Slashdot Mirror
McNealy Answers: No Open Source Java
comforteagle writes "Sun CEO Scott McNealy has finally answered the long awaited question that has been on the minds of open source and Java developers. Will Sun open source Java? No. He stated today that Sun sees no solution solved from open sourcing Java that isn't already addressed."
Look at perl for example. Do you think it would be where it is today if it were closed source? It would probably be some hack that about 2 guys use. But no, it's on the standard distribution of just about any UNIX-like OS out there, and many websites use mod perl with Apache to get some great results (including /.)...
Imagine where Java would be if it were open sourced. I think that most desktop software could even be developed for Java and run the same on any platform. No more Microsoft monopoly. You could buy a program and run it on OS X, Linux, Windows, or whatever. How? By being open sourced, it would probably become so efficient and powerful that nobody would want to waste their time natively compiling stuff for this system or that.
Yeah man, he's making a big mistake.
Why would you need an open source Java?
Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default. This greatly limits the usefulness of Java as a general development language for Linux applications. They are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
It is sad that they don't want to open up java, but really, in the end, it comes down to business strategy. And at this point in time, it just doesn't make good business sense for Sun to throw away their last trump card.
Sun has quite a history of inventing new interfaces, then abandoning them because competing open standards achieved more traction in the marketplace. If they're not careful, C# will do exactly that.
I have to accept that. Plus I really do not see what has to gain from making Java Opensource. Sun is still a corporate entity looking to make profit. If they had made a different decision I really doubt that their stock owners would have held on to them
Wouldn't you say that religious fervor is preventing those distros from realizing the benefits of a very good language?
Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default. This greatly limits the usefulness of Java as a general development language for Linux applications.
Doesn't that say more about Linux than it does about Sun?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
So once again the question comes up... Is Sun a hardware company or software company? They sure aren't doing hot in either arena...
One of the big problems with Java is the license. Here are some issues that real people have faced:
1.) RedHat couldn't put a JVM in their desktop OS w/out including the Java license in anaconda and having the end user agree to it at install time. As a result, RedHat couldn't set up Netscape and Mozilla to run Java applets seamlessly and out of the box.
2.) FreeBSD couldn't include Sun's JDK in the ports tree out-of-the-box. An admin pays $$$ for cut CDs or spends time to download ISOs so that they don't have to do a network install. When they find go to build Java on FreeBSD they are told by the ports tree to go "agree to Sun's license and download the JDK from http://java.sun.com/blah/blah/blah". Not only is it annoying to have to download an extra component that isn't included on the ISO, it leaves a poor taste in the admins mouth for Java. And come on - admins are the last people developers want to irritate.
I can understand Sun's position with not open sourcing Java. Although relatively uninformed on the topic, I don't see any prevailing reason to make it open source - there are open source implementations of the JDK other than Sun's - go with them. But for cripes sake change the farking license.
It is a sad sad statement that I, as an enterprise java developer of 6 years, am unable to get applets to work appropriately on my Linux desktop.
Do it for da shorties
Is that Sun's problem or the Distro's problem?
Someone who doesn't know enough to install the JDK on their computer on their own from a package that is already included in their distro (just not in the 'free' section) probably wouldn't be able to develop in it. If you like java, you can install it, you can use it.
Maybe the linux distributors should be a little more open regarding what programs they would like to include.
Look at sourceforge. The number of open source projects written with java is huge.
It's not sun that's going to lose out by not open sourcing java. I'm not trying to sound negative. People are deploying java apps on linux all the time. Especially web applications.
It seems like the OS community wants sun to do it out of principle. None of the arguments made really hold up in my opinion.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
Because many distros will not ship [Jave because it it] non-free software by default. They are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
They refers to the distros that are so caught up in the OSS religion that they won't ship a useful and decent free (as in beer) language because it's not fee (as in liberty), right?
everything in moderation
Why do people think making something Open Source is unanimously good? Indeed, in this case I think Open Sourc-ing Java would be a bad move. Java has a slew of sattelite ecosystems and things that are portrayed as "technologies" themselves. I think Java desperately needs a backbone on which those entites can rely on for stability. In fact I think this is why Java is a little too popular. Now days you cannot get a Java project without being required know J2EE, JNDI, JABC, JDEF, JJJ, and fifteen other acronyms. The whole thing has become an exercise in marketing. Now factor in the coup de gras of different permutations created by Open Source people and you're thuroughly confusing the situation.
