Slashdot Mirror
Criticizing Sun's Java Desktop System
An anonymous reader writes "Uh-oh. PJ is not a happy camper. 'Sun has made its choice and opted for The Way Things Used To Be,' she declares in a Linux Viewpoint at LinuxWorld. 'It's a new world, and Sun is not in it,' she declares. Her gripe is with the Java Desktop System, which she argues is grossly cavalier with the GPL and doesn't properly acknowledge its roots. Her main objection: 'You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have.' Feisty read, as ever, from Groklaw's founder and editor. That Jonesian coinage 'GNU/Linuxy' is worth the read alone!"
GNU/Linuxy
Run for your lives. RMS is pissed
You posted a question.
Blah blah blah, bitch bitch bitch, blah blah blah
I've never understood why the Open Source community is so quick to praise Sun, and pretend like Java it's an Open/Free technology... it's not. Is it a good, elegant language? Yes. Is it Open? No. Downloadable source code does not make Open software-- the key is in the licensing. IBM gets Open Source a lot more than Sun does, but doesn't get nearly as much credit.
I totally agree with the notion that the Java Desktop (which IS basically a Linux distro) doesn't sufficiently acknowledge its Linux roots. I also think that their licensing of the Java Desktop is WAY too restrictive and closed to fit within the constraints imposed by the GNU-licensed technologies that are part of it. I just don't understand why people are surprised. Why would you expect them to do anything differently than they have in the past? They make pretty good stuff... but to pretend like they are an Open Source advocate is a mistake.
Of course, with that said, Sun has an army of lawyers... I'm sure they are not technically violating the GNU. They know better.
--- JRJ
jrjBlog
Flying Penguins?
Fortran Programming?
Flux...caPacitor?
Member of Orkut? Annoyed with spam?
If they have no loyality to their own employees, what makes you think they will have any loyality to you?
'GNU/Linuxy'? That's so like uh huh yesterday like. *girly giggle* I mean like she's so not with it like *hair flick* She should get with the times and like stop it *bounce*
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Yes more and more 4-profit's seem to be using GNU work product without proper acknowledgements.
Perhaps sourceforge can pay the FBI to run a few raids for the GNU violators!!
Where the answers are
winword.exe has troubles launching. And no default associatiuons for .wma and .wmv, so I can't visit Yahoo Launch and view D12 videos.
By the way, D12 has new album out today.
Please tell me where in the GPL does it state that you have to acknowledge its roots or pay its proper respects.
As long as it complies, it's fine. Why does everything have to bow down and act like the GPL is all holy?
This is another example how how un-free the GPL philosphy is, and why BSD licensing is the best way to go.
Most commercial distros would like to keep the source code secret or at least modifications and software that makes these distributions unique. This is not something specific to Sun's Linux distro. Just look at Lindows (uhm, Linspire). They prefer to have a marketshare and not just, "I'm using Linux from Sun" or "I'm using Linux from Lindows". They want people to say, "I'm using Java Desktop. And what is Linux again?"
she argues is grossly cavalier with the GPL and doesn't properly acknowledge its roots.
The GPL doesn't say "Thou shalt display in bright big banners the license of this software". Yeesh. Why not look for real license violations instead of bitching about this?
"'You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have.' "
Yeah, why should they know, does it really matter, no. Sun can put it in there if they want. People companies are using linux for what it's worth. Why do some think that if someone is using linux they must spread the virtures of it and be a sales person for it. Also not having mention fo GNU, or GPL doesn't change what it is. In the end it's the software that matters. If you base how good something is on the if it's GPL or not your pretty much out of it.
Does Intel need to show in their end product what brand chairs the engineers at intel sit in? Does GM need to put stickers all over there cars saying what brand steel was used for the fenders?
This is another case of OSS people saying, "I gave my stuff away for free... now it's not fair." To this I say, sorry kids. You gave it away for free. You're not entitled to money or acknowledgement of any kind. Sure, that's great if somebody gives you a pat on the head and says, "Now that's a good little coder. Go back to work and build me something good. I have to re-upholster my jet." But you're not entitled to it, and expecting as such is ridiculous. As long as Sun does what the "license" says, they don't have to acknowledge squat.
This article should make a lot of complainers happy: Microsoft is good competition, DRM is great, open source is bad, Sun thinks they're helping the open source world, RedHat sucked. I can't believe how many things that ./ers are mad about are included in just one article. Go to town everyone... Go... to... town.
Please tell me where in the GPL does it state that you have to acknowledge its roots or pay its proper respects.
As long as it complies, it's fine. Why does everything have to bow down and act like the GPL is all holy?
The BSD license is the one where you must kiss the ass of all those who came before it.
"You are free to use this code as long as you put my name up in lights and everyone else who ever contributed a bugfix, yes, kiss our ass!"
Fuck that egotistical BSD bullshit.
I always finds comments like this interesting. One of the GPL complaints regarding the original BSD license was the "advertising clause." A similar clause in GPL would prevent Sun from doing this.
The real issue seems to be - are people bound by the legal requirements of the GPL or by the moral requirements of giving due credit.
'You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have.'
I'm just too old for all of this misguided zealotry. Sun and Java are one of the (many) reasons Linux based systems are making such tremendous inroads into corporate-land.
And lest we all forget, winning corporates means winning mind-share. Winning mindshare means linux based systems become more of a de facto standad everywhere.
I quite understand why sun wish to leverage Java and Linux - it's a magic combination. I can't understand why the author of the article wishes to leverage this tired, old zealotry.
Sun has always been like this. They have no real interest in open source as an ideal, or Linux as anything other than a means of marketing leverage. And lets' be honest, they've openly said as much for quite some time. Sun is out to get what they can for Sun, and they've been quite up front about that.
Of course, that doesn't mean that they won't do good things for open source along the way - their commitment to the GNOME foundation, and open sourcing StarOffice are both major contributions. Both those contributions are offered, of course, in the interests of Sun. MS is never going to port Office to Solaris, and the huge development boost StarOffice has gained in open sourcing has been great for Sun. Likewise, CDE is, in this day and age, a steaming pile of shit. Something new was needed - and if you can get that by providing a little financial support and other assistance to a group of volunteers, well, you do it.
But in a sense this is how open source has to work. Closed source companies that have no interest in open source as a philosophy can still get big gains from contributing to open source - it allows them to develop large projects that they would struggle to fund as a purely internal project. Do you really think IBM, HP et al are providing all the Linux kernel code out of the goodness of their hearts and a belief in open source? Their providing it because it helps stretch the kernel into doing the things they need it to do for their interests. In the meantime, they get all the other kernel developments everyone else supplies for free, and can focus on their own issues.
So, back to the topic - Sun isn't providing a lot of information about what really runs the JDS. Well, they're trying to make it a "Sun" product rather than another Linux flavour. Realistically I don't see it will make much difference in the long run. If the JDS is successful people will learn about what it is pieced together from one way or another.
PJ does have a point though - a little more explicit recognition that this is Linux Powered GPL software probably wouldn't go astray. I suspect you'll find that convincing Sun of that is a very hard task indeed.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
"Just remember, ....RealPlayer's not open-source, but its availability certainly enhances the value of our Java Desktop System."
Um... yeah. In the same way installing Gator enhances the value of a Windows system.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
In any case, just like he did with XEmacs and everything else that uses his software in accordance to his license, I'm sure RMS will start calling it "GNU/Java Desktop" whenever he can.
If this woman wants to see some touchy-feely good akcnowledgements from a corporation she (and everyone else) is in for a big disappointment.
This is where the rubber meets the road, and you can't have it both ways. As long as your license is not being violated, suck it up or stop releasing software under it. It's that simple.
If so, then don't complain.
The GPL is about Free software and the "software freedoms" defined by the FSF. It is remarkably well-defined, even more well-defined than some closed-source EULAs. It doesn't say anything about advocacy or trademarks (yes, believe it or not, it doesn't say "GNU/Linux" ANYWHERE).
It doesn't say "in order to use this software you must share RMS' political beliefs" or "you must love and cherish Free software" or "you must go above and beyond the terms of the license even if it doesn't make any business sense" or "no profits allowed". It doesn't specify what point type the words "contains Free software" should be printed in, in fact it doesn't have any such requirement at all. Yes, I'm sure RMS would love it if you did all that, but he is wise enough not to put that in the legal text.
One of the great things about the GPL is that it doesn't require any of this stuff. You can ignore it UNLESS you are distributing copies. And once distributing copies, you have some pretty clear rules to follow. You can love the GPL without being a Free software fanatic.
I think it's a great world where you can buy software in a box with commercial support, yet still enjoy the basic rights of viewing the source and making copies for all your machines or friends. It seems to me that in such a world, companies wouldn't go out of their way to advertise the GNU/Linuxy-ness of it, would they?
Just follow the terms of the GPL. Beyond that, do whatever is in your own best interests.
It's good to know the roots of things, but why does the average user care about the GPL? The JDS was designed as competition against Microsoft to get corporations to switch from Windows.
Why would an employee care that they are using open source software?
Do you know the roots of your car? Who founded the company? If the answer is yes, you like cars and that's why you know it...same reason why you would know about the GPL. If the answer is no, then I make my point.
Alrighty, I'm going to sound like a SUN-basher but so be it. I've been admonished here before for voicing my opinions against the company's actions but I'll type away undeterred.
.COM era, MS was fussing with SE and ME, NT was their server, and all signs pointed to SUN being The One. Heck, even colleges were changing their C curriculum over to Java!
At one point in time, I believed that SUN was going to take over the server market and squeeze Microsoft out. Don't laugh, it was the
Somewhere along the line, Linux seems to have blindsided both of them. Now SUN wants to market a Linux because their customers ask for it. At the same time, they still have their Solaris. They do hardware, too! They also do an office suite replacement, and they're holding on to that same Java (probably their saving grace).
