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."
When pressed about his decision, Scott McNealy admitted, "Well, we were going to open source Java until we realized that the phrase 'open source' is really more of a noun than a verb."
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
If you don't open source it, how can we fork it?
But seriously folks...
God strike me down for saying it, but he's right. Java as a core language is fine. It's libraries are decent. What's more, it is infinitely extensible through the addition of third party libraries.
Why would you need an open source Java?
I have been pwned because my
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
I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
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.
It doesn't need to be open source to be good.
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.
So once again the question comes up... Is Sun a hardware company or software company? They sure aren't doing hot in either arena...
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.
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
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.
Unix will be back. Really, it will! Everything is beautiful! Don't worry! Be happy! Customers will return to Solaris one day! After all, if schwartz said it, it must be true.
and even scott is a believer:
The "fad will wear off, and big business will come back to solaris".
Sun, don't worry, everything is great. Everybody else should wake up and smell the java.
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
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.
Let's all use .net, instead!
That'll show them.
Note for the sarcasm-impaired: Move along, now.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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.
...no Open-Source SUN Java.
People being impatient have already generated GCJ and Kaffe working on open-source implementations of Java. Neither are yet as complete as the 'full' Java, but are in progress.
Is there a 'standard' for the Java language itself, in the same way that there is for "C#"? If not, could it be because Sun doesn't want to make it easier for Open-Source folks to create a complete implementation?...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
What is the business case for Sun open sourcing Java? Try as I might, I can't think of any strong reasons for it.
One might argue that open sourcing the JVM and/or the Java standard libraries might be useful to allow people to create their own distributions for their specific platform, rather than doing a complete rewrite. I can see that being useful for platforms that aren't a priority for Sun.
The question is, though how would Sun make money from any of this (mind you, I doubt they make any money from it right now). Can anyone explain how Sun could benefit from open sourcing Java?
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.
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.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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.
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.
Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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