use and under active internal development?

I hate hearing stories of great software written to deal with a tough problem, then left locked up somewhere never to be seen again.
Re:IBM may already have Java libraries ready... by javaxman · 2004-02-27 07:14 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't know about "parallel implementation", unless you mean this : AIX JDK
or this : Linux JDK
or this : OS/390 JDK
or... heck, they even have a separate IBM Windows JDK... probably others...
Let's just say IBM has licensed Java for years and leave it at that, OK ? You can download so many versions of the JDK and JRE from IBM it makes your head spin. Nobody has done as many JVM implementations and research as IBM, probably not even Sun. In doing so, they have likely re-written the JDK several times.
Re:IBM may already have Java libraries ready... by kbonin · 2004-02-27 11:48 · Score: 1

As far as I know, it was just burried in a proprietary codebase when I left Cisco. Too bad too, as I had rewritten huge portions of the security related packages. By the time I left the programming had all moved to Bangalore, and you wouldn't want what was coming from that group...
Re:IBM may already have Java libraries ready... by kbonin · 2004-02-27 12:34 · Score: 1

I looked around - if you're looking for open source JCE and related code (like ASN.1 IO), try http://www.bouncycastle.org/

Re:Um. An? by squiggleslash · 2004-02-27 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

But, in this day and age, to decide that you won't have a credit card AT ALL is asinine. And, thanks to ESR's idiocy, everyone who wants to host ESR has to go through these insane gyrations of booking his travel and his hotel, etc., such that he'll never be asked for a CC.

If there's any truth to that anti-ESR rant, then my estimation of him has just been raised. Your comment suggests he's willing to put up with a high degree of inconvenience in order to prevent attacks on his privacy and freedom.

Most of us wouldn't. My hat off to him.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

This could lead to some extremely good things.

Unfortunately, the only downside is that ESR is going to try to take credit for it, and he will be insufferable after this.

Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:13 · Score: 0

As if he isn't already:

Hi! I'm eric raymond! I remove the copyright on software I didn't write just because I did some cleanup work on it. Look at ncurses for an example of my "work".

I choose that I'm the grand supreme master of the jargon file, and add stupid definitions that I make up and shift the political messages to my radical, nutjob platform.

I created "geeks and guns". Enough said.

I in no way represent the community, because the community doesn't want a wacko nutjob (see rms) to speak for them, but I pretend that I do.

Re:Um. An? by Wateshay · 2004-02-27 06:00 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, the best Java IDE is already free (in all senses).

--

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

Not a lot to read into this by ArchAngelQ · 2004-02-27 06:01 · Score: 4, Informative

Sun has publicly said they will talk to IBM about this. This doesn't amount to agreeing to do that which is proposed, ala an open source java.

What they HAVE basicly said is "We have officially turned to look at the road that may lead to an open source java". This isn't the first step on the road to Sun being involved in an open source java. But it's the precursor to that step, so I think anyone interested in java will take note.

Just my 2c

Two Java's by just+fiddling+around · 2004-02-27 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

In fact, we are talking about JVM's, not the language itself.

The Java language specification is already avaliable in the open, just like the JVM spec. This means that anybody could write a complete java implementation, open source. The open source version could not evolve faster than the Sun spec(because it would not be a real JVM then), but the optimization and bug-tracking processes could go faster (if it gets the same kind of support Apache has).

What is interesting here is that Sun would participate directly.

--
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.

Re:Two Java's by ajagci · 2004-02-27 11:01 · Score: 1

The Java language specification is already avaliable in the open, just like the JVM spec. This means that anybody could write a complete java implementation, open source.

No, they couldn't. Sun's Java specifications (including for the VM) come with licenses attached (I believe they are also reproduced in the books) that impose compatibility requirements; those compatibility requirements are incompatible with open source licenses.

Furthermore, Sun holds several patents related to the VM and the platform, so even if the specifications came with no strings attached, you could still not implement Java freely. And Sun will license those patents to you for free only if you actually comply with their compatibility requirements, which are, again, incompatible with open source licenses.

The open source version could not evolve faster than the Sun spec(because it would not be a real JVM then)

If the "open source" version is in any way required to be compatible with Sun's spec, it's not open source. The ability to make incompatible changes is an integral part of open source licenses.
Re:Two Java's by just+fiddling+around · 2004-03-01 04:50 · Score: 1

I disagree with your definition of "open source".

The best illustration for this is BIND: the SMTP protocol's spec is fixed (see the RFC 821), yet the implementation (BIND itself) is open-source. Is it not "open source" anyway?

Making incompatible changes to the JVM has already been done by someone: Microsoft. Making variations on a programming language only serves the destruction of it: if developers can't be sure a feature [is usable/behaves the same way] on all platforms, they have to stop using it.

Anyway, if somebody wants to make a language similar to Java with differences, they can make it and call it Jawa if they want. It will not be an implementation of Java anyway.

--
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.

Sure they might by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

They will open source Java if they think it will be more profitable than *not* open sourcing Java. Not trolling, just being blunt and honest.

The sad part is that if they do, it'll probably be "Free As In Stallman" instead of "Free As In Free"

Re:Sure they might by javaxman · 2004-02-27 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

I once worked at Sun, and I think you might actually be correct.

Seriously. Something everyone here seems to miss is this : has Sun really made money from licensing Java? Has it? In the long run? Really?

I would doubt it very much. Java to Sun is like the iTunes Music Store to Apple. They don't really make money on it, they might break even on it, but the plan is to make money on things it supports.

Sun makes money sellling servers and services around Java, like Apple makes money selling iPods and computers that use iTMS. Only not quite as successfully, IBM has maybe made more money from Java than Sun has...

There's also a great deal of ambiguity here as to what the heck might be open sourced. Does it mean there'll just be one open-source implementation which will be tested against the Java Compatability Kit for free, and other commercial ventures will have to continue licensing from Sun? Does it mean that not-for-profit ventures can get a copy of the JCK free? What would the license be like?

A big part of the problem here is that one of the strong points of Java is having a standard API with expected behaviors across all platforms. What Sun will ( and should ) _not_ allow is some arrangement where I can grab the source, add some random API or change some existing API behavior to something non-compliant with the JCK, then release it as "x-man Java" or something. That would be very, very bad, and very likely kill Java. They might as well give MS a version and tell them "add all the system-specific OLE/ActiveX/.NET crap extensions you want, we don't mind! Call anything you want Java, that's cool!" Did I mention not going to happen?

OpenSource susbtitute of agreement between company by nereid666 · 2004-02-27 06:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

It si very interesting to listen how one company talks with another in order to achieve the liberation of a technology and asking to release it as opensource. I think it is a revolution, years ago one company made a deal with another under propiertary licenses.
Do they arrive to a private deal? Or they arrive to a deal with the benefit of everyone, in opensource-way?

--
Damia

Petition by nepheles · 2004-02-27 06:08 · Score: 4, Informative

A petition has just been launched.

--
((lambda x ((x))) (lambda x ((x))))

Re:Petition by /dev/trash · 2004-02-27 07:34 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh joy.

I just voted 8 times for this. I am sure Sun will take it into serious consideration!
Re:Petition by Rufus211 · 2004-02-27 07:44 · Score: 1

am I the only one that finds online peitions to be similar to this?

Yay! by Gorath99 · 2004-02-27 06:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

I really hope this works out. Not because "free as in beer" isn't good enough for me (it is), but because it'll help focus the Java community.

We want Java's greatest supporters on one line, so they can face the growing competition of C# instead of bickering among themselves about whose VM/Gui toolkit/IDE/Compiler is the best.

Getting an OSS Java is just a nice bonus.

Uhhhh... repeat. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:11 · Score: 0

How hard can it be to do a quick search on a key word before posting an article?

Hmmmm....

Re:Uhhhh... repeat. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:22 · Score: 0

Uhh, how hard can it be to read and understand posts before posting a reply?

The story you link to is about IBM *proposing* the idea. This story is about Sun agreeing to discuss the idea.

*sigh*

No they can't by qortra · 2004-02-27 06:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Though I hope Sun doesn't die, because they can stand up against Microsoft.

They can't stand up to Microsoft. They can barely stand up for themselves! Don't get me wrong, I love Sun. I love Java (as a programmer), I love OpenOffice (a quite generous gift from Sun), and I like Sun hardware. However, they've been crashing quickly just as most other corporate competitors of Microsoft have, and they will continue to do so. If a victor is claimed against Microsoft, it will not come from the corporate sector. It will be decentralized Open Source hackers that beat them. Thus, through open-sourcing their technology, Sun can at least allow a part of them to live on posthumously. Otherwise, they'll drag Java down to the grave with them.

Re:No they can't by slipstick · 2004-02-27 07:12 · Score: 1

Oh come on. Give it a rest. I'm as much of a proponent as the next guy for the "open source model" but it's only been with corporate backing through the likes of Red Hat, Suse, IBM, HP and a whole slew of others that big projects like Linux & Apache have really caught fire.

Sun can easily survive if they would just start to diversify. Look at IBM they aren't going full force OS but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if in 20 or 30 years they no longer wrote proprietary software. There might be some segments where the demand isn't great enough to have open source enchroachment but they will be few and far between. Sun needs to take a page from IBM, stop looking at them as some big bad enemy and just start following, once they catch up than they can start to lead. Services,services,services, that's where IBM is already and they are making tonnes O' money from it. Yes, yes I know they sell hardware and still have proprietary software but those are just there so they aren't beholding to others for the complete solution.

Anyway, that's enough, Sun can survive, they just need to get their heads out of their butts, read the writing on the wall...yadda,yadda,yadda...

--
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?

Fairy God Parents! by GoMMiX · 2004-02-27 06:13 · Score: 1

Okay, IBM backs Linux big time. Could happen...
IBM says their going to port Office to Linux... Could happen....
Novell jumps in and says SCO can suck it.. Could happen....

Now, Sun is entertaining IBM's recent request to open source Java?!

Okay, which one of you has Fair God Parents!

Re:Brain dead moderator alert! by dolphinling · 2004-02-27 06:14 · Score: 1

Go to the character map!!!

--
There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

Re:Um. An? by ackthpt · 2004-02-27 06:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

I cant see clearly at all that an open-source java would necessarily outpace a proprietary version, why do you assume that that would be the case? I'm confused.

You can't see and OS imp of Java hardening and improving in ways Sun would have to include in a proprietary copy? I think Sun has done a fine job, but they'll be left in a position of also ran unless they're targeting their proprietary version for their own development (which doesn't strike me as a successful ploy in the long term, either.)

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Um. An? by RdsArts · 2004-02-27 06:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who said it'd be GPL? Most likely, they'd keep it under something similar to the Sun Industry Standards Source license ala Oo.o, which IIRC gives them a bit more control.

Re:Um. An? by vensonOnSlashdot · 2004-02-27 06:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sounds like what RedHat is doing with their distro - RHEL is commercial while Fedora (previously called RedHat linux) is completely free. The former comes with support etc and is good for enterprise-level work, while the latter relies on community support and is fit for Home and Desktop users.

Re:Um. An? by 4r0g · 2004-02-27 06:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

IBM is probably going to donate their JVM&SDK source code, the parts that are not covered by third-party licenses.

In addition to that, the OSS community will have to implement the missing pieces. I just wonder how much is the licensing cost and restrictions of IPRs included in a full J2EE environment - that may still be a showstopper for some Linux distributors.