We were wondering what they were doing -- and how they're spreading themselves thin instead of trying to define who they are by focusing on something and doing it well.
Then they struck that deal with Microsoft and we're left wondering how this whole Linux thing will pan out. Time will tell, but I'm not expecting them to suddenly be all flowery happy about embracing Open Source.
But let me play devil's advocate.
I know a lot about computers, but over the years I have learned TONS by watching my parrents, neighbors, and sister (all MAJOR computer n00bs) interact with the things.
"I don't care if I can see the source, how can I get to Google?" That's the kind of thing that I'd hear from my parents (especially my dad). Bombarding people with information about how it's all free and it's LINUX and you can do all sorts of stuff like giving parts away that you can't with MS software and it's LINUX and blah blah blah and it's LINUX will get you nowhere. You'll just annoy the hell out of "Aunt Tillie" (to borrow a person). They want it to WORK. They don't want to be told it runs Linux constantly. They don't want to know the source is available. They could care less they could copy the bianary for the Gimp off their PC and give it to a friend because it's F/OSS.
Now, I can understand having the computer tell the user it's Linux. Maybe once (at install, or the first time a user uses their account) is fine. If the user is a power user, they will find that fact out and all the things they can do with it fast through looking on the internet, digging through help files, and poking around the file system. Letting them know that it's Linux when they go off the beaten path is fine. Let them know they have rights and such if you wish.
But please, DON'T BEAT THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT. I can tell you from expiriance the the VAST majority of users won't care. They just want their computer to work. They don't need to know all that stuff. Aunt Tillie doesn't want to know, my parents don't want to know. My neighbors don't want to know, and my little sister could care less (for now, she's getting better). The other side of the Linux desktop that we'll see soon (and are seeing now) is Corporate Linux Desktops.
And you know what? As a boss (assuming I'm one, I'm not), I could CARE LESS if my employees know they're running Linux. I don't care if they know it's all GPL. I want them to DO THEIR JOBS. If they ask "Can I take a copy of this home with me?" of the IT department, THEY can tell the user that stuff (and those questions do get asked in schools and businesses). The IT department will know it's Linux and all the benefits it holds.
In short: The techies will know, don't worry about them. The Aunt Tillies won't care, don't worry about them. The people in the middle should know, but just a notice here or there; don't assult them. For what I understand Sun to be aiming at (Corp. desktops and maybe low cost computers for the Aunt Tillies of the world) I think they're doing fine.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
The is pure FUD being spread by Pamela Jones. Anyone who cares about the GPL knows it is nothing more than SUSE with Gnome on top of it using Sun branding.
"Sun has always been like this. They have no real interest in open source as an ideal, or Linux as anything other than a means of marketing leverage. And lets' be honest, they've openly said as much for quite some time."
Mod parent up... this guy gets it.
jrjBlog
Hani, is that you?
I'm not really sure I see her point here.
If I gave my dad a Linux distro cd and he installed it (well, tried to install it) most likely he wouldn't see much about GPL either. Even if he did, he wouldn't have a clue what it was talking about. GPL? That's the same as PJL to him: as in, three random capital letters. Most people that care about whether something is GPL already know if it is GPL.
As long as Sun relases the source for any changes they make, they don't have to mention that the software used is GPL. That's the beauty of GPL. If you think Sun should have to include some notices, perhaps you should think about using a different license.
You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it
... still waiting.
Sounds to me like Sun's actually on track to make Linux vaguely usable. Hiding all that crap is exactly what needs to happen if you want someone to actually *use* it.
I heard 10 years ago that Linux was going to take over the world "in a few years".
Please, it's good for what it is, but it isn't everything to everyone.
You zealots are worse than the Mac zealots, or (gasp!) even the OS/2 zealots.
So, let me get this straight..
-Xfree86 is evil because they have a license that forces distributors to acknowledge their work.
-Java Desktop is evil because they don't acknowledge the work they use.
*confused*
Sun = Saruman
Microsoft = Sauron
Someone should point out to Sun before they get into bed with Microsoft: "There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power"
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Yes yes, I understand all about open source, fairness, and other GNU/Linuxy terms; and I understand that, in theory, I should immediately throw off my chains and start coding stuff gratis, because information wants to be free. However, in reality, Windows' proprietary desktop is still better than whatever Linux currently has to offer -- to speak nothing of OS X. So, I have a choice: become a martyr, and torture myself with GNU/Linux each day, in the name of the OSS ideology; or, forget the slogans and use the best tool for the job. My name is not "Ghandi", so I choose the second option.
I think a major reason why Linux is suffering on the desktop right now is that most OSS hackers expect people to choose the first option. Well, that's not going to happen. Most people are like me: selfish bastards who just want to get some work done, or play some game, or whatever. You can't win them over with just slogans.
>|<*:=
Just to say, by far, the most sensible post. thank you.
Anyone who thinks that Sun shouldn't have a right to exercise the same rights under the GPL as you or I or even SCO is WRONG. The whole point of the GPL is the openness of it. Unless Sun specifically abuses the GPL (as many claim SCO has), they can do what they like in regards to distribution. I say: More power to them!
As much as I respect RMS this is one area I do disagree with him. This whole branding business started with his insistence on Linux being called GNU/Linux. Honestly, who the hell cares WHAT it's called? RMS needs to have more faith in his own cause minus ego. Isn't the point more intellectual in that it's FREE?
It bothers me not in the least that 'X' company wants to add some proprietary stuff in. Huh. Look at KDE - wasn't THAT considered non-GPL for the longest time? Yes, GNOME ended up being created as a result, but then KDE was opened up as well.
Look, no matter what Sun, Microsoft, or anyone else does there is one simple fact: You Can't Fight FREE. You can modify it. You can re-brand it. You can put your own obfusications around things. But the simple fact remains that no one would even be considering Java Desktop in the first place were it not for MS's own proprietary (READ: non-free) OS. No matter what Sun does, the alternatives still exist.
If Sun's not careful, they'll end up being marginalized like MS - no worries there. If they do this right, they'll be able to have a branded, supported, standardized version of Linux that they can support and the customers will love (hopefully).
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
PJ is to the law as Eugenia is to screenshots...barf.
I'm just trying to figure out if Sun did anything wrong here. Yeah they don't give much credit to the Linux/GPL roots of what they are doing, but who cares? As long as they follow the letter of the GPL law, then if they want to be dicks about it, that's their choice. It's up to their customers to decide if that choice is a good one.
If Sun can create something that's valuable to customers, then good for them. I rather doubt that people who are forsaking Microsoft are going to want to get into another oppressive licensing scheme.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
"Ok, its got this 'gnu' label on the box.. does that effect my ability to play games and chat?"
"If not, then so what"... as they rip open the box.
How many 'traditional' distributions go to great lengths to explain what you have is 'free'....
if they aren't violating anything, who cares?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
PJ is not a programmer, lawyer, or analyst, she is a paralegal. I don't see why her comments are newsworthy to begin with. It seems PJ just looks for things to be high and mighty about sometimes. A lot of noob friendly distros attempt to hide the fact you're using linux. So what? Lindows renames a lot of programs to generic names; such as renaming Mozilla to "Web Browser" and things of that nature. How many people actually know their linksys router is a linux based product. Or that their DVR runs linux. Complaining about something like that becomes complaining just for the sake of being a zealot.
I sense a lot of bitter BSD developers thinking they've caught a Linux advocate in an instance of blatant hypocracy. HA-HA! We had that advertising clause, but you pushy GPL people kept nagging us over that clause until we finally gave in, but now you're bitching about the same thing!!!
THWACK!!!From the GPL, Section 1
Notice that the GPL requires you to display the license agreement, not the names of the developers. The GPL requires that you notify the users and developers who obtain a copy of this code that they have certain freedoms and certain obligations. If Sun is hiding the GPL they may be in violation of Section 1.
For those who are saying that anyone who licenses their work under the GPL and "gives it away" deserves to have their work distributed absent the appropriate copyright notice, grow up. The work is not "given away", it is licensed; placing a work in the public domain is "giving it away" since the author(s) retain no control whatsoever over the work. A rudimentary understanding of copyright law would clue you in. PJ may be a bit zealous in her attack on Sun, but in all likelihood she knows the GPL and copyright law a hell of a lot better than you (or I) do.
PJ's complaint: not about advertising, but about licensing. For those who still can't understand the difference, there are places where you can get help.
-jdm
A while back I interviewed some people at Sun for content related to reviews on JDS and Solaris 9 x86. During one conversation I made the mistake of referring to JDS as a "Linux distribution" and I was quickly corrected:
"Java Desktop System is not a Linux distribution, it is an Operating Environment."
I asked what the difference was, and the response was something I didn't quite understand -- a lot of talk about desktop philosophy and how Sun didn't really want people to think of JDS as having anything to do with the GNU project or Linux in general.
I have here a folder for JDS version 1. It was based on SuSE 8.1 and it didn't work on any of my modern test machines so I only used it once and decided not to review it because it didn't work all that well and I don't like doing negative bash-fest reviews. Nowhere on the folder or at any point during the installation or in the operating environment itself do you ever see the word "Linux."
And the license agreement governing the whole product is much like the one for Solaris except for the parts that are already under other licenses. No, JDS is not even close to being Free Software, but then again Red Hat EL is along the same lines. I don't see anyone making a bad guy out of them.
-JemWhy don't they just let the whole GNU/Linux silliness rest? RMS bitched about the advertising clause in the BSD license, but he and some of his cronies sure whine a lot about GNU not being advertised.....