Incedentally, isn't it strange how the Java API can evolve so much and yet despite the holes in POSIX no one has even considered changing it.
By all means, ask for x86 support. But DON'T KILL SUN. Now is not the time to ask for Java to be open sourced. It would be a good thing, however, to extract from them, some promise that as Java evolves, some earlier version can be open-sourced.
Actually this would not be a problem only with Linux, but even across other operating systems.
Like I indicated in another post, there is nothing to stop Microsoft from having their own "windows-only" forked version of Java. And nothing to stop from the GNU/Debian crowd to have their own "puritanical" version. And nothing to stop from IBM to have their own "enterprise-ready" version of Java.
If you notice, even in case of Linux, Linus and a handful of others actually maintain the core kernel code. In case of language, it would be difficult to have this kind of a central point of control - the forking would be really hard to control, and would only lead to more confusion and more complexity, not to mention serious incompatibility issues - all of which flies against the very principles that Java has been built on.
Here's the crux: what they're being asked to open source is something they make no money on ALREADY. They provide it for free (as in beer). It needs to be free (as in speech) so that it can ship in the default installs for all the Linux distributions. Ever since the fiaSCO, Linux distro providers have become even more vigilant about making sure software meets GPL compatibility requirements.
If sun followed the linux model - and key engineers at sun reviewed each change and made sure that it was ok to add to the release, and followed through everything openly, then it would work.
Your argument doesn't hold water. Where are all the forks of linux? Just because its a language does not mean it will fork and fracture. Perl isn't forked to hell. Nor is python. Nor are many open source languages.
If sun truly believed in open source (and I don't believe they do), then this would be a great step forward for them.
And McNealy's challenge to IBM to open source db2 is silly too; sun makes no money from selling java licenses (duh, they're free), where as IBM does make money from db2.
Just like there are dozens of incompatible versions of Python and Perl right?
There is something that is call historical momentium... if you show decent leadership at the start of an OSS project you most often won't be forked....
As long Sun didn't OS-it under a BSD license I doubt MS would touch it with a very long poll, doubley so now that they are pushing their own CShit.
You've never had to write code that compiles under multiple compilers for multiple platforms, have you?
One of the driving forces behind Java's evolution was the fragmentation of the C++ camp.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
If Sun suddenly dies (as many have been doing in the industry), who is left to maintain the code?
Don't say "Oh that won't happen." We've heard that before -- and it did. The question now is alot of their code "who's going to maintain/support it?"
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
You forget the fact that companies that have vested interests in killing Java *cough* a certain Seattle based company *cough* could use this against Java.
.Net? Microsoft has everything to gain by killing it - it would only more people to use their platform.
I'm NOT starting a flame war here - but Microsoft does not really consider Perl or Python to be a serious contender as Java.
What do you think really inspired Visual Studio
Right now, Java gives people the freedom of platform - if in any way killing it or changing it in a way that makes it beneficial to MSFT, they WILL do it.
There is something that is call historical momentium... if you show decent leadership at the start of an OSS project you most often won't be forked....
You won't be forked by Opensource folks - you maybe forked by corporates who benefit from killing Java or making it unusable.
Or restricting it to a select platform or two using popularity as a trump card. You know what am talking about here.
Care to explain how Java's license that forbids distribution the fault of the distributor?
I can't really see what Sun has to gain from open-sourcing Java either.
The open-source community is more than capable of building it's own Java clone e.g. Kaffe and supporting Java technologies e.g. gcj if it wants to, and Sun have every right to hold onto their Java implementation, if they feel it best suits their business goals.
I know I am quite happy using the Java packages provided by Sun and IBM, and agree with McNealy in that IBM should shut their mouth about open source Java unless they are prepared to open source their technologies as well.
Sun is most likely concerned, and rightly so, about the prospect of IBM pulling an 'Eclipse' on the core JVM.
IBM is a ruthless, anti-competitive mega-corporation, and it is easy to forget that in light of the SCO debacle etc., where they are portrayed as the good guys.