--
- 4r0g

Re:Um. An? by Samrobb · 2004-02-27 06:18 · Score: 1

Then there will be enough libre programmers to make decent libre IDEs etc, and the proprietary Java will wither away (and Sun with it).

In case you're not aware of it, there's a pretty good libre IDE named Eclipse available. So... can you explain to me exactly why a libre implementation of Java would require development of an entirely new IDE?

Now, changes in the Java specification might require changes in an IDE - but that would apply to both proprietary and libre IDEs equally. Just changing the license that the Java source code is under won't immediately invalidate the value and existance of the current crop of Java IDEs.

--
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9

re: Java by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:18 · Score: 0

People ask what's better Java vs something else
and my response is what are you planning on doing?
Java is awsome if you're concerned about getting lots of platforms (provided it's Java(tm) and not java)
On the other hand if your' doing a quick and dirty hack Objective or ANSI C will be fine.

Re:Um. An? by Endive4Ever · 2004-02-27 06:19 · Score: 1

And two platforms to test each release against.

--
---

Freedom is very important to me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

Freedom is very important to me. I turn Java down where ever possible when the implementation is not free. It is a big issue, since it makes me frustrated sometimes when I'm supposed to run some Java applets on the web, or when I should compile and run a programming excercise in Java at my University.

Non-free Java implementations are not available to every possible platform I would like to use.

Forcing me to use Java does me social harm. It either forces me to use a certain platform (operating system and hardware architechture) to do the job and it requires me to give up my freedom.

Finally get a good cross-platform GUI? by Gr8Apes · 2004-02-27 06:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

JFC everyone knows about. I wonder if open sourcing it would either give us the performance of SWT within JFC, or give us JFCII, with even better performance and RAD tools than for either of the current solutions. If so, this could be a huge boon for java, and pretty much nip any "advantage" currently touted by MS.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.

Java / .NET / Strict OOP by DelawareBoy · 2004-02-27 06:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

OOP is only as good as the designer. Any of the OOP languages (Java, C# , VB.NET (gasp) to name a few) can still have a clueless idiot make a God class. Conversely, you can "simulate" inheritance, polymorphism, etc. in procedural languages as well. U of Delaware has a Scheme class where this is often done.

Re:Java / .NET / Strict OOP by eggcozy · 2004-02-27 09:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

OOP is only as good as the designer. Any of the OOP languages (Java, C# , VB.NET (gasp) to name a few) can still have a clueless idiot make a God class. Conversely, you can "simulate" inheritance, polymorphism, etc. in procedural languages as well. U of Delaware has a Scheme class where this is often done.

Except that Scheme is not procedural.

And yes, OOP is only as good as the developer, but can't you say that about every programming paradigm?
Re:Java / .NET / Strict OOP by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 11:31 · Score: 0

And yes, OOP is only as good as the developer, but can't you say that about every programming paradigm?

Who cares? His stupid comment was nullified by his negative light towards MS (gasp), therefore mod gods are appeased.
Re:Java / .NET / Strict OOP by Mr.+Piddle · 2004-02-27 13:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Conversely, you can "simulate" inheritance, polymorphism, etc. in procedural languages as well.

AARRRGGGH! The nightmares, you brought back so many nightmares! Must end pain...now....(sound of chair being kicked out)...(silence)

Seriously, anyone who has hand-programmed "classes" in C must be taken outside and abused severely. They sure are a neat idea, but make troubleshooting a sick joke and a big waste of time. C has structures, please, everyone, please leave it at that!

--
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
Re:Java / .NET / Strict OOP by s0m3body · 2004-02-27 15:00 · Score: 1

Do you know perl ?
It has some kind of a support for OOP. There is no real OOP there, but you can reasonably easily (i.e. much easier then in C or pascal) 'simulate' inheritance and polymorphism.

I was a 'heavy' perl programmer in the past, and now most of my work is in java. I feel like i can compare these two approaches a little bit ('simulated' OOP vs. strict OOP)

My feeling is:

- if you know java basics, you will (in most cases) write a terrible code; it may work as you expected but the structure will be poor, it will be hardly understandable for the other people and every new change will cost you more time then the last one.

- if you know java well, your code will be good (if you have enough time to write it ...), it will be easily understandable by other developers and the changes will be maintanable.

comparing to perl (i mean, writing OOP-like code in perl):

- if you know perl basics, your code will be simple, easily understandable, only extending/changing it will take more and more time with next every change/request.

- if you know perl well, well ... it gets down to your 'programming' behavior - but in general, your code will be complicated, hardly understandable but easily extendible.

Similar differences can be found (IMHO) when comparing between small vs. big projects in java vs. perl.

What i want to point out is that the difference between strict OOP and OOP 'simulation', between experienced and unexperienced programmers, and between team-work-capable and team-work-uncapable programmers is much more subtle than what you've said.

Strict OOP can be better as the designer, and at the same time it can be also worse. 'Simulated OOP' follows the same pattern.

If I should start a development on a single application (i.e. one set of GUI screens, well defined interface to the 'outer world') I would still choose perl.
If i should start a development on a framework, on a set of components which should be reusable, which I'll need to combine in every possible way and which should turn into enterprise level app, i would choose java.

Even if i could write the first third of this in perl in 50% of the time.
It is the next 2/3rds which would take me 500% of the time.

It is not only about the 'strict' and 'simulated' OOP. It is about the ways how you can misuse the language.
Re:Java / .NET / Strict OOP by anomalous+cohort · 2004-03-05 05:33 · Score: 1

(define is-scheme-procedural (lambda (hint) (if (string=? hint "yes") "scheme is procedural" "scheme is not procedural" )))

Would this help with M$'s plans to pull their JVM? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

Since they dont charge for it, if Sun went to OSS wouldnt it allow M$ to freely distribute as long as they didnt charge for it?

Open source vs. open season by NullAndVoid · 2004-02-27 06:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

As others have replied, releasing an open source implementation of Java doesn't need to open up the definition of Java. Even now anybody could release an open source implementation of Java, although it would be a lot of work, especially the libraries. You can rest assured Sun won't let go of control of the JCP, it will want to make sure they can go after people who make incompatible versions of the JVM.

ESR and his ilk won't be happy with the results.

Personally, I'd be scared of a GPL version of Java. I wouldn't want to get into wrangles over whether code I compile with and/or run on it had to be GPL also. A BSD style license would be nifty though.

--

-- Sigs are for losers

Re:Brain dead moderator alert! by jilles · 2004-02-27 06:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Brain dead troll alert. This is not insightful, it is bullshit. Open source compilers for java exist, open source java virtual machines exist. I hope your other technical decisions are more informed.

Anyway AC's commenting on the moderating cannot be taken seriously. I wouldn't have seen this shit if some 'braindead' moderator hadn't wasted his moderating points on this. I suspect he accidentally used his mousewheel whilst submitting his moderation.

Marking no karma bonus.

--

Jilles

Re:Um. An? by worm+eater · 2004-02-27 06:26 · Score: 1

"and the proprietary Java will wither away"

Kind of like how StarOffice "withered away"? I don't understand why the proprietary version couldn't keep folding in new features from the OSS version.

--
Maybe partying will help...

look at mozilla by metalhed77 · 2004-02-27 06:27 · Score: 1

look at mozilla. Obviously it's no gaurantee, but who uses netscape 7 and who uses mozilla?

--
Photos.

Re:Um. An? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:31 · Score: 0

It's not HIS inconvenience...it's OTHER PEOPLE'S inconvenience. Don't make him out to be the hero.

Where has Sun ACTUALLY said this anywhere by jg21 · 2004-02-27 06:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

The eWeek piece doesn't say any such thing, "closely evaluating" is a time honored phrase meaning business-as-usual, "agrees to talk" is something quite different. Sun simply hasn't done this.

Re:Where has Sun ACTUALLY said this anywhere by dmnic · 2004-02-27 07:35 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm assuming you didnt read the first 4 paragraphs?
it's ok, I'll quote it here for you:

"In response to an open letter from IBM asking Sun Microsystems Inc. to join the company in developing an open-source version of Java, Sun plans to meet with IBM to discuss the issue, Sun sources said.

Sun officials planned to meet with IBM as early as Thursday to discuss the merits of whether the company should work with IBM on an independent project to create an open-source implementation of Java.

According to Sun, the company is in agreement with IBM's letter in many ways--and over the last two years Sun has made "significant" Java contributions to open source through The Apache Group; portions of the XML processing engine, through the Web Pack contribution last year; and the Java 2 Enterprise Edition processing engine known as Tomcat. "Sun is closely evaluating the effectiveness of the process," a Sun spokesperson said.

Sun said it will make an official statement about IBM's offer later on Thursday."

sure looks to me that Sun has agreed to talk with IBM about the open sourcing of Java

--
the history of the world
Re:Where has Sun ACTUALLY said this anywhere by jg21 · 2004-02-28 08:01 · Score: 1

Odd how nothing, but nothing has happened, then, isn't it.
Not on Thursday, as the article promises. Nor on Friday. "Sun sources" could just as well be San Francisco taxi drivers...this was a lazy report, and is not only unsubstantiated but plain wrong. Wait I know, Perhaps the "Sun sources" meant NEXT Thursday...

Re:Um. An? by Wolfier · 2004-02-27 06:33 · Score: 4, Funny

An GUI application's website is useless without screenshots

why? by kpharmer · 2004-02-27 06:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sure Sun's in trouble - they optimized their business for the dot-coms, took advantage of the hype, and now everyone's far more interested in cheap than sexy.

But even their sexy servers aren't all that attractive anymore as the intel line gains more ground on them. And really, the the only reason for buying 24+ way SMPs was due to limitations in oracle clustering. And now they're moving away from that.

Java's fine - if you like heavy, ponderous languages. A few years ago I worked at a system integrator and performed a study of our productivity - it actually took us longer to create an application in J2EE/Oracle in 2002 than it did in CICS/DB2 in 1987. The only good thing I can say about java is that I suppose it's better for large application development than c or c++, and it runs on more platforms than .net. And I suppose it's just about the only language being taken seriously for large application development on open systems today.

So, now what's Sun left with? Overpriced hardware and cumbersome software. Should we be deferential with them because of all that they've done for us? Please - they spin so much hype it's disgusting, and their sales team is almost as sleazy as that of sybase or oracle.

Gentoo too by horza · 2004-02-27 06:35 · Score: 1

Thankyou, you made the point I was going to. Add Gentoo to the list where I can't simply "emerge j2sdk" (instead I have to go through a convoluted process including going onto the web, trying to find the damn download, clicking on license agreements before I can download a binary which has to be put into a certain place etc)

Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France

Re:Gentoo too by Nasarius · 2004-02-27 10:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Oh, on the contrary.

ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge sun-j2sdk

That should get the 1.4.2 J2SDK just fine.

--
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Re:Gentoo too by RPoet · 2004-02-27 14:01 · Score: 1

Which is because the Gentoo folks don't care much about software freedom. This is not an alternative for distros like Debian, Fedora or Mandrake.

--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Re:Gentoo too by Nasarius · 2004-02-27 14:36 · Score: 1

No, they care about choice.