Thats blasphemy! as a U.S. citizen I am glad to know I dont have to deal with things such as these 'freedoms' you talk about, and source code who really reads source?
Please dont flame me, I'm trying desperately to get +5, Funny
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. Add Bunny to your signature
(> <) to help him achieve world domination.
Solid article. Simply by highlighting some of what they say PJ has allowed the essence of their argument to come through, and it sounds pretty repulsive to me. Hilariously inept too, if they seriously think either the mass market or the hacker market is going to follow Sun they've got to be downright insane. And to expect a happy smiling future with microsoft is delusional.
I don't think PJ's point is whether or not they have broken the legal wording of the GPL, but that they have certainly missed the intent. And that as a result they'll fit in neither market, not supported by the free software people and not real competition to windows. Exactly the position Caldera ended up in.
"There is nothing that precludes us from taking the protocols we license from Microsoft and incorporating them into our products. Now, where those products run is up to Sun. So, if we take a license from Microsoft, there's nothing that precludes us from incorporating that technology into our Java Desktop System. "
...
How about the undoubtable fact that somewhere in the license from Microsoft it is made explicitly clear exactly who is in control of where those products run
Lets start counting the days down now shall we?
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Those are more likely reasons to NOT listen to her!
some big examples being Java and Open Office.
Sun is also now among the largest Linux success stories,
selling a million new Linux installations to China,
and even more amazingly to consumers at Wal-Mart.
Does it matter if the CD says "GNU" or "Linux inside"
to the Chinese, or Wal-Martese, or end user?
Likely not. As long as Sun honors the GPL--
and Sun does seem to be honoring the GPL--
then how about looking at the positive side?
More Linux installations will lead to better
succes for all of us. I want to see easy installs,
good video drivers, plug-and-play printers, and more.
Sun's success will help us get this, so cheers to them.
This Pamela Jones really pushed my buttons with this article. Does anyone have any photos of her, I want to wank.
That does it!
I'm going to take a break from writing Java software using Sun's JDK, and boot up OpenOffice, and I'm going to write a letter to Sun, saying they never contribute anything! I'm going to save the document via NFS to my department file server, and get everyone to send their own copy of it to Sun! I'm so mad, I have half a mind to shutdown my x86 machine that runs Solaris!
Those greedy bastards! They never give anything to the community! WE DESERVE FREE HAND-OUTS!
I seem to remember that the BSD folks dropped the acknowledgement clause from their license after Richard Stallman convinced them that it was too onerous. He some how felt that it made people think twice about it. I think the Berkeley folks couldn't have cared less, but they seemed to understand that the acknowledgement clause can be a pain when hundreds of people contribute code.
One concept I keep seeing is that since Sun is complying with the letter of the GPL, they are doing nothing wrong. If following the letter were always the test of what is good and right, Microsoft would usually be good and right, and well as exceedingly sharp in its dealings and pretty close to the line. Microsoft is always claiming it has a right to do what it does. I, as a potential customer, also have a right to hold them to a higher standard. And I do. Same with Sun.
GNU/Linux Viewpoint: Sun Shows Its True Colors, Says non-GNU/Groklaw's "GNU/PJ"
...
April 27, 2004
Summary
"It looks like non-GNU/Sun is indeed going to re-run non-GNU/Caldera, right down to creating a GNU-looking-but-not-GNU/Linux distro (non-GNU/Java Desktop) with lots of non-GNU/proprietary addons in an attempt to enforce non-GNU/per-seat/per-employee licensing," writes Groklaw founder and editor GNU/Pamela Jones ("PJ" to the online world). If non-GNU/Sun's hope is that we "will all be foolish enough to not care about the GNU/GPL and thus forsake GNU/Red Hat and GNU/SuSE, etc. Dream on," she continues. "The real GNU/question," Jones says, "is - when that fails - then what will non-GNU/Sun do?"
Is the credit better than Sun's weak attempt to not credit GNU stuff there, PJ? I mean, you need to be more clear so that when you are discussing topics, we know which portions of your discussion are full of GNU/Linuxy goodness. Please, show some consistency here.
Maybe a popup window every 30 seconds with a special version of 'top' that also has a column for how GNUish each process is, and how terrible and non-OSS the Sun garbage is?
Read her article. That is _not_ her main objection. She points out several very legitimate concerns. Listing that as her main objection is like deliberately feeding trolls...
Very high on the Slashdot editor's list of Thou Shalt Not list is:
X) Thou Shalt Not criticise female geeks. FemaleGeeks are smarter than Male Geeks, even if said female geeks...well...aren't... Plus they are really cool. And they wear black. And big boots. So adorable.
Personally, I think the notion of Sun's Java Desktop to be entirely underwhelming. Almost pointless in fact.
Actually, if it were a post on Slashdot, I'd moderate it redundant, if it weren't at -1 redundant already.
From what I've read at the Sun site, you get something based on SuSe with a hacked up Gnome front end and Java tied into as many things they could think of. Nothing reveloutionary... seems mainly to be an attempt to get StarOffice in front of people who might not otherwise even know it exists.... in fact, isn't this part of the walmart deal? So I guess that would explain it. Sun Java Desktop is for the walmart shopper and not the Linux/OSS initiate.
So in that light, it makes perfect sense to try to put the wizard behind the curtain and let the user deal with the smoke and mirrors, The average Walmart user will generally be too clueless to know what it really is other than that it's not windows.
When looked at in that perspective, it actually makes sense to hide the underpinnings as much as possible, lest the curious and ignorant do something catastrophic since the more advanced users would be able to figure it out anyway.
Personally, if you want a unix-like system with a great desktop UI and productivity/development software, go with Apple if you can afford it. Linux on the desktop is still a few years off, AFAIAC.
I didn't see the beef in most of the comments, but the one point that stood out to me was "You really could get the CD and run it without ever knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have."
This kinda disturbs me. In that, I agree with PJ's comment. They are packaging a lot of GPL stuff without letting people know they can take some of the stuff and use it with freedom to do so. That means they can lift the code if they want to and use it. The packaging is not violating anythign, but it IS deceptive, and sure doesn't help OSS much. The packaging makes it look like it's all their product and not just their packaging.
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
Must be that time of the month.
Sun took an elderly version of SuSE (running Gnome 2.2 for god's sake), changed the colors, rearranged the menus, and stuffed a JRE in it. This is a Java Desktop? This is a Sun product? No, this is Sun's attempt to make money off other people's work. The least they could do is acknowledge the REAL creators.
---
SCO is weenies
Gator is Spyware
Microsoft is thugs
Hey, Sun really does have the rings!. html
http://java.sun.com/features/1998/07/ring-project
The vastly overrated parent and numerous other comments on this story miss the point completely.
The gripe is not about lack of acknowledgment, it's about Sun claiming to be supporting the open source community, while simultaneously refusing to do anything for said community. They claim that because JDE uses FOSS, they are somehow contributing to FOSS. However, their obfuscation efforts kill that argument, since it does not even increase the popularity/visibility of FOSS, let alone contribute any code.
AEIOU: open-source anonymous internet currency
Is anyone else getting a little tired of her Stallmanistic rants?
You've put it very well.
The problem is that Sun wants the free/open community to link arms with them under the "enemy of my enemy" theory.
This would be a mistake on our part, because Sun is nothing more than a less-competent version of Microsoft - they'd like nothing more than to be just like them, innovation-crushing monopoly and all.
Many here don't realize that they do not share the goals of the free/open community and haven't done anything for the open/free community except to help Sun achieve that ambition.
I'm huge Redhat fan (I run SuSE), but they consistently live the values of the free/open community and make money (lots more than Sun at this point) at the same time.
Again someone marks a painfully obvious remark as a troll. I'm a homosexual, and I've always wanted to go out on a date with Java.
:(
This is clearly discrimination against a programming language that brings so many joy
Why, pray tell, would that audience care where the product came from?
To be flame-worthy with an analogy: I'm wearing a cotten/polyester blend shirt right now. I could care less who figured out how to make it so my shirt doesn't shrink in the dryer.
And now the Sun "Java" Desktop, which presumably comes with Java built in, but does that mean you can double-click on a .jar file and your app starts up? No. You have to write a shell script, or add an icon with a command like "java -classpath foo.jar ..." to get it to work.
Sun, what are you thinking?
Maybe expecting Sun to move from the world of big servers, where expecting users to write a shell script is perfectly acceptable, to the world of desktops, where users should be able to do everything just by clicking in an obvious place and without having to understand the difference between an ELF file and a JAR, is too much to ask.
An authentic Java desktop would be, in my opinion, one in which all the work gets done in Java. That means a Java office suite, a Java window manager, a Java file explorer. This is completely doable, and Java is a fantastic environment for doing those things (I know, you will flame me saying Java sucks, Java is slow, etc, sorry, that isn't true anymore). I would love to see such a desktop environment, and it would have fantastic security and portability advantages. A real Java-based OS is the only thing that has a real chance of competing with Linux, I believe (ok, I will get majorly flamed for that, but it's true).
I think that if Sun is serious about this, the way forward is:
Ok, that's enough ranting, sure to stir up many heated flames about how much Java sucks, and Scott hasn't called me anytime recently to ask for business advice, so I'll leave off here.
-------Create a WAP server
What people seem to keep missing about the GPL is that it isn't just "free" - that is a minor point of the GPL. The greater point is that it is "Free" - as in FREEDOM, for both the user and the creator to ensure that the work stays available for future generations, regardless of the hardware. Of great importance to this stance is the availability of GPL or GPL-compatible development toolsets, like gcc or perl. Sure, you can write and GPL VC++ source code - but what is the point when the compiler itself isn't Free? What happens when (not if, someday it will happen) Microsoft ceases to exist as a company? What happens if the assets (VC++, etc) are not transferred to a party who will continue to develop them? Where does that get you in regards to your GPL'd VC++ source code?