I dont think the community at large has any real stake in this particular battle - The Java standards are open, we are free to implement them in whatever way we see fit. If you want to see open source Java, then support the open source Java efforts like Kaffe, and leave Sun alone.
Normally, i'm quite a Sun-detractor, but I think in this case, they are being unfairly beaten up on about an issue that is quite clearly a non-issue.
If you want Java you can get it for free, and if you want to implement a VM that runs Java code, you are also free to do that, supported by detailed information and specification by Sun.
I doubt most of the people baying for blood over this issue would have any interest in improving Java were it to be released as open source, and it's not like there arent plenty of existant open source Java-related projects that couldn't do with your help anyway.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Remember the recent lawsuit over this exact issue of MS "extensions" of Java? In January 2001 MS settled that suit. Companies don't settle suits they're likely to win. Making Java open source would simply void the settlement. Check out this site: http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/
McNealy is a wise CEO not to give the competition the tools to destroy his company.
Python, Perl, Ruby, gcc, Gnome, KDE, the Linux kernel, GNU tools, etc.
Oh yeah, going nowhere because the Free and open source development model has stifled development.
Now wash your hands.
I think the one major benefit Sun would realize is *relevance* within the Linux community. OpenOffice is fully extensible via Java. What if the Linux desktops were as well? Java *should* be our answer to .net, and probably would be, if Java were opened. Since Java won't be opened, its going to be necessary to design and implement a competing solution. Is that what Sun needs? More competition?
Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
Let's say there was a fork, Sun holds the trademark to the Java name so said fork could not promote itself as "Java." If it did, it would have a lawsuit on its hands that is a guaranteed loss.
If it forked, it would become some other language, and people could decide to use it or not based on its merits. However, those in the Java camp would know where to look for the Java they want.
Furthermore, example proves this point. We have languages like Perl, Python, Ruby and countless others that are doing just fine in the open source world.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
(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.
That, for instance, does not sound like a term that any distro would be particularily happy with (or, in the case of a community effort like Debian, even possible).
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
"they" are almost every distro out there. And "they" do not include Java for pretty good, license-related reasons.
And no, this is Sun:s problem, not the distributions. A good deal of people that would have been using Java for their applications are instead happily using Python, Perl, C/C++ or, rarely but increasingly often,even Mono/C# for their development. Those people were Sun's to loose, and they did.
Right now we have the situation that even Sun is doing all their GNOME contributions in C/C++, as Java is not acceptable as part of the core desktop at this time (neither is Mono/C#, of course - no need to start a flamewar here). In fact, we will likely see Python (and maybe Perl) accepted as core technologies for the desktop (for both GNOME and KDE) long before we see Java - and by then, it may be too late for Java no matter what happens. Of course, that is a problem for Sun (and for dedicated Java developers), not for the distros or for the general user/developer population.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I also question the benefit to open source java. Microsoft Java? Maybe, but they built C# because Sun took them to task for violating their license, and creating a "write once, run on Microsoft" version. I don't really see any compelling arguments for making it open source. IBM, BlackBerry, and other java SDKs without an open source license, and there is a community process for submitting changes to the specs.
It's not just about specs. Implementations matter. If Sun's reference implementation isn't open source, the language isn't really free.
I can understand Sun's initial reluctance to open-source Java years ago -- Microsoft would have (probably successfully) embraced and extended Java, as they indeed tried to do. At the time, the closed license was beneficial.
Here's the compelling reason for Sun to open-source Java now -- Microsoft no longer has an incentive to embrace and extend Java. They've done an end-run around the Java license by reimplementing a virtually identical language and calling it C# instead of Java. Microsoft will keep pushing C# over Java, and they're already successfully stealing away significant mindshare from Java. Microsoft has proven their ability to (illegally) leverage their monopoly position to acquire new markets. I hate to say it, but in the battle of C# vs. Java, the smart money is probably on C# unless something changes.
Making the Sun reference implementation completely open-source would change the rules of the game. Microsoft might try to subvert it again, but there really wouldn't be any point; C# does the job equally well. More importantly, the rest of the industry would embrace Java even more than it already has, and it could serve to steal mindshare back from C# despite Microsoft's monopoly advantage. This is a compelling reason to do it.
"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM.
