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."

Comments

Fearless Sun Leader pokes at IBM

[airConditionedGypsy]

from:

http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/25400-1.html

"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM

Re:Fearless Sun Leader pokes at IBM

[randyest]

I would love to IBM put it's neck on the line by open sourcing one of there own "prized" products like DB2. Actually that would kick ass. That would show a great deal of committment and not just be playing lip service about open source.

OK, but you're ignoring his point. Presumably you (or whoever) is hassling Sun to open source Java but isn't hassling IBM to open source anything it invented. Yet, I guess this year/month/week, we like IBM (SCO seals that, in a way). But we're mad at Sun for not open-sourcing Java. But we can't say what, exactly, we will gain from open-source Java that we don't have now (other than the ability to fork or otherwise hassle Sun with dilution and increased risk of being MS-swamped).

So, someone please tell me what we are missing out on by not having Java source code?

How would it benifit Sun ?

[ThomasFlip]

How would opening the source up benefit Sun ? It would obviously benefit the open source community and give Sun their respect, but Sun is out to make profit, and even in the long run I don't see how they can make more money. Besides, Sun knows java best, granted, open source developers could make improvements but people are going to use java regardless. Only until a new bit-code type programming language with the cross-platforming capabilities of java and a substantial amount of users, will Sun consider releasing the source. Sun is out to make money, not win friends, and I don't think they will loose many customers because they aren't releasing their source.

We like open source...but not THAT much!

[Eberlin]

In the other world, there's Novell who seems to be doing a lot of OSS-hugging lately. I believe SUSE's YAST is going open along with a few of Novell's very own formerly closed-source stuff. Sure, they may not be opening up the keys to the kingdom (not sure if they are or not) but at least they're visibly cooperating with the Open Source community.

SUN still contributes to OO.org stuff so we can't really rip them on that. However, they remain at the very least lukewarm to OSS. They offer Linux because their customers ask for it, they say. They package a Java Desktop where the word "Java" seems a bit out of place...I think banking on name recognition more than anything else. They killed off the cobalt servers. Just not very Open Source-friendly as far as their PR campaign seems to be going.

Open Source Java? A stern no is the answer. I guess they'll still need to hang on to something while the boat sinks. Might as well be a cup of strong hot coffee.

Re:How can we fracture it?

[Curunir_wolf]

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.

"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM.

Hmmm... Now there's an idea I could get behind. Maybe. Although I'm not sure how much a database product would benefit from community involvement. IBM has already ported it to just about everything. The free (as in beer) aspect would probably kill off Oracle and SQL Server pretty quick, though.

Re:Java is Suns last trump card

[slash-tard]

1) You can make your own java compiler.

2) You can make your own JVM.

3) You can make your own libraries.

4) Your java code can be open source.

What does making java "open source" mean? It means making the standard open. Why does the core java standard need to be open when you can write your own open source libraries? Sun already has a community process for adding features.

I know some distros and die hard GNU people dont like it just because its license but most people dont care about that and dont even ave a problem buying software when its warranted.

Re:Big mistake.

[randyest]

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.

Another poster already pointed out how java already meets all the criteria you posit as possibly attainable by java [only] were it open source. But I just wanted to point out that your post is wild speculation; you have zero knowledge about what Perl would be were it not-open source or what Java would be were it. As such, your post is devoid of any meaningful insight whatsoever, yet it attained +5 Insightful status before my very eyes.

I can only hope that meta-moderation repairs that; meanwhile no one has indicated any single (likely) benefit to Sun or Java programmers that will (likely) come from open-sourcing Java, without just staing this claim tautologically. Yet many, such as yourself, have strutted about empty arguments encouraging Sun to open Java source. I don't get it. Why?

One big benefit

[GodfatherofSoul]

I've been working in an all-Java shop for close to 5 years now. One of the big headaches with Sun is the unenthusiastic response to some of the more obscure problems/bugs in the core API (especially around socket handling from what I've seen). Sun gives them low priority because they only affect sophisticated applications (touching rarely used parts of the API) where workarounds might be available. Man, there's a pointless stack trace dump in the HTML parser that's been annoyimg me for at LEAST 3 years. Some of these bugs have literally been out there for years. That would never fly in the open source community.

Of course, I can see their point of view also. Java is Sun's creation and giving it away does lose them a shiny badge of honor, since they wouldn't be able to market Java success as their own. And, open source APIs tend to advance so quickly that not-so-old APIs become obsoleted and incompatible. Open sourcers tend to be up to date with versioning, but this can become a big problem in corporate settings where a customer demands Java version X.1 for their environment, but your product ships with Java version X.2 (or vice versa). Java has essentially been backwards compatible since it's inception, disregarding the new classes.