The fact is, you are hosed (or the future is hosed) - with the GPL and GPL'd tools, you can have solace in the fact that the source for all will survive.
This is the true point of the GPL...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
PJ purports that making things easy and fun will not distract people from open source.
I've observed that everytime there is a pain in the ass app( or a lacking app ) and an easy/fun one people will dump the pain in the ass app everytime.......even open source fans.
The good news is that SUN wouldn't know user friendly if it bit them on the ass.
Another company might highjack the open source thing by flooding the community with easier, better apps.......maybe......but it will not be SUN.
I say this as someone who has programmed in Java for the last 5 years and who has seen the level of front end quality SUN is in the habit of giving to people.
No offense to anyone.......that company just does not understand "easy" or "friendly".
Steve
They may not care about the GPL, but at least their up-to-date on their other licenses. :-)
Wouldn't surprise if down the road Sun buys SCO (remember they have a nice option to buy quite a bit of SCO already) for their "unix IP" with their newly found $2BB cash.
We already know that Sun wants to be and claims to be the #1 Linux Desktop Play
I think Sun's strategy (w/ help from MSFT,SCO) is to be the _only_ linux vendor.
This guy actually sounds intelligent. ;)
Displaying a Copyright and no warranty notice every time an interactive program starts.
It's the clause that everyone seems prepared to pretend doesn't exists. Can you imagine how annoying a GNU desktop would be to use otherwise?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
espo
When was the last time you heard anything positive about Sun from "the open source community"? I don't remember the last time I saw anyone on slashdot do anything but attack Sun.
.NET which uses anything more than the tiny fraction of the libraries Mono has implemented.
I think a lot of people like Java. I think that's because they like Java. Ideology is not part of this except to the extent that they are not platform-tied the way they would be with, say, any
Also, yes the java language is in fact open. The Sun software implementation of Java is not, but this isn't the only implementation. This difference is crucial.
So what keeps Linux from splitting apart like the Unices of old, were everyone tried to "be different" and in the process loss the market to microsoft? Wouldn't that be history repeating itself, were a lot of the time you had problems running apps for one unix on another because of the "let's be different"? Were the training was split because what you learned on one couldn't be carried over easily?
Sun is using the open source software in a legal way. They're just not being nice. They're just doing what is most beneficial for them that still follows the terms of the licenses for the software they incorporate.
The thing is, part of open source is extending the freedom to third parties to do what they want with the results. If the open source programmers didn't want their work being used in this way, they shouldn't have... released their program as Open Source. OOPS!
...so better collect the quotes and information now so when Sun goes SCO we will be ready for them.
I don't give a feck what the license is - is it any good?
It gives me no comfort to think i have a GPL license for software that fails to do its job properley.
Can someone explain the joke to me?
RMS asks that the OS of GNU plus Linux, be called "GNU/Linux". PJ has made "GNU/Linux" into a style: "GNU/Linuxy". Where's the bit that people think'd annoy Stallman?
Sun is not and has never been a friend of Free Software - they were the bad guys back when MS was just a little shop in Seattle no one cared about. Maybe some newcomers are fooled by them, but to say that 'the Open Source community' thinks Sun is a friend is ludicrous.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
You mean the way Linux doesn't acknowledge that it has primarily lifted the rc*.d startup methodology from Sun? Or the fact that before Linux came about, the vast majority of the Free Software Foundation's software (and lots of other free/OS Software) was primarily developed on SunOS and Solaris?
Come back when you have a real complaint.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
They weren't campaiging against publicity but against the need to acknowledge every contributer to derivatives of the software in question. They felt it was too "onerous" because it would make advertisments too unwieldy. If anything, GNU were promoting publicity by encouraging copyright declarations to be succinct and to the point.
This essay clarifies GNU's position.
GrokLaw is PJ's blog, sometimes she does bloggy things. That's her perogative. She also happens to provide an awful lot of truly useful information and analysis on certain subjects, though, so Groklaw is still worth reading.
No, this shouldn't be newsworthy, but these days on Slashdot it would appear the editors consider anything that bashes Sun to be newsworthy. Even if it's a blog post.
Besides, it's interesting. This Java Desktop System is a huge deal. First off, Sun, one of the last few Big UNIX general vendors, is not only making movements toward Linux but actually selling Linux as a new product. This hints at a decent number of things about what the UNIX vs Linux battles of the next ten years are going to look like. Second off, this is an attempt to make a desktop distribution of Linux by a company with the funding and concentration to actually pull it off.. either of these two things makes JDS a crucially important development whether it succeeds or fails, but it's getting very little attention in either the "real world" or the open-source news. I think the whole JDS thing is underreported, honestly. This article might not be the best analysis of JDS out there, but it's something.
PJ does really seem to hate Sun though. I'm not sure why. I think it's probably because they gave a big donation to SCO's legal funds (pretty reasonable reason to hate them, actually).
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I agree. For an example. Go to the Jpackage site and notice the non-free section. You need those to get a lot of the free stuff to work correctly. now notice what you have to do. Chase the source code down so you can create an RPM. Now try finding the source for JMI. Nope just a spec. I had to search in someone's CVS to find a JMI.jar in order to upgrade ArgoUML(1).
(1) I also had to tell my package manager to ignore any dependency errors, kind of breaking the point of having a package manager. And all this is because of SUN's pissy license.
They could at least integrate web start into the package manager.
...the GPL does not require distributors and integrators to staple the license to users' foreheads. Just a thought. Yea, it is kind of dishonest, and if they don't include all the original docs they should be punished and probably even banned from using GPL'd software for a while, seeing as Sun is basically just a burden on all of us: stale platform or just a rehash of what you can get anywhere else for free or less, and the easy-to-program-in-but-not-well-implemented Java.
I am feeling fat and sassy
I am assuming that a few human level AI's would be useful in your business, perhaps you would be good enough to point out the sourceforge projects that can do this.
If the point isn't whether they've violated GPL, then her point is moot (and I say this as a fan of most of her work). Either they're in violation, or they're not, and in fact the whole idea is that the GPL is absolutely INTENDED to create complete freedom of usage assuming the changes are returned back to the community, which they are by Sun. Complaining about Sun's usage here is much like free-speech "advocates" complaining that some disgusting speech is protected by the first amendment - we may not like it, but if we want true freedom, we have to embrace good usage with bad.
As far as "embracing" the GPL, I'm really not seeing a cause/effect relationship with windows competition, and certainly not with Caldera.
The real risk is that Sun's stock has dropped from $60 to $4. A dying company risks lashing out every which way.
If they ever get really right for profit watch out for their patent plays. Despite the historic connections that some linux luminaries like to point out, I don't think they have enough of a culture to avoid becoming a bane on the world.
The comments of their CTO are ludicrous, and we should be careful to be sensitive to these types of signals.
Sun is the company that missed a great chance to open source Java to create a ubiquitous language, breaking a number of pretty high profile splashy promises along the way.
I'm hoping this won't turn into an I told you so.
One day sunw will say they have no linux strategy, the next day sunw comes out with their own linux distro. Sunw's support of scox leaves me with very negitive feeling towards this company, especially when it comes to linux.
Linux is a threat to sunw's bread-and-butter business. I absolutely do not trust sunw's commitment to linux.
I'm surprised at PJ. Sun is well within the limits of the GPL. If programmers want free publicity when people use their software, CHANGE THE LICENSE. Just know that it won't be GPL-compliant.
Oh, and I for one am perfectly happy with the Java license. If you think about it, it makes sense-- I write a programming language that is designed to be cross-platform; if you make a new implementation of it make that compatible with me (or get your code somewhere else).
So if Sun ever does "go SCO", they will have something to take to court.
No sig, sorry.
Seriously, Java desktop is absolutely nothing more than GNOME with a new theme. Hell, Bluecurve actually made a half assed effort to not seem like nothing more than a GNOME theme, Java Desktop doesn't even do that.
It's not revolutionary, it isn't going to change anything, and frankly it is much poorer attempt than I would have expected from Sun.
Finkployd
i looked at that for about 1 second before i realized it was "badger badger badger badger mushroom mushroom...."
I feel very dirty all of a sudden.
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
My sample program crashes when it arrives nearly 10'000 nested calls (in jre-1.3.1) or 5'000 nested calls (in jre-1.4.2). :(
Because of this f*ck* problem of JRE, i can not implement my methods of Visitor Pattern in Java, i *forcely* have to implement it in C++ or C
open4free: my machine has 1.5 GiB too.
So if you read the Datasheet marketing stuff here and it says it is a Suse Linux Desktop 1.0 variant, what does that tell you about what runs JDS?
"You really could get the CD and run it without ever knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have."
So Fucking What?
Where in the beloved GPL does it say, "any use or inclusion of GNU software in any bundle must be accompanied by a thee piece band and six minutes of CGI fireworks on the end user's screen."
I had a lot more respect for the people behind groklaw before this. However, this rant is worthy of Stallman, or even (shudder) Eric Raymond.
What's her point? Sounds like a bunch of whining to me.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
You and your friend should be insanely happy that there is now even an installer for the JRE. Back when Sun/MS were both developing competing JREs, Sun could not be bothered to even create an installer (version 1.1?), besides all the hand unarchiving and copying, you have to hand create environment variables to get it to work. It was so... DOS like in a Win2k world. I was really dissapointed that the simplest user experience on initial contact with the Sun software was so completely ignored.
:)
When recently I DLed the 1.4 JRE and saw that it had an installer and no hand tweaking of environment variables was needed, I was pretty floored, they have come along some
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
RealPlayer is closed-source, and available with JDS. Don't like it? Don't get it.
