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?"

Comments

Not very important for me

[Zo0ok]

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

[----]

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

[gusmao]

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

[plams]

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

[goodviking]

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

[Delirium Tremens]

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

[SalsaDoom]

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

Re:Not very important for me

[aled]

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."

Re:Not very important for me

[jocknerd]

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

[bogado]

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.

Re:Not very important for me

[sperling]

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.

Re:Not very important for me

[Hast]

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

[BaronAaron]

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

[avante]

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

[AvitarX]

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.

Re:Not very important for me

[lauterm]

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

[er_col]

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

[Electrum]

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

[Angst Badger]

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?)

Re:Not very important for me

[Pieroxy]

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

Re:Not very important for me

[Shirov]

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

[leomekenkamp]

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!

Re:Not very important for me

[mcc]

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???

Re:Not very important for me

[scheme]

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.

Re:Not very important for me

[SchnauzerGuy]

Actually, for many common tasks, Java is equal to or slower at than several scripting languages, such as Lua or Python.

Benchmarks:

• Count Lines/Words/Chars
• String Concatenation
• Word Frequency
• Hashes

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

[Rui Lopes]

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!!!

Re:Not very important for me

[maxgilead]

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

[javaxman]

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

[Lobo_Louie]

I agree!;
// No, I really mean you suck!

// Just joking

Re:Not very important for me

[JPriest]

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

Re:Not very important for me

[Arker]

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.

Re:Not very important for me

[Christ-on-a-bike]

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

[BenBenBen]

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

Re:Not very important for me

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Not very important for me

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Srin Tuar]

>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

[Tony-A]

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

[LousyPhreak]

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.

Re:Not very important for me

[Mornelithe]

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).

Re:Not very important for me

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Electrum]

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

[mcc]

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.

Re:Not very important for me

[MountainLogic]

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

[Angst Badger]

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++.

Re:Not very important for me

[leomekenkamp]

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.

Re:Not very important for me

[tigeba]

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

[Moraelin]

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.

Re:Not very important for me

[dkf]

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!

Re:Not very important for me

[vegetasaiyajin]

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).

Re:Not very important for me

[nehril]

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.

Um. An?

[ackthpt]

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.

I think it only makes sense

[robslimo]

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

[aled]

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?).

Re:I think it only makes sense

[Christ-on-a-bike]

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.

Sun reply

[Espectr0]

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

Microsoft's Stand?

[GTsquirrel42]

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?

Re:Microsoft's Stand?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[captain_craptacular]

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...

Re:Just wondering

[bhsx]

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.

Re:Just wondering

[bc90021]

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.

Re:Just wondering

[microbox]

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?

Re:Just wondering

[allelopath]

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

[nolife]

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.

Re:Um. An?

[cynicalmoose]

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.

Sounds good

[BCW2]

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.

Re:Sounds good

[TrebleJunkie]

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.

If done right...

[brasten]

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 could be very good indeed

[seldolivaw]

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

[Short Circuit]

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.

Re:This could be very good indeed

[greg_barton]

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:Um. An?

[tesmako]

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...

[cnelzie]

...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.

Stop beating up Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Swamii]

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.

Re:Stop beating up Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[swillden]

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.

Re:Um. An?

[smackjer]

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.

Re:Um. An?

[lpp]

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

[almaon]

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

[jared_hanson]

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.

Re:Mad Hatter

[Christ-on-a-bike]

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?

[ackthpt]

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.

Crossing my fingers!

[provoix]

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.

Talk is cheap

[Pig Hogger]

Saying that "one might talk" is even cheaper.

Re:Um. An?

[Short Circuit]

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.

Took them long enough

[InsaneGeek]

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

[Albanach]

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

[Endive4Ever]

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

[InsaneGeek]

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.

NOT free enough

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[BigGerman]

>>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

[Joseph Lam]

Slackware 9.1 comes pre-installed with Sun's JDK 1.4....is it in violation or what?

Re:NOT free enough

[dsouth]

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

[Guillermito]

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

[pyros]

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

[LousyPhreak]

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]

Re:NOT free enough

[pyros]

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

[gnu-generation-one]

>>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:Brain dead moderator alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

GCJ - The gnu compiler for java

[stripmarkup]

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.

Re:GCJ - The gnu compiler for java

[tdrury]

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

[javatips]

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.

Quite important for me

[qortra]

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

[v01d]

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

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

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.

Open Source

[jefu]

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

[aanantha]

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.

Probably too little, too late

[ShatteredDream]

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.

Re:Probably too little, too late

[petabyte]

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

[Tim C]

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.

IBM may already have Java libraries ready...

[kbonin]

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...

[javaxman]

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:Um. An?

[squiggleslash]

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.

Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

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:this would be great...

[Liselle]

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

Re:Um. An?

[Wateshay]

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

Not a lot to read into this

[ArchAngelQ]

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

[just fiddling around]

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.

Sure they might

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[javaxman]

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

[nereid666]

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?

Petition

[nepheles]

A petition has just been launched.

Re:Petition

[/dev/trash]

Oh joy.

I just voted 8 times for this. I am sure Sun will take it into serious consideration!

Yay!

[Gorath99]

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.

No they can't

[qortra]

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:Um. An?

[ackthpt]

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.)

Re:Um. An?

[RdsArts]

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?

[vensonOnSlashdot]

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?

[4r0g]

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.

Finally get a good cross-platform GUI?

[Gr8Apes]

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.

Java / .NET / Strict OOP

[DelawareBoy]

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

[eggcozy]

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

[Mr. Piddle]

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!

Open source vs. open season

[NullAndVoid]

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.

Re:Brain dead moderator alert!

[jilles]

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.

Re:this would be great...

[Liselle]

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...

Where has Sun ACTUALLY said this anywhere

[jg21]

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

[dmnic]

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

Re:Um. An?

[Wolfier]

An GUI application's website is useless without screenshots

why?

[kpharmer]

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.

Too little?

[greg_barton]

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

[agslashdot]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Good for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[dietz]

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Reminds me that scene on Friends...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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."

NeWS as Open Source? (offtopic)

[Deven]

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...

Read the Article Closely

[MeauxToo]

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

[solprovider]

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.

Re:Sun and IBM Questions

[Tim C]

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...

IBM , troll or Arch angel?

[xot]

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.)

Money

[TooTechy]

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!

Hopefully, this will help improve J2EE...

[Xardion]

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

[dmeranda]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Let Java Go!

[pants1973]

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!

[easter1916]

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!

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

I'll join an open source effort

[taj]

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.

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Too Free?

[cheezit]

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.

Java, ok.

[caffeinefiend]

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.

[ilctoh]

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.

It's realism, not idealism.

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

[FatherOfONe]

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.

Re:It's realism, not idealism.

[Alex]

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

Don't people remember Visual J++?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Um. An?

[Kupek]

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.

Re:Gentoo too

[Nasarius]

Oh, on the contrary.

ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge sun-j2sdk

That should get the 1.4.2 J2SDK just fine.

Portability: Java vs Python

[axxackall]

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.

Re:Portability: Java vs Python

[greg_barton]

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."

IBM virtual machines

[roca]

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/

ESR has really hurt the OSS community

[njcoder]

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

This is an IBM move against Microsoft

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

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

Re:This is an IBM move against Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Um. An?

[D-Cypell]

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.

Linux/GPL community into native, not WORA?

[PRR]

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}

[stealth.c]

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

[JCCyC]

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

[rdean400]

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?

[Wolfier]

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

[karlm]

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.

Re:C++ with WxWidgets

[severoon]

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

Re:Sun's never been *opposed* to OS'ing Java, per

[rdean400]

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.