I have no doubt this remark was sarcastic on McNealy's part, but suppose IBM takes it seriously? If IBM wants Java open-sourced badly enough, would they consider making DB2 open-source as a sort of trade? If IBM responded with an offer to enter into a contract at Sun for both Java and DB2 to be open-sourced together (and conditionally on each other), would McNealy take IBM up on the offer? Or would he just find a new excuse to refuse to relinquish control over the code?
It seems that Sun still hasn't learned their lesson from the NeWS debacle of the late 80s. While NeWS was clearly superior technology at the time, X11 was free in every sense. And it mattered. NeWS fans (including me) could see the writing on the wall, and complained that Sun should make NeWS as free as X11. ("Open Source" wasn't a term coined yet, of course.) Of course, Sun refused, and NeWS died a slow and terrible death at the hands of an inferior (but free) competitor. Even now, Sun shows little interest in making NeWS free, when its value as an "asset" is zero. Will Sun maintain a similar deathgrip on Java until it too lands in the dustbins of history, while the world settles on C# instead of Java, as with X11 and NeWS?
Sun, learn from your mistakes. There was a time when Java's license prevented abuse by Microsoft, but that time has passed. C# is Microsoft's new approach to "embrace and extend" Java, and the only effective way to counter it is to make Java fully open-source now, before C# inexorably crushes Java. The writing is on the wall yet again -- don't let Java die the same lingering death that NeWS suffered!
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
There are numerous licenses in existence that would allow Sun to maintain their closed source product that probably would not be against RedHat policy.
.so file into your browser (rarely do the already compiled .so files line up with your browser version), put out a dozen or so different sub releases (JDK 1.4.2_03 build 13? come on...), and then watch with confused looks on their faces as Flash takes over the world of client side GUI development.
I think the crux of the issue with RedHat is that:
a.) Sun wants you to download Java only from Sun
b.) RedHat wants to redistribute Java via the RedHat end user license.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't understand why Sun can't just let "other people" (RedHat, FreeBSD, etc) distributed their binary code without checking in at Sun.com first.
As a java developer who earns an income based upon Java's success, I really want to see Java succeed on the desktop because it opens up more development avenues for me and other java developers. And I think that Sun has an interest in java succeeding on the desktop as well (their Java Desktop would seem to indicate this). With technologies like Flash that are so nice looking, so easy to install, and lots of times already integrated on your platform - you would think that Sun would be doing __everything_in_its_power__ to help foster the growth of java on the desktop.
I would think Java would be out there lobbying Dell and Compaq pumping them to install WebStart on their desktops. Or put in an up-to-date JRE into IE. Or . . . put in a stinking applet viewer into the Mozilla that ships with the Linux distro most commodity users install.
But they don't. Instead they sit back, come up with a dozen or so mime-types that represent a Java Applet, make it prohibitively difficult to install the correct
Come on Sun. Wake up! I want java to succeed on the desktop as much as you do. You guys clearly haven't figured out how to make Java pervasive - maybe us assclowns at home can figure it out. Just give up the EULA rights to Java so that one of us can figure out how to do, patch it into a vanilla distro (like Fedora), and let you reach the end users you've failed to reach since you came up with applets years ago.
There's nothing like knowing a solvable problem exists that you can't even begin to troubleshoot because some asshat lawyer somewhere wants you to sign their EULA instead of the one from another company (which is frequently the same stinking one).
Do it for da shorties
Sun does make money from Java. They license certification tools so that people can claim 100% Pure Java Certified and use the java logo. They make money from licensing the source code, they make money from licensing distribution rights for the JRE and JDK.
While you can distribute the JRE, you can only do so if you aren distributing it for the purpose of running your application.
You cannot distribute the JDK unless you pay for that right.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
I read this as SUN forbidding Debian to package their JVM in a Debian package.
do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software
This would mean Debian wouldn't be allowed to ship with gcj, Jikes RVM, JRockit, Kaffe or whatever. To me it sounds quite unreasonable for SUN to want to be able to veto what can go into Debian.
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
So SUN wants Debian to pay their legal fees? Silly Debian for not wanting to do that.
To me these terms sound quite unreasonable, I know I wouldn't want to adhere to them if I could decide what went into Debian.
Installed the Bubblemon yet?
Okay, look. There just isn't any point to having an open source Sun JVM.