Ditto for StarOffice. You've got the Sun-sponsored OpenOffice.org (mainly staffed by Sun developers).
Where is anybody denying the GPL? The GPL expressly allows such an approach, indeed seems, if anything, quite in favour of it. Will you be bashing RMS next for selling tapes of Emacs?
He didn't say "don't add", he said "don't *just* add" - GNOME's internationalisation would be half what it currently is without Sun developers adding their contribution, let alone accessability, which seems to be driven almost entirely by people with @sun.com addresses.
He's stating Sun's view, not claiming that it's MS's view. Where does he say that MS view it that way? He's saying that, whether MS like it or not, Sun's agreement with MS can benefit JDS (seems pretty obvious, and fully in line with the letter and meaning of the GPL).
If you look at the relationship between Sun and MS, it's pretty clear how Sun view the Evil Empire. I don't think they've suddenly bought a pair of rose-tinted glasses.
If that was from RMS, it would be interpreted in the exactly oppsite way that JP interprets it. Granted, "either choice is a safe choice" is quite clearly untrue. Don't know what he'd just smoked at that point.
And isn't that what we really get from F/OSS? Would we all hate MS as much if .DOC was an open standard with closed source? .HTML is an open standard, so we can have Mozilla, Opera, even IE (when it chooses to implement standards).
Yes, there's a significant difference when it comes to certain points - I can incorporate your code into my own "larger" code, but in reality, open standards pretty much allow that already.
One major point of Free/Open Source software is that Sun can take Mozilla, GNOME, improve them, and feed them back to the community (who don't necessarily want *every* change Sun chose to make, but are desperate for the internationalisation and accessibility that Sun need to add to sell it to the standards their customers expect). The GPL means they can do it, and means they have to feed it back.
Are we getting offtopic here? Why do I need to remind PJ what the GPL says? Methinks PJ's got some FUD in her mind.
"'The . in .com' wants to destroy the internet". That's a fine quote. Where did you find it in the previous statements?
The only statement in this paragraph anyone with any knowledge
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
JDS comes with a folder (!) of license agreements and a CD of documenttation but no where is the GPL listed as a license or acknowledged, now that's fishy.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Linux is Frodo, it doesn't want to fight for freedom but somehow got caught up in a movement for software freedom - now it's the poster boy of something it didn't ask for.
"visa vi?" What's that? I think you meant, "vis-à-vis."
I know I ask a lot of Slashdotters, but the lingustic horrors seen daily around here leave me quite stunned. Nothing makes one sound more authoritative than good communication skills. Correct usage of the proper words makes any argument that much more convincing and bestows on the author an air of credibility.
The converse is also true: Incorrect useage of improper words makes any argument less convincing and subtracts from the author's credibility.
Now, on topic: Where in the world do you get off dismissing anything that PJ says in such a flip manner? Are you just new here, or have I just been trolled? PJ runs Groklaw, which is the target of a link in about every third Slashdot story lately.
Next time, have your friend head to www.java.com for the JRE. java.sun.com is aimed at developers - it says so right at the top of the page. www.java.com is aimed at regular users. It doesn't say that, but there is a reassuring picture of a cow in some kind of tractor beam at the top of the page.
There comes a time in every friendship when you have to say, "I never liked you, get lost." --Bill McNeil
You can focus on the fact that Sun JDS is basically an out of date, underfeatured version of SuSE Linux. Although if things go according to plan it will soon be accompanied (replaced?) by a version of Sun JDS running on Solaris x86.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
I tried the live run from the CD version of the Sun Java desktop. The EULA was almost an exact replica of a M$ EULA.
Now on to the good part it has to be the poorest excuse of a live demo I have ever seen. I was not able to configure my modem etc....
It is FLASH enabled whoaaeee. It is Suse if I ever saw it. But for some strange reason thier live demo(SUSE's) didnt seem to be riddled with problems like Suns did.
I predict an early setting for sun and linux they had better hope they can pull it off with Solarias or just sell the hardware without an OS would be thier best bet at stayin alive. RedHat and Novell are going to eat them alive.
I see the sun setting now not rising.
Yeah blah blah blah devalue this and that. The point is that most of the tools that are GOOD, stable, production grade are ones that EVERYBODY benefits from having available. Ever notice how it's mainly power user tools, programming languages, etc that are open source and very solid? There's a reason for that. Programmers as a whole would rather spend their time working on things that aren't as mundane - having a solid OS, solid compiler, etc, allows you to have MORE TIME to make programs that put bread on the table - usually custom apps.
Cry me a river that there isn't going to be another bill gates. Computer TOOLS are commodity items now, 20 years ago they were not. But they are just that; tools. Take the tools and make something with them. Maybe you can open source it and we can all make it better - or maybe you can sell it to the highest bidder for food. THAT is the point, my friend.
Computers are a means TO an end; they are not an end in themselves. People completely forgot this during the boom. It comes down to creating wealth, goods, and services that accomplish or offer something someone is willing to pay for. That is what gets missed a lot of the time.
..don't panic
Really, who here needs mainframe Linux? Enough to bother to port it? Anybody who's still got your hand up, put it down if you have an @ibm.com email address.
IBM contribute to Linux because it's better than AIX; Sun contribute to GNOME because it's better than CDE.
Neither have much choice - create your own, or join a GPL'd project under the terms of the GPL. Both seem perfectly willing to accept this.
Next time, I supppose we'll be hearing PJ having a go at IBM for not open-sourcing Lotus Notes, or because their mainframe technology is proprietary?
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Redhat makes more than Sun? Sun: 11 Billion in revenue. Redhat: 128 million. Sun: 4.9 Billion in Gross Profit. Redhat: 55.5 million. Market cap? Sun is 4x that of Redhat. Sun: 70 million EBITDA. Redhat: -1.47 million.
Sun's current, and well known, profit problems not-withstanding, they still kick the crap out of Redhat in _most_ meaningful measurements.
If PJ is so important, why did she have to submit the story anonymously?
[o]_O
Sun: 35000 employees
Ximian: 70 employees
Sun: has done a couple of usability studies, and contributed StarOffice (then a lousy office suite) four years ago.
Ximian: mono, evolution, GNOME bounties, IRC discussions, Project Utopia, and countless patches to and bug reports to any and every GNOME project.
Same kind of situation applies to Red Hat, which Sun actually has the gall to insult.
Face it: Sun was a thorn in Microsoft's backside so it was kind of seen as a good guy. But now I see no reason for any self-respecting developer to like Sun. At least Microsoft has the honesty to declare a straightforward stance with respect to open-source software. Sun tries to treat the open-source community as some unsuspecting supplier of free goods.
If only Sun were more like Ximian....
And where do we have a statemtent that they do not? /. and elsewhere).
PJ claims there's nothing on the cover (I haven't seen it) and then dismisses the EULA (mentioning the GPL in the EULA would be irrelevant, as has been previously overdiscussed on
Every package states its license terms. I'm running JDS at the moment (sorry, /. don't seem to want me to use the PRE tag), and a full "rpm -qi" is apparently "junk"...
That advertises quite clearly that it's "License: GPL". Sun's changes are more to the GNOME side of things, though; no one package (they're all GPL, trust me) so we'll pick one:
That's LGPL. A GPL Gnome package? Okay then:
I'm sure Sun's lawyers would love an out-and-out accusation, as it would give them 5 minutes worth of entertainment.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
I am confused, I read the article and see a great deal of complaining and bashing but no concrete reasons. But then again this seems to be the way Sun is attacked frequently. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Sun is great, but I gotta say this Pamela Jones person is like a bad exgirlfriend or something
Sun is a piece of shit company who changes its stance on Linux every two weeks. I wish they would just hurry up and die.
Is "Unix" Open Source ? SCO doesn't think so even it ( the old code ) has been available a long time - much longer than Java. Is Java Open Source then - when do they claim you copying it ? Want to go to court ? Linux ( and especially GNU ) is NOT Unix and even then the courts take the case ????? Personally - I don't care - show me something new that wasn't in mainframes a long time ago ( not Tandem NonStop - it's different but anything else - actually that's old also - 1976, but unparallel ). Virtual, interprenters, JIT, vector / parallel / SMP / whatever, etc.. on technical level - SGML ( oops , sorry HTML ), OO, ,,, ( very ) old stuff.. from time we still have free program / system sources. So - as long as Java is not "free" it doesn't count as open - you just can't change / enhance it or make new features - only Sun can. Don't try to fork and call it Java2, sorry. Nice language - too many libraries. But it can be fast in what it is supposed to do - no question of that. Just too wordy and too complicated library/API mess ( IMHO again, too used just to compile and run - HUGE systems.. )
Most of us appreciate it!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
As for the whole slogans thing and the expectation of martyrdom, I think you will find that the average hacker spends far more time developing a better product than typing slogans and arguing ideology, I know I do.
But do you think more people would put their effort into developing a free project if there was no ideological reason to do so? Do you think many developers give a damn about whether self confessed "selfish bastards" may be offended with their ideology?
When given a valuable product for nothing it is polite that you show a little gratitude. That does not necessarily mean torturing yourself over supporting it. However that may include a little sympathy towards the developers. I think you have taken the right option by steering clear of Gnu/Linux because you are unable to meet these expectations.
Most Free software developers care about two things. Keeping people who appreciate their software happy, and making more people appreciate their software. This means hopefully to accommodate the second desire they will eventually make it easier for the masses to use. Making it suited for people who seem devoted to not appreciating it will never be a concern, so any improvements you see will be wholly coincidental.
Seriously, if you had a hundred dollars and you wanted to give it away (which is a small fraction of what Free software developers effectively do), would you give it to Ingvar Kamprad who isn't going to care or would you give it to some homeless guy who is really going to enjoy it?