--
LOAD "SIG",8,1

java is de-caffinated by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:37 · Score: 0

"This is not 1995. Java is a memory hog, sure."

its 2004. Java is still slooooooooooooowwww. Even if it wasnt so slooooooooowwwwwww, it is still an unneeded layer of cruft.

a slow memory hog of unneeded cruft... hmm...

im going to stick to C, thanks

Re:java is de-caffinated by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 07:35 · Score: 0

C is so 1980's. Real men code in Assembly.
Re:java is de-caffinated by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 10:00 · Score: 0

Enjoy your memory leaks and buffer overruns, gramps.

Re:Um. An? by ackthpt · 2004-02-27 06:39 · Score: 1

Who said it'd be GPL? Most likely, they'd keep it under something similar to the Sun Industry Standards Source license ala Oo.o, which IIRC gives them a bit more control.

I meant OS contributions that find their way into Sun's version (with GPL tag attached, like those found on mattresses.)

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

There's more than one open source java compiler. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:45 · Score: 0

And IBM wrote the one that doesn't suck. Why would they use a broken semi-working java compiler when they already have jikes, which is ten times better?

Too little? by greg_barton · 2004-02-27 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Probably too little, too late

When there are conventions of 25,000 Mono developers, ala JavaOne, you can talk about Java being "too little."

IBM has put Sun in a corner by agslashdot · 2004-02-27 06:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Say your boss wants to make a deal with you. He says get to work at 7am, you say 9am. He says "Lets talk about it".
Now, you can't really say "No", can you ?
Think about it.
If you did, you'll sound unreasonable & stubborn. People may suspect you have something fishy going on, that absolutely prevents you from even talking about it.
So you are forced to say "Ok, lets talk".

Standard management tactic.

IBM has a $96 share price with 166 billion market cap. When they say "Lets talk about it", someone worth only 5 bucks a share and two quarters of operating losses is forced to say "ok".

Re:IBM has put Sun in a corner by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 08:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

IBM has a $96 share price with 166 billion market cap. When they say "Lets talk about it", someone worth only 5 bucks a share and two quarters of operating losses is forced to say "ok".
Sun has a market cap of 17.8B. Next time, just report the market caps and leave out out the actual share prices, they are uninformative.

There is no "write once, run everywhere" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:51 · Score: 0

That's the whole problem. Its write once, run on all 4 machines that have jdk version x installed. There's no way for java to compete with C# when every windows machine will have the .NET framework installed, and most people aren't able to get through the "installing java" obsticle course. If people were actually allowed to ship java under reasonable terms, it might build up a large enough install base that it would be feasible to use java for something.

Neither company my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

IBM already does release their own "IP" into open source projects. See linux for example, or on the java subject, how about the open source java compiler they wrote, jikes?

Good for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 06:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why doesn't IBM opensource their mainframe OS's and midrange OS's? You'd think they would be for this if they want their competators to do so.

Re:Um. An? by peter_gzowski · 2004-02-27 06:58 · Score: 1

There already is a good IDE for Java: Eclipse. And it's a simple matter to have two jdk's installed. Eclipse has a drop-down list for you to choose which one you want to use. So a Linux distribution could include Eclipse and Open Source jdk, and if it's not suiting my needs, I can go out and get proprietary jdk, install it alongside OS jdk, and toggle between them if I want. Are you listening Mandrake/SuSE/Fedora? I want a jpackage section of your install wizards!

--
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank

Re:Um. An? by dietz · 2004-02-27 07:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

I use Eclipse because it is free (in all senses), but I definitely would say IDEA is a better IDE.

Eclipse may catch up at some point, but so far even the 3.0 milestones aren't as good as IDEA. I'd explain why, but honestly, I think if you tried IDEA for a few weeks, you'd agree with me. I'd say IDEA is (currently) almost inarguably better.

Anyway, Eclipse has bigger goals than IDEA does, so it's understandable that it's taking them a while to surpass IDEA.

There may be other IDEs that are better than Eclipse, too, but those are the only two I've tried.

IBM is *NOT* Santa Claus! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 07:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

I hope somebody out there knows something about IBM aside from their f**king Linux commercials. Just because M$ & SCO are the current anti-Christs, doesn't mean that IBM is not one too. They are just rowing with muffled oars here. IBM Websphere and Global Services make *billions* using Java. They are starting to think that its better if they have more control.

Follow the money.

Re:IBM is *NOT* Santa Claus! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 10:03 · Score: 0

How would IBM make more money with an open source Java than they do now, with a gratis, closed source one?
Re:IBM is *NOT* Santa Claus! by toiletmonster · 2004-02-27 11:01 · Score: 1

so .. java shouldn't be open source? ibm is bad just because they make money? of course ibm benefits. otherwise they wouldn't spend the time on it. so what. people are always motivated by selfishness. thats the whole basis of capitalism, democracy, and our whole society. and it works and it is good.

i'm not anti ms or anti sco because they make money. i'm against ms because their product sucks. and i'm against sco because they're against the gpl which i like.
Re:IBM is *NOT* Santa Claus! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 11:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

Obviously IBM is not going to try to make money by selling the VM. Duh.

They can make money indirectly:

By bending Java to be more a platform for their needs, such as supporting WebSphere better than other EJB implementations.

By influencing standards bodies to and being the first to market new standards for which they just happen to have implementations ready and waiting.

By fighting to keep features *out* of Java that were previously IBM proprietary (profitable) extensions, or applications. Etc.

Sometimes open source, means open to influence. Influence is usually equal to money.

Reminds me that scene on Friends... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 07:14 · Score: 3, Funny

...where Chandler agrees to do something if Monica agrees to talk about having sex on the patio, and as soon as Chandler is out of earshot, Monica says, "I know how THAT conversation is going to turn out."

Sweet by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 07:15 · Score: 0

I think by opening the source it will revitalize Java and smooth out some of the things Sun has not had the time to fix.

I would look forward to Java becoming more streamlined as far as control over garbage-collection and allowing customization of garbage-collection based on the type of application you would be writing.

Re:Um. An? --- Not quite "the best". by minniger · 2004-02-27 07:18 · Score: 1

I like eclipse, it's quite nice, and for server side stuff it's pretty good. But until they get a Swing designer that is a least close to the one in JBuilder I wouldn't use the term "best".

And don't start in on SWT vs. Swing. I don't care. Swing is good enough. All I want is a designer that doesn't require a meta file, or mark up my code with uneditable sections.

Give JBuilder a shot. You can download a demo of Enterprise that will revert to foundation after 30 days. Yes, I know, it's not open source. But it's Swing designer is very good, and JB X has just about every feature I've found in Eclipse and they are clearly more aware of usability.

NeWS as Open Source? (offtopic) by Deven · 2004-02-27 07:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does anyone know if there are implementations of NeWS available as open source now? Has anyone working on one of the "X Is Icky - I have a Better Way" window systems looked at NeWS for a model? Enquiring minds (however enfeebled) want to know.

Back in May 2000 (longer ago that I thought), I looked into this. I didn't really find any good clones of NeWS, but I was wondering whether Sun might consider open-sourcing NeWS since it had long since lost all commercial viability.

I ended up contacting James Gosling at Sun, who was the original author of both NeWS and Java, to ask him whether it might be possible for Sun to open the old source code to NeWS. His response was that he had already tried to make it happen several years before, but the source code was lost! Apparently the only source they could find was the NeWS 2.0 bastardized combination of X11, NeWS and Adobe's Display PostScript. The source to the original clean NeWS 1.1 release was nowhere to be found!

After a couple weeks of research, and asking a number of people, I found some leads on a couple places that might have had copies of the NeWS 1.1 source code (there were a few sources licensees around), so maybe it could have been repatriated back to Sun. The source may not be "lost to the ages" entirely after all.

Unfortunately, it seemed that James Gosling had by this time lost interest in pushing for NeWS to be released as open source, because he feels the world has moved on and PostScript is no longer the approach he would favor for a GUI system. While he's not opposed to the idea, it takes someone pushing internally to make it happen, because it takes time and effort to scrub the code for release, get approvals from executives and lawyers, etc.

Perhaps if enough people would take an interest in lobbying Sun for the release of the source, NeWS itself (the real thing) could potentially be released as open source someday, assuming the source can be recovered. If anyone is interested, please feel free to email me about it.

Alternatively, I have to wonder how much of the functionality of NeWS already exists in Ghostscript. Perhaps it would be feasible to adapt Ghostscript into a NeWS clone, and it probably has better rendering code than NeWS did. It might be an interesting project, though perhaps a daunting one...

--

Deven

"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay

Re:NeWS as Open Source? (offtopic) by MyHair · 2004-02-27 07:59 · Score: 1

Alternatively, I have to wonder how much of the functionality of NeWS already exists in Ghostscript.

I'm not familiar with NeWS, but there was an effort to make Display Ghostscript. But it doesn't seem to have been touched in almost 4 years.
Re:NeWS as Open Source? (offtopic) by toriver · 2004-02-27 11:09 · Score: 1

he feels the world has moved on and PostScript is no longer the approach he would favor for a GUI system.

Well, he'd better not take a look at the Java2D API, then, with its strokes and paths and translations and so on... :)
Re:NeWS as Open Source? (offtopic) by starseeker · 2004-02-28 05:42 · Score: 1

Tried to email, got an inbox full message. If you do start a lobbying effort, please try to get an article on slashdot about it. That will give it enough publicity to get some real momentum going.

--
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org

Re:Um. An? by cpu_fusion · 2004-02-27 07:28 · Score: 1

In other words, there will be an open source java implementation, but you can bet your bottom dollar there will be better tools and IDEs for the closed version initially.

What you're saying does not make sense to me. If one had an open source version of the JVM, one could run Netbeans or Eclipse, two of the best IDEs/tools for Java. (Both of which are free, open source projects.)

What it looks like Sun is thinking of doing is providing an open-source, free Java implementation, with a license that makes the open source community happy. Contrast this with Sun handing the Java platform and releasing it to an independent standards process. (That's probably very unlikely to happen!) I think this is a wise move, good for Sun shareholders and good for us.

Now, if you are saying "the closed source Java VM implementation will be better!", ... of course! Just look at what Sun has down with SunOffice vs. OpenOffice, and IBM has done with Eclipse vs. Websphere Application Developer, etc. It's a good compromise. If that's not good enough for you, why not focus your time on asking Steve Jobs to open source and give away Mac OS X. You'll be as successful!

Read the Article Closely by MeauxToo · 2004-02-27 07:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

IBM is urging Sun to create an open-source implementation of Java, not necessarily open source its current implementation. Sun's current Java implementation is loaded with tweaks and advanced features (generational garbage collection, HotSpot, etc) that would not be available in such a scenario. The open-source community developing this new implementation would have to develop these features on their own or hope that Sun will donate some or all of their work out the goodness of their heart.

As such, this move by IBM doesn't seem to have any short-term beneift. Furthermore, IBM isn't pushing this new open-source implementation to be the implementation of choice. Instead, they are saying that like the J2EE specs, there should be a free and open-source implementation of the J2SE specs. Whoopie.

Sun and IBM Questions by solprovider · 2004-02-27 07:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

What part of Java is being open sourced?

The specifications are controlled by the JCL. Sun has a never-used veto power that allows them to keep control of the trademark. Can this be more "open"? Java is a programming language being designed by a committee. Do you really want everyone in the world to be on the committee?

Are they talking about the StandardEdition, or every version of Java? If SUN will lose the revenues from the cell phone makers, this is not feasible.

Are they talking about releasing the JVM under the GPL? Why does IBM need SUN to help with this? IBM has their own JVM that was faster than SUN's JVM (from my own experiences using JVM 1.3.) Is there a reason that IBM cannot GPL their version? IBM has been trying to wrest control of Java from SUN for years. Could IBM GPL their JVM and force the issue for SUN?

Is the issue that SUN should be the one to dual-license the code so that GPL'd code changes can be added to the commercial branch? I am not clear about the legality of that.

The only real issue seems that OSS needs a freely redistributable JVM to include with Linux distros and other software. OSS is good so debugging can see further down, although that can be difficult when the layers change language. A GPL'd JVM might be forked over features as well as implementation, but implementations have already forked, and Sun can control the features by not allowing their trademark to be used for non-compliant VMs. Please reply with clarifications.

--
I spend my life entertaining my brain.

Re:Sun and IBM Questions by Tim+C · 2004-02-27 09:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is there a reason that IBM cannot GPL their version?

I *believe* (but don't actually know *for sure*) that anyone who implements a (certified-compliant?) JVM does so under licence from Sun. (Certainly, it was for breach of licence/contract that Sun successfully sued Microsoft when they added classes to the core java.* hierarchy) I would expect such a licence to forbid releasing this implementation under an open-source licence (perhaps only as a side-effect of specifying the sort of licence that is acceptable).

If not, then - especially given Java's popularity - why is there not already a GPLed implentation? Too much work? Tell that to the mono guys...

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Re:Um. An? by emh0 · 2004-02-27 07:36 · Score: 1

Eclipse itself might be free but the point is that the JVM required to run it isn't.

IBM , troll or Arch angel? by xot · 2004-02-27 07:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

As a company the Big Blue does pretty well for itself, has numerous patents but what is its position in the general tech scene? Do most people see IBM as evil or good?
Of course they definitely aint in the MS (bad) league by my standards, they've done more good than bad for the technology as far as i know.Ok so they wanna make a few bucks on the way, thats not all that bad is it? I'd say angel(maybe i just like the color blue.)

--
Lord of the Binges.

Re:IBM , troll or Arch angel? by jtregear · 2004-02-27 18:37 · Score: 1

You're very young, aren't you?

Re:Um. An? by linuxlover · 2004-02-27 07:42 · Score: 1

I use/like Eclipse as my primary IDE. But in 3.0 they are focusing on 'rich client' work (I think anyway). They are pushing SWT (Eclipse version of GUI toolkit) to be a viable toolkit to write 'desktop applications'.

we will see.

Money by TooTechy · 2004-02-27 07:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

From a financial standpoint, and let's face it, that is from where IBM is talking, IBM stand to gain everything from an open source Java.

Fair's fair IBM. If Sun offers Java then perhaps you should volunteer WebSphere!

Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 10:10 · Score: 0

From a financial standpoint [...] IBM stand to gain everything from an open source Java.

Exactly how will IBM make more money from open source java than they do with closed source java?

And where is the statement from IBM telling Sun to open source something they aren't already giving away gratis (no cost)?

The fact is, IBM's argument is that Sun stands to benefit by relinquishing control over Java in exactly the same way as IBM has relinquished control of Eclipse (which, in case you had forgotten, IBM created at the cost of over 40 million dollars).
Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 13:53 · Score: 0

I'd say Lotus rather than WebSphere.
Re:Money by TooTechy · 2004-02-28 12:31 · Score: 1

As we all know, Sun controls the development of Java. And one day, might start charging for it. IBM and others are concerned about this. IBM makes a great deal of cash from WebSphere. They would like to know it is a solid platform, dependant on nothing else but depended on by everyone. After all, servlet containers are taking over where the OS left off. Financially speaking of course.

Hopefully, this will help improve J2EE... by Xardion · 2004-02-27 07:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

because the development process for it has been WAY too cumbersome for me in the past, and I've been seriously looking at C#/.Net as an alternative. And being a pretty vehement Microsoft hater, that's pretty damn serious.

Okay, use Python as an example by dmeranda · 2004-02-27 07:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Python is copylefted and is somewhat more comparable to Java than C. It has is own VM and is bytecompiled. It consists of not only a language, but also a rather rich library layer. And it is mostly "write once, run everywhere"; unless you specifically create/use extensions which are platform-bound. But the vast majority of Python programs are extremely portable.

Any Python has not suffered from any forking issues! Nor has Microsoft corrupted it via it's usual extend/embrace strategy. But Python is really *free*, unlike Java.

Re:Okay, use Python as an example by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative

Any Python has not suffered from any forking issues! Nor has Microsoft corrupted it via it's usual extend/embrace strategy. But Python is really *free*, unlike Java.

I suspect Python has not had a forking issue because there are not enough commercial interests involved that would make it interesting to do so. Python doesn't have that problem, java does. You've heard of Microsoft J++? Essentially it is a fork of java with some special sauce that isn't portable to other platforms. Microsoft had programmers working with it, creating polluted Java code. Sun had to go to court to stop it so it wouldn't endanger Java.
Re:Okay, use Python as an example by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 09:41 · Score: 0

Hell, I would like to fork Python to fix the damn syntax formatting and make regular expressions easier to use (you know, not so much like using C).

Oh wait... Perl
Re:Okay, use Python as an example by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 11:38 · Score: 0

right... knock python because PERL has good syntax.
are you from microsoft or something? you sure seem as bright as they are
Re:Okay, use Python as an example by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 11:53 · Score: 0

Syntax formatting smartass.

I didn't say anything about the syntax, just the space sensitive shit.

And the reverse... by qortra · 2004-02-27 07:59 · Score: 1

it's only been with corporate backing through the likes of Red Hat, Suse, IBM, HP and a whole slew of others that big projects like Linux & Apache have really caught fire.

One could also say, it's only with the support of Open Source that the likes of Red Hat and Suse have really caught fire. Even with larger corporations like IBM and Apple, open source has absolutely electrified their business model. Sun, on the other hand, has kept most of their software closed source and look where it got them; a rocket that launched during the tech boom and dropped right after. Not very impressive.

I open source could give to Sun what its given to so many other companies; salvation. And apprently, they think so to; they've already started producing JDS, and its been a pretty big success so far (as far as distros go).

Re:And the reverse... by slipstick · 2004-02-27 08:52 · Score: 1

I don't disagree at all. I don't think SUN could ever catch back up to IBM in mind share but they could easily stop from drowning, but they have to stop just pissing around.

--
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?

Let Java Go! by pants1973 · 2004-02-27 08:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think this is a kick-ass idea and want to thank Eric S. Raymond for lighting the kindling under the asses of Sun to help get this moving. If Java is not open-sourced - soon - it will die. Not die in the sense that it will go away, but it will a very slow, and very painful death. One of lesser technology, slower tools, lesser open source support and especially with the Mono project, a laughable contender in the web-services area. I seriously think that if Java were open-sourced by mid 2004 in a GPL-style license, then C# and .Net would be given a serious run for its money. Everyone chant with me ... Set Java Free ..... Set Java Free....

Re:Let Java Go! by easter1916 · 2004-02-27 08:04 · Score: 2, Informative

C# and .NET are already being given a "run for their money". J2EE is used more than .NET. Don't believe the MS hype.
Re:Let Java Go! by the+eric+conspiracy · 2004-02-27 10:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

C# and .Net would be given a serious run for its money

Well, uh, C# is not near as widely used as Java at least at the moment. And Java is not a competitor to what is Microsoft's Windows API. Two different things altogether.

If Java is not open-sourced - soon - it will die.

What do you base the idea that Java needs to be open sourced on to compete with C#/.Net? Java's disdavantages have nothing to do with the way it is sourced, and in fact it as far far greater open source support than C#/.Net. There is nothing comparable to the Jakarta project for .Net. In fact we are seeing Jakarta projects like Log4j starting to be ported to ASP.NET because of the glaring deficiences in that platform.

As far as web services go, explain to me how open source will do one blessed thng for Java in that area.

Re:Um. An? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 08:20 · Score: 0

There already are two javas - sun java and msjava. And msjava does have enough non-standard extensions (some insist ms deliberately broke compatiability) that there are apps written for msjava which will not run on sun java. mp3wma.net used such an applet for a while. But most standards-compliant java apps will run under both. Conspiracy theorists say ms added lots of extensions to try and take over java, but they failed because they didn't put as much effort into maintaining and upgrading as sun did. But there are still people with only msjava because they just brought windows and haven't downloaded the sun java plugin. I haven't noticed anyone making much of a fuss.

-1 Ignorant by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 08:28 · Score: 0

When it is people will be able to fix it so a lot of programs out there that are otherwise great programs but for Java's terrible slowness and resource consumption will finally become usable.

I'll grant you that it might take considerably more resources at startup than other languages but, the tired line that java is "slow" is just ignorant with java 1.4 and above.

Re:Would this help with M$'s plans to pull their J by vidarh · 2004-02-27 08:30 · Score: 1

You do realize that MS doesn't WANT to distribute a Sun JVM, don't you? So much so that Sun sued them to force them to include Sun's JVM instead of the outdated crap they previously shipped (and wanted to drop). MS fought tooth and nail to NOT have to distribute an up to date JVM with Windows.

I'll join an open source effort by taj · 2004-02-27 08:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

If Sun and IBM work on an Open Source Java, I'll work at merging the project I maintain with their efforts.

http://www.rxtx.org

Sun's license issues have been problematic for our project. I look forward to an Open Source Java.

Excellent publicity. by Futurepower(R) · 2004-02-27 08:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

One thing that needs to be said is that this is worth millions of dollars in free publicity for IBM. There are many programmers who, before IBM started supporting Open Source, would not have considered working for IBM.

I'm not saying that IBM is asking for Java to be Open Source because of publicity. But that support has a wonderful side-effect for the company.

It's great to have a large organization like IBM that can use its voice to do something that has long been needed. The world needs better GUI support for Java.

We need true native Java compilers, so that it is not easy to de-compile Java, as it is now. (I get the impression that GCJ merely makes calls to libgcj, as the home page says, and is therefore easy to decompile. Does anyone know if that is true?) Business logic is very easy to steal through de-compilation.

Re:Excellent publicity. by bl8n8r · 2004-02-28 16:44 · Score: 1

Shit...I never met a binary that couldn't be decompiled or unassembled. Of course, that whole process is illegal now under the DMCA, so I guess your IP is safe ;o)

--
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org

Too Free? by cheezit · 2004-02-27 08:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

Believe it or not, there are corporate IT shops that shy away from anything open-source---even if you can show a support contract. In a place like that, any movement of Java to open-source is a negative, not a positive. And since those shops are exactly where Java is popular, Sun is not stupid to go slow.

These corporate IT shops think they have leverage over the big-$$ vendors by virtue of the fat checks that they can hold back (sometimes true, sometimes not). No check, no leverage, no support.

The reality is that much of IT is about budgets, not technology. Senior managers still work with money long after whatever technical skills they had are gone, so that's the club they use on vendors.

--
Premature optimization is the root of all evil

Re:Too Free? by C_Kode · 2004-02-27 13:03 · Score: 1

The part about some shops that shy away from open-source is true, but as with all paradigm they change with time. Java has already made it's name as a solid corporate development tool. Anyhow, this isn't a negative at all. If some shop discounts a proven product because Sun decided to open up the code is foolish. Anyhow, PHP is open source and it's growing at a phenomenal rate in both maturity and use in big business. (Yahoo for one!)

This would be nothing but good for Java. As of late I haven't been a Sun fan, but this could help them in my eye alot. Althought, they should proceed slowly. There is alot of money to be made from Java. Even an OSS implementation of Java. As was noted lately, a dual licensing of Java could be very lucrative for Sun.

Re:Um. An? by jafuser · 2004-02-27 08:49 · Score: 1

Why do you seem to indicate that SWT is a bad thing for desktop apps?

SWT is a much better way to do a GUI than AWT or Swing.

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF

ugly language by SanityInAnarchy · 2004-02-27 08:52 · Score: 1

I've seen lots of interesting posts on why it matters/doesn't matter that java is/isn't free, or even suggestions that IBM/Sun are starting in the wrong/right place.

I don't like Java. I don't like the syntax, the design concepts, or the performance (lack thereof). I would much rather use Perl, Python, Ruby, or JavaScript (which is not actually a subset of Java).

So for my needs and preferences, opensourcing Java is not important, because I started hating it before I started caring about open source.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!

Re:Um. An? by Tony-A · 2004-02-27 08:54 · Score: 1

What? Two Javas? This sounds weird.

ONLY two Javas does sound wierd. (Microsoft's bastardization doesn't count.)
For some time there has been JRE downloadable from IBM and from SUN and seems like at least some partials elsewhere.

What you want are multiple implementations with everything sufficiently standardized that except for legitimate proprietary issues, you don't have to care or even be aware of which particular implementation you are using.

Hmm... by Mornelithe · 2004-02-27 08:56 · Score: 1

It will help focus the Java community?

Help Java's greatest supporters face the competition of C#?

I imagine Java's best supporters are out getting work done with Java, not sitting on slashdot or javalobby arguing over which VM is best, which, I imagine, is where most debates like that occur.

Do fights break out at JavaOne because people are arguing over which VM is best? Most likely not.

And since when are two programming languages in competition with one another? Use and convince your employer to use whichever works best for you and your employer. Otherwise it's probably best to let Sun and MS fight marketing duels.

Seriously, I think I've only seen two valid arguments for open sourcing Java. One is that bugs will probably get fixed a little faster (Sun is pretty slow with that), and the other is the statement "I believe all software should be open source." At least with the latter, you're sticking to some principles.

I seriously doubt that unifying the Java bickerers on slashdot will have much of an effect. People who actually _use_ Java probably don't waste their time fighting over trivial things like whose JVM is better.

--

I've come for the woman, and your head.

When I originally heard Sun scoffing... by andalay · 2004-02-27 09:01 · Score: 1

at making Java open source, I thought it was for the same reason M$ would not like to see Windows open sourced; the built-in "data collection" functionality.

With this announcement, I am not worried that Java does these sort of things (wrong as I may be).

Don't lie, you thought that too.

Licenses by k98sven · 2004-02-27 09:06 · Score: 1

Who said it'd be GPL? Most likely, they'd keep it under something similar to the Sun Industry Standards Source license ala Oo.o, which IIRC gives them a bit more control.

I doubt that.. with IBM taking the initiative and providing the code, I think they would almost certainly go with the CPL (which is basically GPL+anti-patent clause).

This is the license IBM released Eclipse, and I can definitely see that IBM would like to have all their Java stuff under the same license.

And then.. we're talking about two issues here: The VM, and then the class libraries.
The CPL, GPL or Sun SSL wouldn't be a good idea for the libraries.

Ideally the libraries would be under the LGPL or such, so they could be be distributed and used with any VM the user felt like. (Sun's java, IBM Jikes, Kaffe, gcj)

Re:Um. An? --- Not quite "the best". by juanillodgn · 2004-02-27 09:12 · Score: 1

Open source (Enterprise-quality) Swing designer:

http://www.eclipse.org/vep/

And they are already implementing a SWT designer.

There are real practical considerations to free. by expro · 2004-02-27 09:16 · Score: 1

How about dropped Java because even as a licensee could not get fundamental problems fixed.

Java, ok. by caffeinefiend · 2004-02-27 09:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

As of this moment in time I feel that Java suffices quite nicely, even if it is not open sourced at the moment. If you see what I mean, Sun makes Java freely available so there is no true reason to jump right in to open sourcing it. However, benefits to the language might occur by opening it up for reviews and suggestions by the community. As I see it, there is no rush, but it might be nice in the future.

Re:Java, ok. by ilctoh · 2004-02-27 10:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Releasing it as open source would greatly speed up its development, porting to other platforms, close security holes, improve performance, add features, etc. Java is a popular language already, converting to open source can only help.

--
How many slashes would a slashdot dot, if a slashdot could dot slashes?

Re:Um. An? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 09:41 · Score: 0

Woops, somehow you managed to get the wrong URL in there...that should be:

Well, the best Java IDE is already free (in all senses).

Re:Um. An? --- Not quite "the best". by minniger · 2004-02-27 10:00 · Score: 1

It's a nice start and I've been watching it. But JBuilder's designer has many years of development in it. Download it an give it a try. IMHO JBuilder designer is the current benchmark. Not so much feature set wise but in usability.

Of course it's just a matter of time before eclipse gets there too. But not just yet.

Great! Now it's IBM's turn by loginx · 2004-02-27 10:12 · Score: 1

I demand that IBM open-source WebSphere and Trivoli, as well as Lotus, but also especially Universal DB2!

They have to give an example, after all!

Re:Great! Now it's IBM's turn by C_Kode · 2004-02-27 12:48 · Score: 1

RCU, JFS, SMP...
Re:Great! Now it's IBM's turn by lateral · 2004-02-29 12:21 · Score: 1

I demand that IBM open-source ... Lotus
But they say open-source software can never die...

...dear God! LOTUS MUST NEVER BE OPEN SOURCED! NEVER YOU HEAR!!!

L.

It's realism, not idealism. by Futurepower(R) · 2004-02-27 10:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Right now I won't use Java because I write GUI intensive applications that are slow and quirky in Java. When Java is Open Source, I will still be able to write proprietary applications in Java, just like I can write proprietary applications using GCC.

The concerns of the Java community are real. Yes, there is idealism, but it is mostly realism. Java cannot fulfill the world's needs for it until it is free from the control of one company.

Re:It's realism, not idealism. by flacco · 2004-02-27 11:49 · Score: 1

Right now I won't use Java because I write GUI intensive applications that are slow and quirky in Java.
what do you use, and is it cross-platform?

--
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Re:It's realism, not idealism. by FatherOfONe · 2004-02-27 12:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well I don't know what he/she writes in, but I use SWING and have only had a few MAJOR issues with Java.
1. Out of 7 JVM's on multiple OS's only ONE JVM displayed gui development poorly. That was Microsoft's JVM. All the rest looked EXACTLY the same. Some were slower than others, but only the Microsoft one acted plain wrong.
2. When I used an X/Y layout manager stuff would not behave as expected. When I went to any other layout manager they worked well.

My issue is with point one above. I had a HUGE battle because "The Microsoft JVM was already loaded on every machine". The developers who were not Microsoft lackies had to fight hard to get another JVM loaded. For everyone who wants an "Open Source JAVA", I have the question. What happens when Microsoft ships a version that is poisioned and acts differently? We the client side Java developers will have to make a choice, and unfortunately for a lot of shops that would mean using Microsoft's Java.

--
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Re:It's realism, not idealism. by Alex · 2004-02-27 23:44 · Score: 2, Funny

Right now I won't use Java because I write GUI intensive applications that are slow and quirky in Java. When Java is Open Source, I will still be able to write proprietary applications in Java, just like I can write proprietary applications using GCC.

Yeah the GUI - one of open source's strengths, open sourcing Java will fix that straight off.

Alex
Re:It's realism, not idealism. by skuenzli · 2004-02-28 03:49 · Score: 1

The way we approach the "correct" JVM issue in our deployment environment is through Java Web Start. Via JWS, we can actually deploy the correct (the one we tested/qualified our app on) JVM to the client machine along with any application updates, when the application starts. If no updates are required or the JWS web server is down, the application launches from a cached local copy. JWS works extremely well for internal applications (and Open Source ones like ArgoUML). We have been using JWS for this production critical application for over a year and a half with no problems at all.

JWS has been brilliant for our uses. You might give it a look. Here is Sun's page on it:
http://java.sun.com/products/javawebstart/

Regards,
Stephen

Don't people remember Visual J++? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 10:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

If Java becomes more open than it currently is, Microsoft will resurrect their Visual J++ plot to fragment the Java language. They'll add all these "cool new features" that only work under Windows, and maybe even give away their Visual Studio IDE to "prime the pump" with developers, like they did with Internet Explorer.

Yeah, what Microsoft sells/gives away won't be "real Java" and won't pass Sun's compatibility tests, but being Microsoft, they'll seduce enough individual developers and corporations into using their incompatible extensions to ruin "write once, run anywhere" forever.

You might argue that if Java is GPL'd, we could add those extensions to the free version, but what if the extensions are very Windows-specific? Extensions that wouldn't even make sense on a Linux box? Or that tie into other closed Microsoft products, like Windows Media Player, or Microsoft's particular DRM scheme?

But if someone uses 'em in an app, that app is locked onto Windows forever.

Re:Don't people remember Visual J++? by Random+Guru+42 · 2004-02-27 11:58 · Score: 1

I wouldn't mind having that lurvely IDE that M$ packages with Visual Whatever .NUT. It's great to use. Hell, I use that IDE (never mind the rest of VS.NET) to crunch code that'll never be used on Windows. I have to admit, I do use it for Windows stuff, but only because that is what school demands of me.

But if you can provide me with an IDE that is just as useful and crash-resilient (I can't believe I just used that to describe something from M$), bring me into the light!

--
Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
Re:Don't people remember Visual J++? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-28 03:47 · Score: 0

Have you tried the latest Eclipse?

freshjava.net ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 10:18 · Score: 0

So is there, or should there be, a separate equivalent of Freshmeat.net for all the forthcoming OSS/FS Java, JAR's ... project distributions & updates ...?

Looks like freshjava.com was snagged by peddler last September but freshjava.net still available.

Re:Um. An? by Kupek · 2004-02-27 10:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Obviously an open source implementation will grow and respond to demand rapidly and outpace something proprietary ...

Obviously? That's a big word to throw around that casually. I don't think it's obvious, or necessarily true, at all.

You can get those for free from Sun site... by daniel_yokomiso · 2004-02-27 10:25 · Score: 1

The Java Language Specification
The Java Virtual Machine Specification

--
Disclaimer: If I disagree with you I'm probably trolling...

Re:You can get those for free from Sun site... by just+fiddling+around · 2004-03-03 14:26 · Score: 1

Moderation : +4 - damn, I bought the books before I knew this.

--
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.

Re:Um. An? by toiletmonster · 2004-02-27 10:41 · Score: 1

what you mean like apache? yeah there is no support or garuntees there. better use a microsoft product.

really. ibm supports a lot of open source stuff if support is what you need. not to mention all the benefits of open source: security, a support community, documentation, clean documented code that works. (at least for most of the larger projects). ibm provides support for a ton of open source stuff if you really want to pay for something.

my company chose to buy remedy a bug tracking tool instead of using bugzilla. the company that makes remedy went out of business shortly afterwards. the product is crap. the ui is awful. every time you click a button the thing crashes. so much for support. so much for garuntees. so much for that product being around forever.

i would personally feel more comfortable if java were open sourced. sun hasn't been doing so hot lately. what if they go out of business? what happens to java then?

Portability: Java vs Python by axxackall · 2004-02-27 10:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Java runs only where Sun decides so, namely major commercial OSes (Windows, Unix, Mac OS X)) and x86/Linux (not all Linux architectures!). Plus few more platforms where limited-in-features and outdated (i guess it's still on 1.0.8 level) free implmentation barely compile and work.

In contrast, Python runs everywhere: major commercial OSes, all (I mean it- ALL!) linux architectures, all BSD ports, and every other device, for which there is gcc-compatible compiler (or cross-compiler). And when it runs somewhere - it runs in it's LATEST release (not like 10 years old Java 1.0.8), with all bug and security patches. When I write Python software (Zope, GTK etc) I am comfortable it will work same way everywhere.

That's not all. On small devices you are limited to run Java Micro-Edition, or Java Standard Edition at most. Forget about J2EE. You don't have hardware resources for luxury and comfort.

Python doesn't have such editions. You load modules until your memory is finished. No need to mention that Python is getting significantly less memory for the same functionality than Java. You can run Twisted or Zope and have EJB-like functionality on a devise where even J2SE doesn't work. It may swap sometimes, but it will work.

Finally, Python has the only one vendor of implementation (namely called "open source community"), while Java has many INCOMPATIBLE vendors. On Linux/PPC platform I have Java applications that I have to run sometimes with IBM's JRE, sometimes with Sun's JRE - depends where it will fail today. Even Ant compiles differently on different vendor's JDKs. I am stuffed by multiple Java vendors. That's why I write on Python whenever I have a choice.

--

Less is more !

Re:Portability: Java vs Python by greg_barton · 2004-02-27 12:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Java runs only where Sun decides so

That is blatantly false. Java runs wherever there is an implementation, just like python.

On small devices you are limited to run Java Micro-Edition, or Java Standard Edition at most. Forget about J2EE.

Are you trying to make a joke? Give me one example where you'd want to run J2EE on an embedded device. If there was a need to run a J2EE appserver with a Micro-Edition VM I'm sure someone would write one. Repeat after me, "J2EE is a spec. You can implement it for any VM you want."
Re:Portability: Java vs Python by neelm · 2004-02-27 15:27 · Score: 1

I'm in full agreement here; Python delivered on Java's promise. I have been honestly shocked by the level of portability a python app has, even deeply complex Thick/GUI applications. You have to set out to write non-portable code, because if not, it's portable.

I also think Python has provided a much better standard library, a much better OO interface, and worlds better syntax (the last took a bit to get used to, but no I curse any languare that thinks it needs unless semicolons!).

Python is commonly thrown in with Perl and PHP, I guess because it starts with a P, but really it's on the grounds of C++ and Java. And yet, one cannot ignore it's a scripting language still that somehow runs like a compiled language. And no core dumps to boot!
Re:Portability: Java vs Python by axxackall · 2004-02-28 01:52 · Score: 1

Java runs wherever there is an implementation, just like python.
Linux runs on about 20 architectures - Sparc, MIPS, HPPA, Arm. Only one of them can be used with Java for production - x86, because Sun ports it there. Few others, like PPC, has Blackdown JDK, which is far behind in terms of versions and therefore functions (Sun breaks functional compatibility very agressivily on every minor release). IBM has it ports only for Linux/PPC and it's just another source of incompatibility problems. As for Linux on other platforms - the situation is even worse. In short words - don't use your non-x86 Linux box for hosting Java applications. In contrast - no problem with Python on any Linux architecture I've tried.
That's because Python is designed to be ported, and due to its open sources - it is ported.
Give me one example where you'd want to run J2EE on an embedded device.
How about various routers with 16MB RAM? I'd like to run at least network related parts of J2EE, like JMS and JMX. Once I worked with one of such routers (gateway actually) even with small SQL database, that partially repeated the SQL structure of their big corporate database. It was a huge disappointment to learn that EJB containers cannot be ported to work on that gateway. Why? Because normal Java doesn't work on such small memory, and J2EE is not ported to J2ME.
Repeat after me,
Looks like your education is based on repeating after someone else, not on your own thinking. Perfect fit for brain-washing marketing machines.

--

Less is more !
Re:Portability: Java vs Python by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-28 01:56 · Score: 0

J2EE is a spec. You can implement it for any VM you want.
No, You cannot. If you could - someone would already have done it. Just like they ported Linux to game consoles - just because they can.
Re:Portability: Java vs Python by browncs · 2004-02-28 03:08 · Score: 1

IBM has it ports only for Linux/PPC and it's just another source of incompatibility problems.

Gotta correct this, IBM's Java runtimes (J2SE) support Linux on PPC as well as Linux on Intel, AIX on PPC, Linux on S390 (zSeries), and native z/OS. Not to mention Windows. All of these come in a 64-bit flavor as well. IBM has to do this because WebSphere is supported on all these platforms.

And I don't know where "incompatibility" comes from, they are all certified and bugs are fixed.

Spencer Brown (IBM)
Re:Portability: Java vs Python by greg_barton · 2004-02-28 11:35 · Score: 1

IBM has it ports only for Linux/PPC and it's just another source of incompatibility problems.

Dunno about you, but I've used the VMs from Sun, IBM, and Blackdown for years. I've never had incompatibility problems after they were out of beta.

Why? Because normal Java doesn't work on such small memory, and J2EE is not ported to J2ME.

Great, you showed one example of when you wanted to run JMS on a router. Why you couldn't run it on another machine, I don't know, but fair enough.

Now, JMS has a public spec. Go write a version that runs on J2ME. Go on, now! Get crackin'!

Looks like your education is based on repeating after someone else, not on your own thinking.

Making assumptions based on no evidence will get you nowhere, sonny. But, let me take a gander at you. From the 1848 comments you've made on slashdot over the past year and a half, (that's over three per day, with a whole lot of Flamebait, Troll, and Offtopic mods in there) I can see that you talk a lot, but don't have much useful to say.
Re:Portability: Java vs Python by axxackall · 2004-02-28 13:17 · Score: 1

Now, JMS has a public spec. Go write a version that runs on J2ME. Go on, now! Get crackin'!
JMS specs are public, but JVM sources are not. That's enough for me to pay attention on Python, to notice that it's open source and meanwhile to begin enjoying Twisted which has already what I need. Thanks for your advise, but I prefer to help people who appreciate my help without afraiding to open sources. Sun doesn't come to such a category.
From the 1848 comments you've made on slashdot over the past year and a half, (that's over three per day, with a whole lot of Flamebait, Troll, and Offtopic mods in there) I can see that you talk a lot, but don't have much useful to say.
Each time when I criticize brain-washing propaganda I've got some negative mods. But it doesn't prevent my karma be Excelent after all. Perhaps the most of people are not brain-washed yet. That's a good sign.

--

Less is more !
Re:Portability: Java vs Python by browncs · 2004-02-28 15:39 · Score: 1

JMS specs are public, but JVM sources are not.

so, that's EXACTLY what this thread is about... IBM approaching Sun to open-source Java! So why are you stating this as a negative?

Spencer Brown (IBM)
Re:Portability: Java vs Python by axxackall · 2004-02-28 19:50 · Score: 1

I am stating that until now THAT was ONE OF reasons I prefered Python to Java. So, I support IBM efforts of pushing Sun to open-source Java.
I believe that iff (if and only if) Java will be open-sourced then its portability will be improved, so its QA. And also giving more eyes and hands to JVM its size and speed might be improved too.
But untill that would happen - all marketing around Java is overheated and Java quality is overestimated. Java is better than C++ in some cases, but in many cases it's worse than Python.
That's all I'm trying to state here.

--

Less is more !

This is a front for the IBM-Sun takeover talks;-) by Glasswire · 2004-02-27 10:46 · Score: 1

Stay tuned for news at 7...

Re:Um. An? by prockcore · 2004-02-27 10:55 · Score: 1

Then there will be enough libre programmers to make decent libre IDEs etc, and the proprietary Java will wither away (and Sun with it).

Sun won't wither away, but the proprietary java might.

Anyone who's ever tried to compile something on solaris would agree that the GNU tools are far superior to Sun's compiler tools.

If the libre java is to java as gcc is to cc, then I'd say good riddance.

Re:Um. An? by ajagci · 2004-02-27 10:55 · Score: 1

In other words, there will be an open source java implementation, but you can bet your bottom dollar there will be better tools and IDEs for the closed version initially.

Since the better tools and IDEs are already open source, that prediction is guaranteed not to come true.

Sun's unsuccessful monkeying around with IDEs and tools for Java is itself a strong indication that Sun is just not up to it.

Wrong by roman_mir · 2004-02-27 10:55 · Score: 1

I will be taking credit for this!

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Um. An? by ajagci · 2004-02-27 10:58 · Score: 1

An OSS version that comes with no support and little in the way of guarantees. A commercially licensed version that does.

Oh, goodie, I'd want to run Sun's commercially supported Java about as much as I want to run Solaris or Sun's C compiler.

IBM virtual machines by roca · 2004-02-27 11:10 · Score: 5, Informative

I work at IBM. I've been authorized to say the following to clear up a few misconceptions:

IBM has 3 systems that can execute Java programs:
- The oldest JVM is the base for the current generation of products and is derived from Sun code, but contains significant changes to the JIT and garbage collector. See
https://www6.software.ibm.com/dl/lxdk/lxdk-p
- A newer product JVM (internally called J9) was developed from an IBM code base. See http://www.ibm.com/software/wireless/wme/features. html
- A third (Jikes RVM) has been developed principally for research use and is written in Java. It is an existing open source project that uses GNU Classpath libraries and is popular with JVM researchers. It is not complete, mostly because Classpath is not complete. It is capable, with only the Classpath libraries, of running substantial programs such as Eclipse. See http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/jikesrvm/

Your ideas intrigue me... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 11:18 · Score: 0

...and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

ESR has really hurt the OSS community by njcoder · 2004-02-27 11:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this but it has to be said.

No, ESR's comparison of stock price aren't what did it. They just made him look like an idiot, but his statements really put into question the benefits of open source software.

First, there are open source versions of Java. The problem is, as they are now, they are no where near as good as the "commercial" implementations. ESR begging Sun to open source Java is pretty much an admittion that the open source community cannot develop on it's own something as good as what Sun has developed.

Java is a very popular language. Look at the statistics, more people are using Java than most other free languages such as perl and php. More companies are looking for people with Java experience rather than other languages as well including python. This is fact and I've linked to articles that show the statistics. We're not talking about small differences but orders of magnitude.

What ESR, and others in the OSS community are saying is "Give us Java or we won't use it and you'll suffer". How is this not extortion? As many people that actually work with Java on different platforms can tell you, it is possible ot develop on linux with Java. You don't have to pay anything to do it though you just can't distribute the JDK and JSDK free.

This isn't the first time that ESR made promises that OSS would help a company/technology. Look at netscape. ESR lobbied very hard in the OSS community to get people to join the mozilla project in the beginning. That never really happened. While people do help Mozilla now, it didn't benefit Netscape. Mozilla has also failed to even surpass Netscapes puny browser market share. The OSS model does not always work and ESR has helped prove this.

What has the open sourcing of Netscape done? It's given the OSS community a free commercial software package. What did Netscape gain? Nothing. If Netscape (and related partners/owners) didn't finance the mozilla project for so long, Mozilla wouldn't even be where it is today.

What about OpenOffice? Would it be where it is today if it wasn't developed as a commercial project, then bought and open sourced? Do ANY of the completely open source office suites come close to doing what OO.org does? No they don't. And you're kidding yourselves if you think they do.

It's not to hard to read between the lines and see that if OSS really did work, then they wouldn't need Sun to set Java free. If OSS did work, Gnu Classpath would be a lot further along than it is today.

Are there exceptions to this? Apache is a great OSS project but how would it have turned out if it didn't get the corporate support it did? The Linux kernel? The mother of all OSS projects. Does this now give validity to SCO's claim that OSS can't do it alone and does need help from a successful commercial entity? (How SCO thinks they are a successful commercial entity is another matter) I don't believe SCO has a valid claim but ESR's letter doesn't help at all.

If OSS was so great, they wouldn't need Sun to release Java, they would have made their own OSS Java that people would want to use. But they haven't. They're working on it. But it's not there yet. According to ESR they need the boost of Sun's source code. Tell this to the GCJ team. I think they'd be quite put off by it.

Now how can one claim that the OSS community will do great things for you? It just doesn't make any sense.

It's also clear that the majority of people don't contribute to OSS projects, they just use them. Most don't even participate in improving the project by submitting bugs.

I think the OSS community is finally realizing that Java is an important technology. They want to start taking advantage of Java. But the current licensing goes against their Free Software values. My suggestion is this, download and install java. It's pretty easy. Download and install tomcat and start working with the technoligies. I think you'll be very plea

--
Open Source Java DAO Generator

Re:ESR has really hurt the OSS community by AigariusDebian · 2004-02-27 12:23 · Score: 1
Instead of modding you, one should talk and explain and that is what I'll try to do here.

First, there are open source versions of Java. The problem is, as they are now, they are no where near as good as the "commercial" implementations. ESR begging Sun to open source Java is pretty much an admittion that the open source community cannot develop on it's own something as good as what Sun has developed.

At this point I cann't tell from my own experience, so I'll heve to reiterate what prockcore said before on Java API stability: "There's also nothing preventing Sun from deprecating half the API on a whim.. in fact, they do that all the damn time."

This isn't the first time that ESR made promises that OSS would help a company/technology. Look at netscape. ESR lobbied very hard in the OSS community to get people to join the mozilla project in the beginning. That never really happened. While people do help Mozilla now, it didn't benefit Netscape. Mozilla has also failed to even surpass Netscapes puny browser market share. The OSS model does not always work and ESR has helped prove this.

Mozilla and it's derrivatives have surpassed Netscape market share. Not the one, when Netscape was dominating the market, but the market share Netscape had when it was Open Sourced has been surpassed long ago. It is also worth mentioning that it was hard for Open Source developers to use the code produced by Netscape because it was clumsy and badly written. I belive that Mozilla has been rewritten from scratch since then, and the only goal that Netscape code served for this was the focus point for the Open Source developers and some good money to support some of them.

What about OpenOffice? Would it be where it is today if it wasn't developed as a commercial project, then bought and open sourced? Do ANY of the completely open source office suites come close to doing what OO.org does? No they don't. And you're kidding yourselves if you think they do.

KOffice and Gnome Office, to name two, have surpassed OpenOffice in usability and speed and have long surpassed the funcionality of StarOffice 5.x. Again, most of the OpenOffice has been remade, rewritten, refactored to work properly.

What Sun should do is get rid of some of the stupid things in their license.

Like making it DFSG compilant? Isn't this to contradiction to the rest of your comment?

What IBM might consider sponsoring Debian in some way so that a highly optimized java platform can be developed for Debian. Suse has licensed the source from Sun for this very purpose. With debian gaining ground in the server market this would be a great thing to have.

That could only work in one of these four ways:
1. Sun makes Java Open Source by releasing it under a common Open Source licence (DFSG compilant)
2. Sun makes Java Open Source by relaxing it's own licence (and making it DFSG compilant)
3. IBM funds GJC or Kaffe development
4. IBM funds separate Open Source Java project
The article is about IBM helping Sun to do 1. or 2. move.
Moves 3 and 4 alienate IBM and Sun, and Open Source and Sun. This would be a very bad move for everyone.

(Ob. Debian - despite my nick and email, I only speak for myself and not the Debian project)
Re:ESR has really hurt the OSS community by njcoder · 2004-02-27 13:56 · Score: 1

"There's also nothing preventing Sun from deprecating half the API on a whim.. in fact, they do that all the damn time."
That's just silly. First of all. Claiming sun deprecates API on a whim is false. Especially now with the JCP. What I have personally seen are api's deprecated when they were implemented initially in a way that didn't make sense. Hindsight is always 20/20. And when they do deprecate something. It's there for quite some time so that it doesn't kill your existing code until you get a chance to make changes. If you let people make changes they think don't are great but the Java community doesn't, they might fork their changes. Also what is the guarantee the OSS community won't one day decide. "Eh, we're tired of this Java thing." and stop supporting it? You don't have to search long to find examples of projects being abbandoned on sourceforge. The point is you don't like Sun having control and feel better when the OSS community has more of that control. The problem is that while OSS is making inroads, it is because people can get it for free or really cheap. Not because there is a team of global developers working on it. There are surveys all over the place that confirm this. Sun has credibility, Java has credibility, stop trying to pretend they don't or trying to tarnish their reputations.
Mozilla ...
Still... Where would mozilla be without Netscape? And what happened to the benefits for Netscape? Show me how OSS saved Netscape rather than got a hold of it's code and ran with it.
KOffice and Gnome Office, to name two, have surpassed OpenOffice in usability and speed and have long surpassed the funcionality of StarOffice 5.x
Ok, back in the slashbox we go. This contradicts what users seem to be saying even in kde-forum. Didn't StarOffice 5.0 come out in 98? That's like 6 years ago. Are you going to start bragging how KDE kicks the shit out windows 3.0 next? :) get real. If there's any office suite that's going to get people to be able to use linux as their main desktop (without having to keep a windows boot available) it's either going to be StarOffice (I think they're up to 7 now) or OpenOffice. This goes into the same ownership and loyalty that should be counter to the OSS culture. Rather than having Gnome Office KOffice and OpenOffice compete for the 2% they have in the market, there should me more colaboration in some areas so that as a whole they become better products and so that Linux can gain wider acceptance. It isn't that Apples sucked that allowed MS to win the desktop, it was the lack of good applications. Something as simple as everyone getting together and coming up with a standard file type handling system. Build a colaborative base and let each one add bells and whistles. Kind of like the eclipse and netbeans projects. This is not easy. This is one concept though that Java is working on. Having Java be open source would jeapordize that.
Again, this is a big problem with open source. You will always find more people willing to do something they claim is better from scratch than working with existing projects or investing the time to be able to seriously contribute to existing projects.
Like making it DFSG compilant? Isn't this to contradiction to the rest of your comment?
Uhm.. no. I specifically said I don't think that would work. The fear has to go away of using something in the non-free section. non-free doesn't mean you have to pay for it. It means that you can't plant your flag on it. I meant more things regarding indemnity, distribution, auto-updating etc. Though that might be enough to get it into Debian easier, though it still won't be "Free".
Some of you really need to take a good hard look around you and realize where things are, not where they think they are.
Java has a great deal of penetration in the enterprise. Rather than OSS asking Java to join open up... linux vendors should realize, just like IBM d

--
Open Source Java DAO Generator

Re:Um. An? by Tony-A · 2004-02-27 11:37 · Score: 1

Then there will be enough libre programmers to make decent libre IDEs etc, and the proprietary Java will wither away (and Sun with it).

Actually, that is what you do not want.

IBM's customers don't wnat AIX or Linux, they want AIX and Linux.
Similarly, we don't want free or proprietary Java, we want free and proprietary Java.

Symbiosis can be described as mutual parasitism. It's not a mutual agreement among equals, it's a very lop-sided agreement among non-equals that happens to be vastly beneficial to all sides. You should see some of the beginnings of this in the Star/Open Office scene. If it can be done without bungling it too badly, both sides gain what would otherwise be an impossible advantage. Note that this has to do with the entire infrastructure, not just the sequence of bits that make up the programs.

Methinks that pushed to their respective limits, Proprietary reads like "I paid good money for this. I am unhappy with it. Make me happy.", while Libre reads like "You have the source. Fix it yourself and send us the patch. If we like it (the patch) we might even put in the next release.".
That's when you discover that Theo is really a sweet kindly soul ;-)
Even if the sequence of bits is identical, the extremes are not only worlds apart but each would suffer immensely if its opposite were to vanish.

Sun Sucks by SQLz · 2004-02-27 11:41 · Score: 1, Interesting

I've been modded down before and I'll get modded down again, Sun sucks and so does their 'no we love linux, no we don't' attitude.

Re:Um. An? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 11:49 · Score: 0

It benefits Sun because A) it keeps Free Software advocates off their backs

What a great reason. Sun has free software advocates "on their back" because the software or licensing of the software is not the way that the advocates would like? I'm sure the only reason Sun is even considering this move, is to increase their bottom line (or name recognition). But I'm sure that if it comes down to A) Pleasing the Free Software advocates, or B) Running their business the way their customers/shareholders/etc, they will say screw free software.

Re:Um. An? by njcoder · 2004-02-27 11:51 · Score: 1

you really need to read what was said. IBM did not say you give us the spec will give you our code. They said they'd both contribute code.

--
Open Source Java DAO Generator

Re:Um. An? by cdc179 · 2004-02-27 11:57 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Umm, not hard to find...take another look there are pics in the presentation: Navigation:

Projects -> The Eclipse Project -> Eclipse Project Slide Presentation

http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/presentation/eclips e-slides_files/v3_document.htm

This took less than a min to find, what's your problem?! Crack?!

niche by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 11:59 · Score: 0

Shops that refuse to consider anything open source are probably about as plentiful as shops that refuse to consider anything that ISNT open source. Both are niches that can be safely ignored.

This is an IBM move against Microsoft by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2004-02-27 12:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is nothing more than a move by IBM against Microsoft. It's all about positioning, as far as I can tell. IBM realizes that .NET is going to be huge in the future. The main competition to .NET is Java and if Java can be improved it might actually compete well against MS's .NET.

The question is whether Sun will buy into this. There are some advantages to Sun but there are also some disadvantages. One immediate advantage to Sun is that IBM push into the enterprise environment can help Java tremendously.

I'm going to get flamed for saying this but, if the status quo is retained, I think .NET will vaporize Java out of existence. I neither work with Java nor .NET (this isn't even my area) but I don't see many reasons why a neutral like me would pick Java over .NET these days.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)

Re:This is an IBM move against Microsoft by DrDebug · 2004-02-27 13:44 · Score: 1

I think your view that IBM is positioning is absolutely correct-- and congrats on being the first to recognize it as such. If Sun works with IBM it will only be because they want to nip this '.NET' thing in the bud.

This will all play out much more shortly...
Re:This is an IBM move against Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 14:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't understand why you seem so sure that .NET will take Java out. There are a lot of people who already know Java and don't have reason to leave.
On top of that, a lot of universities use Java as the teaching language for CSE, making Java the language of choice for many recent graduates. It's funny how familiarity works.

And I don't think MS can pay schools to use .NET instead since even my heavily MS influenced school abandoned MSVC++ for Java.

I attend the University of Washington, where we have buildings named Paul Allen, Mary Gates and William Gates (who is also on our board of regents). I mean we're as close to sold as you get.
Re:This is an IBM move against Microsoft by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2004-02-27 18:46 · Score: 1

.NET probably isn't that hard to pick up. Its main languages are basically derived from existing languages (like C++ and VB). A programmer in an object-oriented language (like C++) can just as easily pick up .NET as Java. In any case, businesses don't care about languages; they care about what is best for their client. If .NET is thought to be better than Java then they will surely go that route.

I think .NET will dominate because it seems to have better performance and features. I don't work in this field but Java always had problems with GUI stuff, or anything client related. With .NET, I imagine web apps will be much better than Java. In addition, Microsoft is backing .NET (obviously doh! :) ). This means powerful marketing and sales behind it. Sun isn't in the same league when it comes to influencing decision makers in large enterprises.

Finally, MS has a better IDE than Java (although I haven't worked with Java in years so maybe it's different now). One of the reason MS dominates programming is because of its IDE, namely MS Visual Studio. Linux, Unix, and Solaris just don't have such a productive environment. This is also why I think C# will become very popular, even though it is a proprietary language limited to specific systems (as opposed to things like C++, Java, etc which are open).

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)

Re:Um. An? by D-Cypell · 2004-02-27 12:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Absolutely!

I use IDEA for all of my Java development. Other members on my team tend to use Eclipse.

What im finding is that most of the features that exist in IDEA exist in Eclipse, but its just not as polished. Infact, after working with visual studio .net doing some C# development I can also say that the IntelliJ people could teach Microsoft a thing or two also.

An argument I hear often is "But Eclipse is free software, you support free software right?". Yes I do support free software but it is a benefit and not an ends in itself (or at least it should be Mr Stallman!). I will use the best tools I can find to help me do my job, there is often a maximum price (depending on budget) but no minimum. If the best is also free GREAT... party at my place, but given the choice between the right tool and a modest price and the wrong tool for free, I know what I would choose.

Not to say Eclipse is the wrong tool, but IDEA helps my development more than eclipse does and the offset justifies the price.

Re:Um. An? by coopaq · 2004-02-27 12:19 · Score: 1

That's right folks: If it sounds bizaar and seems odd and strange and unlikely, but is making headlines...

Well making headlines and keeping the public aware is the most important step. Free adverstising for Sun and IBM and Java.

Now that they are in the limelight MS will have to pump the marketing machine to make sure people realize C# is there.

I've seen how IBM and Sun interact. You know the outcome of this exercise already.

NeWS by jefu · 2004-02-27 12:41 · Score: 1

I talked to someone at Sun about making NeWS open source in the mid nineties and was stonewalled about it pretty badly.

I'd love to see it become open source - if for no other reason than to give people who want to consider alternatives to X another data point to look at. After all it has much of what seems to be a problem for some of the folks who dislike X - stroked fonts to provide for anti-aliasing, a way to build a basic toolkit in the server - and a toolkit that is very flexible - and it does provide for networked windowing for those of us who like that. As a further temptation I think that 3D extensions could be built into the postscript model and used quite efficiently.

C++ with WxWidgets by Futurepower(R) · 2004-02-27 12:56 · Score: 0, Offtopic

For those who use GUIs, Java is not cross-platform. Java requires Java to be installed, and it isn't installed on recent copies of Windows. "Cross-platform" is not completely true.

I haven't been doing (much) cross-platform programming, but I'm intense about finding an acceptable way. I predicted the downfall of Novell long before it happened, and now I'm predicting that Linux will eventually become the only commonly used desktop OS, due to the fact that Microsoft managers do not seem to be able to find a way to live in the world without being abusive. Now is not the time to write a lot of Microsoft-specific code.

C++ with WxWidgets (formerly WxWindows until they were threatened by Microsoft) seems the best way.

However, the real answer is for Java to become useful for those who need extensive GUIs and fast execution. It's obvious that Java is on the right track. Programmers of business applications don't want to worry about memory allocation.

Re:C++ with WxWidgets by severoon · 2004-02-27 22:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Right now I won't use Java because I write GUI intensive applications that are slow and quirky in Java.
When was the last time you wrote a GUI in Java? I don't find them slow or quirky at all for the last few years.
For those who use GUIs, Java is not cross-platform. Java requires Java to be installed, and it isn't installed on recent copies of Windows. "Cross-platform" is not completely true.
Um...having to install Java on the client doesn't mean it's not cross-platform. Not having to recompile the class files you distribute makes it cross-platform. And you can, indeed, do this with Java. I think perhaps the reason you don't like Java is because you don't understand its benefits and features, possibly?
sev

--
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Re:C++ with WxWidgets by fucksl4shd0t · 2004-03-03 22:47 · Score: 1

This is completely off-topic, but here's a link to an article that resulted from a previous discussion we had.
Windows vs Linux, which is easier to Install?
I'm not ready for a slashdotting, so please, nobody submit this unless you can get it mirrored on a big site that can take the slashdotting.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

Re:Um. An? by smittyoneeach · 2004-02-27 13:06 · Score: 1

Though I hope Sun doesn't die

No, Severian will bring a new one. Stay tuned.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 13:08 · Score: 0

This is the big danger to open sourcing Java, the specter of the Microsoft Windows monopoly. If Java had been open source six years ago, then most of the Windows world would have a J++ VM on their machines, and Sun's "version" of Java would be similar to Mozilla today. Java would probably still be the dominant force on the enterprise, but then again maybe .NET would have Enterprise ActiveX Beans...

Linux/GPL community into native, not WORA? by PRR · 2004-02-27 13:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

If Java goes GPL it may obviously attract a lot of folks from the Linux community. However, the Linux community has a lot of emphasis on C (and C++) coders who are into native compilation. Sun's agenda has been for Java to be "WORA" with lots of emphasis on VM's, bytecode, etc.

Will Java going GPL open up the floodgates to lots of Linux C/C++ coders who are more into native compilation, and not Sun's "WORA" agenda of VM's and bytecode?

{Evil Cackle} by stealth.c · 2004-02-27 14:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've recently heard about the Microsoft video from Comdex parodying the Matrix pill scene. Gates presents Ballmer with a small red pill with a Windows logo, and an "IBM/LINUX" pill the size of a football (something about it being "hard to swallow").

Aggressive moves by IBM to opensource things as important as Java are no surprise to me (It would be a sort of poetic justice after MS tried to bastardize it). I can easily see the industry as a whole ganging up on Microsoft. For IE alone, Gates deserves to be glove-slapped, Bugs Bunny style.

What, I wonder, would(will?) Microsoft do when their backs are thoroughly against the wall? Would they realize the flaws in their reasoning and throw their resources into creating something that truly bestows FREEDOM? Would they rev up the FUD machine until it overheats and explodes? Would they sob like horrified toddlers and pull a SCO?

The near future looks messy indeed, but in the end, bright. I hope Sun decides that IBM's idea is in their best interest. I like Sun. They've been doing their best, and need something to rejuvinate them. Opensourcing Java would at least give them colossal mindshare.
--

It'll be a kick in the groin for MS & .NET by JCCyC · 2004-02-27 14:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not only will the quality of JVMs and native compilers improve, but there will be a burst of news about Java, making people talk about it again. Good!

Sun's never been *opposed* to OS'ing Java, per se by rdean400 · 2004-02-27 14:47 · Score: 3, Informative

According to an interview I read some months ago (I forget where, so please forgive the lack of a link) with James Gosling, Sun has never been really opposed to open sourcing Java. They just haven't felt the inclination to work out the logistics of doing so.

Re:Um. An? by Wolfier · 2004-02-27 16:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Crack is not my problem, it is yours. Visit the link YOURSELF, and tell me they are screenshots.

There should be a simple, dedicated screenshot page not cumbered by noise such as descriptions of architecture, design, etc.

And, if a screenshot takes more than 5 seconds to find, it is too much.

Reverse Engineering/decompiling/GCJ by karlm · 2004-02-27 17:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

What sorts of business logic are you trying to hide? How are you doing it presently?

There are Java bytecode obfuscators out there that will foil at least some decompilers. Using a class file compressor that makes class, method, and field names as short as possible will make the decompiled Java bytecode about as useful as dissasembled native code.

If you're relying on nobody being able to decompile your code, native compilers won't help you much. Native code can be disassembled.

Most companies don't even strip their native binaries before shipping them. Reverse-engineering is a non-issue for most companies or else they realize that it takes far less energy to break most ant-reverse-engineering measures than it takes to create them.

Decompiling is really a non-issue for 99.9% of potential users.

I've used GCJ some before and lurked a little on its developer's mailing list. GCJ is just another front-end to GCC. GCC has a C front-end, a C++ front-end, a Fortran 77 front-end, etc. The "source code" GCJ takes in is either Java byte code or Java source code and generates RTL code. The GCC back end then translates the RTL code into native code just like it would if you had started with C++ code (Java objects are treated almost identically to C++ objects internally). libgcj is simply a native Java runtime just like libc is a native C runtime. libgcj contains code for all of the Java 1.1 standard library. libgcj has things like System.out.println() whereas libc has things like fprintf().

GCJ "merely makes calls to libgcj" in the same sense that g++ merely makes calls to libstdc++. What is it exactly that you think a compiler and runtime system do?

Have you ever done any Win32 assembly programming? A good percentage of your code tends to end up looking like assembly glue code for a lot of the Win32 C library code.

libgcj does contain a java bytecode interpreter because it needs to be able to load and run arbitrary class files at runtime that might not be available at compile time. However, it would be much much slower than a modern JIT JVM if it interpreted all of the classes.

GCJ binaries might even be a little harder than g++ binaries to reverse-engineer due to the automatic garbage collector jumping in and taking you on tangents every once in a while.

--
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.

Re:Sun's never been *opposed* to OS'ing Java, per by rdean400 · 2004-02-28 05:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Here is a link to a Computerworld interview with James Gosling. I don't think it's the one I read, but it says a similar thing.

In other news... by egon · 2004-02-28 05:26 · Score: 1

...the RIAA has announced it is considering distributing songs from all its artists for free. Donations will be accept and all monies collected this way will go directly to the artists.

--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Light him on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life

Microsoft wouldn't touch it with a barge pole by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-28 10:26 · Score: 0

If MS fork GPL Java and make their own additions.

1) They will be acknowledging and vindicating the GPL which will undermine their Windows vs Linux arguments.

2) They will be acknowledging and vindicating Java which will undermine their .NET vs Java arguments.

3) They will not be able to write proprietary software using it (unless they pay Sun for a commercial licensed version which won't allow them to embrace and extend it).

Microsoft wouldn't touch it with a barge pole

Dumbass moderator--parent was funny... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-29 09:56 · Score: 0

Jackasses, the guy in the parent was being funny--ever hear of hell freezing over?

Hopefully, I'll get this on meta-mod. Moderators lately have been doing a shitty ass job.

Slashdot Mirror

Sun Agrees to Talk to IBM over Open Sourcing Java

451 comments