.NET? To a barely-operable Mono or the much-hated Microsoft? I don't think so.
* The specs are open (the big problem with MS is that they work hard to make it a pain in the ass for anyone to make compatible software).
* The specs are all that should be needed. There is *tons* of open source software out there that is RFC-compliant. Guess what? The RFCs don't come with free, public domain reference implementations. They just describe a standard. For *decades*, people have been quite happy with a nice open standard. Who needs the source?
* Sun's JVM is good, but not great. There are lots of people working on JVMs out there -- there is *no lack* of open source JVMs. There must be at least thirty JVMs out there, not counting variations produced by a single company. AFAIK, IBM's JVM is the highest-performance thing out there (for Linux at least) and if we're demanding that something be open-sourced based on the fact that it's really good, I'd like to see IBM open-source theirs.
* It works fine. We have had no problems with the current system. Sun has not tried to leverage their JVM to screw people over, and I don't see how or why they'd do so in the future.
* There is no good alternative. What are people going to threaten Sun with, switching to
* There is a good set of tools to support Java out there.
* There are open-source alternatives that will probably take over eventually anyway. GCJ is slowly moving along. Why, aside from some kind of symbolism, do people care about using Sun's JVM? Just let GCJ get up to speed and get nice native-code Java builds. Instead of trying to beg for favors from Sun, why not work on GCJ? Sun probably spent more developing the language, docs, and marketing Java than they do developing their particular JVM implementation, anyway.
Given a choice between having Sun's JVM open source or not...yeah, sure, I'd prefer to have it open source. But if I really can't stand using a closed one, I can download Kaffe or one of the other JVMs on freshmeat. I'm not going to avoid Java because one JVM happens to be closed-source. If I avoid Java, it would be for high resource usage and issues with the language, not for some silly political issue.
May we never see th
Interesting that you keep getting more mod points for funny, even though, as earlier replies to you have pointed out, your joke is wrong by at least 33 years or so. Java on java has existed for years.
:-)
The porting will be done by Sun's Java team using a Java IDE and Java compilers on thin-client boxes powered by Java.
The fascinating thing is that these things all exist and are developing at a furious pace.
McNealy answered, "You are missing the point."
Well, a lot of people on Slashot seem to be missing McNealy's point, so I guess that makes things even.
The source for Java is available for download. You are free to make a Java clone, as long as you don't call it Java (just like Microsoft has done with C#/.Net). You can join the Java Community Project and influence how Java is developed. Are the possible risks for Sun worth what little more Sun could gain by Open Sourcing it? Doubtful.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
This naswer from McNealy should surprise no one. McNealy has never been a fan of or actively cooperated with any initiative that didn't give Sun a proprietary edge and hopefully, some control.
Do people remember the "Open SPARC" fiasco. SPARC was going to be open. Anyone could build systems that were compatible and run Sun's OS. Well, such systems got built. Resellers started carrying the systems because they were eqyual to SUn's and cheaper. McNealy closed done the initiative.
Remember how Sun fought against Motif? It did everything it could to kill it (except share its technology) and then "discoverd" and adopted Motif when more than 50% of its customers had switched to Motif, rejected Sun's solution and were demanding Sun provide support.
Remember how Sun's attemp to control UNIX, with its AT&T deal forced its competitors to form the Open Software Foundation and actually cooperate (for a while).
Remember that Sun built an x86 verison of its OS and was selling it. As the Intel platform became a serious server challenge to Sun's proprietary hardware, Sun dropped the product.
Get the idea? Expect no cooperation from McNealy. And, if he ever seecooperating, be VERY, VERY, VERY suspicious.
Java currently has several core implementations
Sun, Blackdown (OSS), IBM
J2EE has several implementations
SAP, Oracle, IBM, Sun, JBoss(OSS), BEA etc
J2ME has several implementations
Sun, SavaJE etc etc
How come there is only one Linux Kernel that is recognised ? Is it because the JCP with its reference implementations and verification kits creates a more open environment than Linux can hope to.
Lets put it this way... why is 802.11b/g etc successful ? Because its open source, or because there is an OPEN STANDARD with defined compliance kits ?
Java is like 802.11 & Ethernet... a success by being an Open Standard. Its only the implementations that should be OSS, like Blackdown and JBoss already are.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi