Slashdot Mirror
Sun Agrees to Talk to IBM over Open Sourcing Java
comforteagle writes "Sun has agreed to meet with IBM to further discuss the issue of open sourcing Java with them. 'Sun is closely evaluating the effectiveness of the process.' Could Sun be coming around to actually doing this?"
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
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.
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.
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
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].*'
Other
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
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."
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
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.
A petition has just been launched.
((lambda x ((x))) (lambda x ((x))))
You just answered your own question. The fact that it's a memory hog plays a great part in Java's slowness.
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.
Slackware 9.1 comes pre-installed with Sun's JDK 1.4....is it in violation or what?
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
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.
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(); }
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.
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.
There are at least two games that use Java for processing their game logic: Vampire: The Masquerade - Redemption and Chrome released last year.
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.
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
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.
- The Java language is an open specification -- you are free to implement it.
- Sun/IBM are thinking about releasing an open-source implementation.
- An open-source implementation by definition has an open-source license.
- Any Java implementation is a platform because it provides a runtime environment, libraries etc.
- 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.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
C# and .NET are already being given a "run for their money". J2EE is used more than .NET. Don't believe the MS hype.
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
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.
/usr/ports/lang/python && make install clean?
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
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?
From the license: (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software. I don't think "Hello World" satisfies this clause.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, on the contrary.
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge sun-j2sdk
That should get the 1.4.2 J2SDK just fine.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
I work at IBM. I've been authorized to say the following to clear up a few misconceptions:
. html
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
- 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/
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
Absolutely!
.net doing some C# development I can also say that the IntelliJ people could teach Microsoft a thing or two also.
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
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.
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.
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.