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Sun is lot like a friend of mine's old girlfriend. She was hot as hell, a party animal; and I'm told the sex was great. She was also a raving psycho who would start a knock-down drag-out argument as soon as the orgasms were over. I'm talking ripped shirts, stitches, screaming, and all around physical abuse. Of course, real men don't hit women and the sex is great........
Yes, they've done some nice things for FOSS but they're freaking nuts. Sun would have you know that while Linux has a place on the desktop it is useless as a server. Huh? They contribute patronage fees to the FSF but they also pay SCO. WTH? They sell a Linux desktop distro but they call it Java and charge $100/year/seat for it. WTF? They contributed Openoffice and continue to contribute to Gnome but think MS will be a reliable partner. I've heard of identity crises but these guys are ridiculous.
What worries me is the future problem for Linux that SUN may light up. SUN and Microsoft now share their IP portfolios and you can bet hefty amount that as Scwartz hinted, they will incorporate Micrrosoft technologies into JDS in order to be as interoperable as possible. This will probably include DRM, Windows Media, and much more. This added edge of being able to cooperate better than anyone with 90% of the world's x86 desktop computers might make SUN the king of desktop Linux. Other companies will realize that liek SUN, they need a real edge which cannot be easily destroyed and so they will follow SUN's lead and add many proprietary technologies to their distributions. Many of these proprietary extensions will become standard to many people and distributions that do not have them will either need to make up for it in a big way, specialize for a niche or die out. Linux will grow in marketshare, perhaps to about 15% in just a few short years, but the growth will really be just for Novell, SUN and IBM. The other distributions which remain free will only remain popular within the geek and hardcore userbase because these distributions will not have the money to license expensive technology from Microsoft and other companies in order to comepete on the same level. They will also not have the marketing or credibility to further their product. I'm worried because in the end it seems clear that Linux distros will be partly open for the core things but much of the rest will be closed. What do you guys think? BTW: I think SUN may be tredging legal waters by not mentioning that most of JDS is GPL. I also thinkt hat they are hurting the potential of Linux by detaching themselves from it. Linux will grow much faster if it is marketed than if each distro markets itself only. You have to establish that Linux is sexy before you establish that your Linux distribution is. If people will be ignorant enough to follow these leads and actually think that JDS and SUSE are totally separate operating systems, there will be a lot of confusion and much more bashing than necessary. It is critical that it be established that Linux is the paltform that JDS, SUSE, Mandrake, Lindows, Xandros etc. is built upon and that this platform is one and the same. Market Linux before your product. As in car commercials, make cars themselves important and sexy, your brand is pretty much irrelevant in that way. People will think, cars are cool, I should get one, hmm... Also,
You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it
And when the BSD license had the clause "you must point out this software is BSD licensed" that was bad.
And when the X license changed in such a way that GNU/Linux vendors like RedHat would have to identify in big bold letters 'this CD has XFree86 code as a part of it', this too is bad.
Sun does the same thing - not 'giving props', and Sun is bad?
Hyprocrite much?
Looks like he has some clean-up to do. Getting rid of those guys should help with the 3300 layoffs. I certainly am glad to hear they aren't hiring any of those evangelist people or anything.
Sun is a commercial enterprise. Say it with me, commercial enterprise. That means they have to make money to stay afloat. They're not out there for your (the open source community) benefit, they're out there for Sun's benefit (and their shareholders). Anything beyond the requirements of the license that benefits the open source community is bonus.
/end rant
You happen to produce something that Sun can leverage to make money to keep their business alive (for whatever that's worth). Hell, the GPL even allows it. If you don't want someone else to co-opt your precious, then come up with some other license.
Should you expect more from them? Idealistically, maybe. Realistically? No. This decision ain't about you - it's about their business.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
As the live cd boots, for a brief, and I do mean brief less than 1 second flash on an almost non-existant command prompt as the graphical environment takes over the words GNU/Linux flash on the screen if you look for it closely. Took me three boots to even notice it! Next there is a draconian EULA that appears to have been written, if I didn't know better, with great help from Microsoft as restrictive as it is. It even explicitly forbids copying the eval live cd to share with others. This is the first Linux live distro I have EVER seen with such a restriction. Perhaps the ability to write such draconian EULAs was a portion of the "technologies" that Sun is cross licensing from Micro$oft?
In the EULA there is absolutely NO mention of the GPL in any way shape or form other than a pointer to a directory in which you can find some "various other licenses" that may apply to certain portions of the software provided on the CD. It takes some real searching to find a copy of the GPL on that disk. I am sure that Sun's (M$'s?) lawyers have made sure that they complied to the strict letter of compliance with the GPL but they have not even come close to compliance with the spirit!
I am thoroughly disgusted with the lengths to which Sun has gone to obliterate and hide the true roots of their "Java Desktop System".
The Matrix is real... but I'm only visiting!
When I first got Linux, it was SuSE 6.4 (not THAT long ago). I had NO idea what the GPL was. I wanted a hard drive large enough to install ALL the software. I had no idea what the GPL was. But I was convinced that Linux was "better". Superior technology, like a Porsche or something.
Now, to the article. I went back to read it. The article on Groklaw claims that Sun wants to destroy the internet. To destroy freedom of speech, or at least the ability to blog. That's an exaggeration, and FUD is bad, no matter who you aim it at. FUD clouds the issues, and affects the "genuineness" of your decisions. I don't like FUD. Sun Microsystems is out to destroy the internet? Let me guess, I need insurance, right? Sorry, just kidding... I had to say that.
I purchased several SuSE distros and upgrades and never had any idea there was GPL inside (I didn't know what the GPL was). I do now. It grows on you, you figure it out. It does bring up a good point, though - I was reading this Linux tutorial, and it started out, first chapter, presenting you with the GPL, and explaining that right off the bat. That's how I learned about the GPL in the first place. Someone has to say it, because it's a cool concept and it's central to what GNU/Linux is. But Sun Microsystems out to destroy the internet? I just don't know about that.
I really do appreciate Groklaw, I think that it is a very informative site. But I have been noticing recently that it goes a little too far sometimes. Yes, I am worried about Sun pulling a SCO. That might mean that Java and the Java Desktop might at some point become things to stay away from. As for right now, the Java Desktop is entering a very difficult market - a properly configured Linux runs like a charm, installs easily. It's the support that hurts. The handholding. That's the liability, having to teach people how to use a Unix-like operating system. You're going to get more support calls to your 1-800 number than Microsoft or Apple do, people will get frustrated, they will power-cycle and create filesystem corruption. All kinds of things will happen. Any Linux distro, not just Sun's, has tough competition; has its work cut out for it. Sun is going to have a really tough time competing, it's going to be rough; they might do well, I won't wish anyone any harm, but we'll have to wait and see. With Windows computers being as inexpensive as they are these days, a few extra hundred dollars for a "real" PC (at least in the eyes of many individuals), the most profitable market for Linux may be in the bundled, software-like market, not pre-installed. Sun is going to have a tough time, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them doing fairly well either. They have a name for themselves, and a good reputation in some sectors.
Sun Microsystems out to "destroy the internet?" I don't know about that. Sun Microsystems out to destroy freedom of speech on the internet? Seriously? This is very strange... but I understand perfectly what's going on - I'm just not going to say it right now. I'm curious to see what is going to happen here. Probably nothing.
But I'm going to stay tuned, because I have a thrist for knowledge and I enjoy learning new things.
Why does it seem impossible to find a picture of Pamela Jones anywhere?
Yes, I know it doesn't matter what she looks like. I don't care that it doesn't matter. I'm still curious, and the image is conspicuous by its absence.
+++ATH0
The big question is, do we really want people like "Aunt Tillie" using Linux anyways?
Then again, I guess it's people like her who make tech support companies filthy rich...
If that is the biggest complaint then it must be a damn good OS/desktop...1
I believe Sun has more people working on real open source projects than anyone spare a couple of universities.
Certainly OpenOffice is very valuable, and I think they work on Evolution too.
RIP Sun Microsystems. Killed by GNU/Linux and Microsoft, of all combinations....
The correct word to use in this situation is "founder".
This misuse is a common mistake; I have seen newscasters and print reporters make it.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
We need to take it back from likes of RMS. It does not mean what Stallman says it means, because he says so! Usurper!
And, while we're at it, we should take the rainbow back, too. Qtherwise, every child drawing a rainbow makes parents blush...
Without Gnome, Solaris would still be using the unbelievably bad CDE desktop environment. Until I heard about Gnome on Solaris I was prepared to recommend to my boss that we install Debian on all the SPARC workstations because the users couldn't bare CDE (don't get me started on the administrative problems). So basically Sun's options were to make a desktop environment from scratch or use an open source one -- they couldn't stick with what they have. Obviously it was way cheaper to adopt Gnome. Then should we be impressed when they throw in a few manhours and dollars so their pet features get implemented?
Rather than a demo?
Booting this system (pre-release JDS 2) I stare at Tux and a heading of Linux x.y.z-n for about a minute during each boot.
Stallman is undoubtedly one of the most influential programmers ever, but his righteous attitude can be amusing. It's always funny to make fun of "the old man" behind his back.
I hope he doesn't change though; his stubborness is an important counterforce that keeps commercial software in check.
In the eyes of the developer community, they are better than say, Microsoft or even IBM simply because Sun's standards are open, or at the very least more open than the competition.
That is just not true. Sun's standards are among the most proprietary in the industry. If you try to implement the Java APIs, Sun reserves the right to test your implementation for compatibility and reject it if they don't like it. And, realistically, you aren't going to produce an implementation that's going to be sufficiently compatible without using their sources--their specification just isn't detailed enough. That's not an "open standard".
If Sun's use of the term "open standard" were true, then Windows would be even more of an open standard: after all, the Windows APIs are publicly documented, in at least as much detail as Java, and people can implement them freely.
An "open standard" is a standard anybody can implement in whatever way they like, without control or supervision by a company, interest group, or a consortium. Java just does not satisfy that criterion.
In reality, there isn't a Java standard, there is a single Java implementation (Sun Java), its derivatives (Blackdown, IBM, Apple), and its API documentation (the J2SE/J2EE "specifications"). If Java were an open standard, people could implement it without any restrictions (not even compatibility requirements), but compatible and complete third party implementations would exist (no, gcj and kaffe don't count).
The term "open source" never changed meaning: it didn't exist prior to the open source movement. The people who created the term have the right to define it.
And the people who created the term aren't "GNU/Minions" anyway, they are the open source movement. The GNU project and the FSF actually don't like open source licenses, they like free ("libre") licenses. Now, the term "free software" is misleading, but not very: "free (libre)" software is also pretty much "free (as in beer)", but it comes with additional rights for the user.
But there has been a nefarious attempt at changing the meaning of the term "open", namely in "open standard". An "open standard" is a standard that anybody can implement without obligation to anyone else. And there, it is Sun that has been trying to change the meaning, in order to mislead people into thinking of their highly proprietary system as an "open system".
The Sun Java implementation is not open source, nor is the Java platform in any way an open standard. The fact that Sun Java is not open source doesn't really matter much, but the fact that the Java platform is not an open standard is a huge problem because it legally threatens any attempt at open source or even commercial alternatives.
[sorry for the near-duplicate; I screwed up on the first posting]
PAM was pretty much the same situation as Java -- Sun invented something good and released it under a non-free license, and the GNU/Linux people (in this case, it really was the Linux people specifically) reimplemented it. The full quote from that documentation is
.NET patent. But, like many Microsoft cloning attempts, the .NET patent doesn't have the same teeth as the original. Most importantly, the .NET patent doesn't apply to core C#, and even for the parts it applies to, it is unclear whether it matters much. Sun's patents, however apply to some core functionality of Java and they do matter a great deal.)
The problem is that the GNU/Linux people can't do that with Java. They can't do that for several reasons. First, the Java specification isn't open and free. Second, the Java specification is incomplete and changing so rapidly that people couldn't produce an implementation satisfying Sun's compatibility requirements if they wanted to.
Sun has learned well from Microsoft how to create and maintain a proprietary platform (make it overly complex and keep changing it). Sun's great insight was to add to Microsoft's strategy a web of legal requirements, copyrights, and patents that give them the final say over whether anything even resembling their platform can be released or not, Sun's compatibility requirements.
(As always, Microsoft has never shied away from copying a good idea--hence the
Nevermind that Sun has contributed dozens of Engineers and probably a significant sum of money to the Gnome project. (Which last time I checked is open source). Lets also forget the fact that without Sun's money/effort, Gnome Usability (ie. HIG) would be nowhere near as good as it currently is. Sun is a major backer of Gnome, and a corporate contributor to the Gnome Foundation..
Yes, do let us forget all of that. Because, if Sun is really trying to kill open source in the long run, it doesn't matter how much money they invest in it in the short term.
Instead, lets bash Sun for not sufficiently acknowledging it's Linux roots in the JDS. (Something that the GPL does not require)
Yes, let's. Because Sun's attitude has been and continues to be that it takes a proprietary approach and a commercial entity to deliver high quality software. And that belief is fundamentally incompatible with open source.
Sun has made valuable contributions, but they are also doing things I don't like. On balance, I would prefer if Sun would just stop interacting with the open source community altogether--stop giving money/contributing on the one hand, and stop using open source as part of their corporate strategy, products, and PR on the other.
Overall, I don't feel an obligation to be grateful to Sun for things I didn't ask for, and their unwanted contributions certainly don't give them the right to be immune from criticism for things I find highly objectionable.
PJ keeps asking me if I'm sick to my stomach yet. I will be if she keeps coming across with these scatter-brained tirades.
PJ, you work in the legal profession, and you seem to be coyly implying between the lines that Sun is guilty of some kind of license violation because of the way the GPL is or is not displayed. If you have an accusation to make, would you please come out and make it? Otherwise, you sound like some kind of goddamned SCO lawyer, obliquely raising charges through the press.
What's your candid opinion of legal professionals who use that kind of rhetoric? Me personally, it kinda makes me sick to my stomach.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
As long as it complies, it's fine.
Complying with the letter of the license is sufficient for avoiding lawsuits. But complying with the letter of the license is not a morally sufficient justification to be immune from criticism--for that, you have to comply with the intent of the license. Even if it were sufficient moral justification, it clearly is not sufficient to avoid criticism in practice.
Why does everything have to bow down and act like the GPL is all holy?
Sun should pay the proper respect to the GPL because Sun is building a billion dollar business on top of GPL'ed software. That should mean scrupulous compliance not just with the letter of the GPL but with the intentions and wishes of the creators of the GPL'ed software.
And that software didn't just drop from the sky with a GPL license stamped on it, it is the work of thousands of volunteers, who probably didn't really intend to contribute to a Sun-proprietary product in the way Sun is using their work.
This is another example how how un-free the GPL philosphy is, and why BSD licensing is the best way to go.
So why doesn't Sun just take a BSD-licensed desktop and ship that instead of Gnome? It is Sun that picked GPL-licensed software, GPL-licensed software didn't impose itself on Sun.
Yeah, why should they know, does it really matter, no.
The GPL has a strong political, philosophical, and educational component in it--that's why it contains all that editorializing. It may not matter to you, but it matters to the people who created and own the software. And what counts is the owners of the software who license it to you and Sun.
Sun can put it in there if they want.
It's not a choice--the GPL actually requires them to inform their users. Maybe Sun can weasel their way out of that requirement through legal loopholes, but that doesn't change the fact that the GPL clearly wants them to inform their users.
People companies are using linux for what it's worth. Why do some think that if someone is using linux they must spread the virtures of it and be a sales person for it. Also not having mention fo GNU, or GPL doesn't change what it is. In the end it's the software that matters. If you base how good something is on the if it's GPL or not your pretty much out of it.
None of that is for you to judge. If you (or Sun) don't like the evangelical side of GPL-licensed software, just don't use it. But if you do use GPL-licensed software, people can expect from you that you comply both with the letter and with the spirit of the license.
Does Intel need to show in their end product what brand chairs the engineers at intel sit in? Does GM need to put stickers all over there cars saying what brand steel was used for the fenders?
If the contract under which those products were bought by GM or Intel required them to acknowledge their use in the creation of the final product, yes, they would have to acknowledge it. And sometimes suppliers impose just that requirement: "we give you product X for free if you acknowledge its use in your own product". It's uncommon for chairs and steel, but it is quite common for other products (e.g., cars placed in movies).
That's the deal Sun is getting with GPL'ed software: use it and acknowlege it prominently, and Sun should be expected to comply with it. If Sun didn't want to do that, nobody forced them to use GPL'ed software.
This is another case of OSS people saying, "I gave my stuff away for free... now it's not fair." To this I say, sorry kids. You gave it away for free. You're not entitled to money or acknowledgement of any kind.
Open source software is not given away "for free" in the sense of "public domain". Legally, open source software is still owned by its authors and enjoys strong copyright protection. The GPL and LGPL is every bit as binding and restrictive as Microsoft's EULA or the most restrictive of Sun's licenses, it is just that their restrictions are different.
As long as Sun does what the "license" says, they don't have to acknowledge squat.
The license requires them to make sure that every single one of their users understands that they are using open source software and where they can get the source. If Sun fails to comply with that part of the license, they may lose all rights to distributing the software in perpetuity--no more Java Desktop at all.
And if you think those legal requirements don't have teeth or consequences for Sun and their executive private jets, think again. Sun is teetering on the brink of irrelevancy anyway and if they have to stop shipping Gnome and Linux because they violated their licenses, it would probably push them over the edge.
It doesn't have anything to do with Java. Should be named Sun GNU/Linux desktop.
I was present at a JDS show here in europe. And I had a chat with some of their sales representatives.
:
Their sales guy are in a real channel conflict, they can't chat on their new JDS without at least saying once solaris ! They see JDS as a short term answer, before having their customer "upgrading" their JDS on Linux to a JDS on solaris. That's the strategy ! That's why they do not market the words GNU, Linux or GPL.
The other issue is the Java brand ! The slide show (staroffice on jds hopefully !) represents layers of software. from bottom to top, you have
hardware : either sparc, intel, or amd
os : either solaris or linux
a full length layer : java
a full length layer : gnome
But in the show room, nearly everybody knew that the demo of JDS has nearly nothing to do with Java ! just a little demo of their java player ( which is ugly ). Once again they "über market" the java brand ! Java has nearly disappeared from the internet as an applet technology ! Even if java has a hudge market share in the enterprise, I know several case, where the IT department face big problems, due to unmanaged deploiement of complex J2EE applications (usines à gaz in french) (I'm not flaming java here, the problem is "unmanaged" not java) . So the Java brand is not that good, and the good reference with respect to the Java brand are shifting from Sun to IBM. For instance, nearly every business developing stuff in Java are now using eclipse. The sales guy of Sun are still marketing NetBeans, I had to give him the reference of Eclipse.
Finally, my experience with respect to this roadshow and the chat with sales rep, is that they are frightened. JDS is a kind of cloud of smoke that tries to hide businesses migrating their oracle on solaris to oracle on a redhat cluster.
You guys really should get your heads out of your asses over licensing, You carry on like someone being "cavalier with the GPL" is going to end up with us all in forced labour camps. "They mention Linux and the GPL VERY briefly" - this is how Hitler started! Stamp out this evil menace! This article is hilariously rabid.
Get off the crusade. Relax.
...don't be suprised when someone takes it.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
> How about developing a word processor and spreadsheet in Java?
There is a WordPerfect version which is entirely written in Java. There is also a good development environment (netbeans) entirely written in java.
The problem with those applications is simply that they do not behave as typical customers expect them to behave. In other words, if you point to a menu and you have to wait half a second until the application responds, this is annoying at first. But if you have the choice between a java/swing written client app and a native app, you will quickly choose to use the native app.
(If you argue that other apps are far more responsive, you're ignoring the fact that these apps are not pure java, IBM'S Eclipse for example uses SWT which uses native widgets and doesn't have swing's latency).
>and they would also really find out what the limitations and flaws of Swing are,
It is not possible to fix swing. Swing doesn't use native widgets but draws everything itself. For example it polls for events every 200ms, so after there's a OS event waiting you have a lag of at least 200ms until swing reacts. Furthermore the answer is sends back to the OS consists of compressed images which further contribute to the latency that users experience.
Have you ever tried to run a java/swing app over a 10Mbit X11 network? Just compare a SWING app with IBM's SWT in this environment --- btw, SWT is open-source, SWING is on not.
There's no point in open-sourceing java. Everything we want is already open-source.
> A real Java-based OS
You must be joking. An operating system without memory protection etc., that introduces a JAR HELL (think DLL hell) where each extended interface breaks the compatibility (see the savepoint in the JDBC interface in jdk1.4 for an example)?
I think that made sense back in 1980 but not these days.
"GNU/Linuxy"
Folks, you have just witnesed the birth of a new future slashdot cliche'/joke meme.
There's lots of mileage in this one.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
The term "open source" never changed meaning: it didn't exist prior to the open source movement.
I was using the phrase "open source" in the early 90s to describe changes in the software world. I remember having a conversation with a client around 1991 who wanted me to modify a program. I explained that while many early programs written in interpreted languages (BASIC, DBase3+) were open source, most current programs were closed source, and the effort to modify them was enormous and probably illegal. I did not use the term "open source" until the contrast with "closed source" programs was needed.
I used "open source" around 1996 to describe HTML and JavaScript. Someone wanted me to hide the code for their web site, and I told them that was impossible because all the code on the web had to be open source so browsers could see it.
The new definition of "Open Source" is from the 1998, and describes a political movement that wants programs to be open source.
---
"free software" could be used without paying for it. The next level was "shareware" with its free trial, but please pay. Then "commercial" with pay now and hope you like it.
"Free Software" is a political movement that wants programs to be open source, and somehow prevent commercial programmers from using any of the code in closed source programs.
---
I do not understand the controversy about Java. Sun owns the trademark. They allow others who fit their standards to use the trademark. IBM wrote their own compiler, and there are others.
Applets and applications are usually easily decompiled; they are not truly open source, but the well-defined interpreted language makes it difficult to hide code. Servlets are not distributed, so it is more difficult to read the code. Code from most Java programs will easily fit into other projects, so sharing is easy. I like that I can use the same code in a browser, on a web server, and on a desktop just by changing the interface.
The Sun Java implementation is not open source, nor is the Java platform in any way an open standard.
Anyone can write software using Java without paying for any software. Anyone can write a Java compiler, and can get it approved for some money or tons of public relations. So Java is a free standard. But Sun controls it, so it is not an open standard.
Will there be an "Open Standards" organization that wants all standards to be open soon? Or is that implied by the "Open Source" movement?
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
um .. i think Sun focuses more of their energy on Solaris .. and if you look at most of the big improvements in Unix over the last 10-20 years you'll find a large number of them in the SunOS releases. Take a look at the roots of many the IP enhancements in the kernel in the last 2 revs or so .. I think you'll find lessons learned from Sun all over them (pre-emptive kernel, memory management, packaging techniques, etc.) As a company, they've been in the Unix business a little longer than RedHat, and linux compared to Solaris is a little more sloppy.
.. not just a dressed up SuSE distro.
.. Chef Boyardee ravioli can outpace Wolfgang Puck in many people's minds.
If you look at the design goals for JDS - you have to look at it more as a replacement for CDE in the enterprise space
You know, with a lot of cooks in the kitchen and everybody's opinion weighing in
What "proper acknowledgements" would those be?
/. "community" that's freaking out about such lack of acknowledgement now was mad as hell at XFree86 for daring to fight for exactly such acknowledgement.
Last I checked GNU/RMS were hell-bent on making sure no one ever got "acknowledgement" for anything they ever create, that somehow it's "evil". Hell, the same
GNU/Hypocrites
My
Yes, but if you read Winnie-the-Pooh to your daughter, you will know that capital letters can also be used to mark Really Important Things. ;-)
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Her article is Sun FUD. I don't see how it's any different when FUD is coming out of her mouth as opposed to Steve Balmer. She is criticizing a product based on how she feels about a company. That's very hypocritical. Is it fair to criticize open source software based on a dislike for RMS? Then how is it all of a sudden ok to criticize JDS based on a dislike for Sun?
PJ does have a point though - a little more explicit recognition that this is Linux Powered GPL software probably wouldn't go astray. I suspect you'll find that convincing Sun of that is a very hard task indeed.
I don't know what PJ is after, specifically, but all Sun needs to do with this thing is something to notify the user of their rights under the GPL. If they use a splash screen during the installer, fine. If they use a splash screen during the installer that just says "This product contains a lot of open source software. Consult /usr/share/license/LICENSE for details. You have rights under these licenses that you should be aware of" I'd say that's fine too. I don't think they need to be out giving all sorts of credit all over the place, but a note in the bundled documentation wouldn't hurt. It's normal to have a "Credits" document that lists who all made the software what it is, and I understand that Sun normally does this anyway, although I don't know it for a fact.
As far as pointing out that it's Linux-powered, that's purely a marketing decision that they have to make. On the one hand, they might scare away people that think Linux is some weird mold that grows in the swamps of Louisiana. On the other hand, they might attract customers that need to know if their in-house apps that aren't Java will even run on the thing before they migrate all of it to Java.
But as far as their moral obligation, I think that just notifying the user that they have rights to the source code, to modify it, and to copy it freely for others, is good enough. They might have to say something like "The reason you can't copy the whole CD is because the CD contains software that does not give you those rights, but you may copy any software on this CD for which you have a license that gives you that permission". The GPL is pretty clear about what a company's moral and legal obligations are and does a pretty good job of coding the moral obligations into the license.
The fact of the matter is that if you want attribution every time you contribute code to a project, you need to use a different license. There are others, and you can certainly find one that you can add an attribution clause if you really want it. The GPL does require that you mark your changes in the code and claim your copyright (or blatantly disclaim your copyright) right there in the code, so if you lack either attribution or ownership in the code, it's probably your own fault (or Sun violated the license by removing it).
But Sun doesn't have to make a freely-downloadable iso image of the thing. They don't have to put the source code on an ftp site or anything. They just have to give the code to someone who legally acquired the software that they distributed when asked. That's all. They can't even say "You pirated the CD, we're not giving you the code!" They must give the code for the GPL stuff (and probably the other open source stuff, with exceptions) because no matter what the license on the bundled proprietary stuff, the open source stuff was copied legally.
But one thing that's really irritating me about this discussion is all you guys that are screaming because Sun isn't behaving idealistically. They're a corporation. The mission of a corporation is to survive and grow. If embracing idealistic pursuits will help them to survive and grow, they will. If not, they won't. Don't cry about it. Now, they do need to behave in a basic moral and ethical fashion because all entities in society need to behave in a basic moral and ethical fashion (I'm sure we can hammer out agreeable common morals and ethics without being oppressive or religious). But that behavior is just "operating conditions of the environment". It's like having to live in a forest, or a desert. You adapt.
For their benefit, they are trying to adapt to open source. They're also behaving in a schizophrenic fashion. I own Sun stock, and I figure one of two things will happen soon and make my
Like what I said? You might like my music
isn't the point to Linux's existance so you should expect more moves that don't do things for the better of corporate world.
This is not hypocrisy, for it has nothing to do with not liking a company and therefore not liking their product. She is worried about what direction Sun may go, is gathering evidence of this concern, sharing it with the community, getting slammed every time she dares criticize holy Sun, but keeps doing it since anything that threatens the GPL is worth paying attention to. I'm sorry people seem so put out any time Sun comes up, but isn't that the flip side of your complaint? Praising a product based on how you feel about a company?
As far as I'm concerned, Sun bears watching. Any company that will sign a cooperation deal with Microsoft has either sold out or doesn't know Microsoft history. Sun certainly knows Microsoft history, so my guess is that Sun is at a desperate state and is grasping around for a lifeline. They picked the wrong one.
How come Roblimo, Cmdrtaco, Michael, Timothy, John Dvorak, and others aren't ever called feisty?
It's a term you'll only see applied to females who, someone feels, are exceeding their purview. Why not just call her uppity or hysterical?
Not the acknowledgemnt, but creating new incompatibilities with existing software.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Now "acknowledging it's linux roots" is pretty vague, but here's what the GPL has to say on the subject:
This is especially designed so that anyone using the software knows it is under the GPL. It sounds like you could use the JDS and never know about the GPL. While, like everyone else here, I Am Not A Lawyer, this seems to go against the letter and definitely the spirit of the GPL.
I did NOT learn everything I need to know in kindergarten.
open4free (c)
I never noticed an accompanying SRC folder or disk on the XP CD. Have the source "open" to software means open to everyone... or at least all customers.
... scrambling to remain relevant. Don't use Java. Certainly don't use Java Desktop. Suse/Mono/Qt is good, open technology that may actually succeed.
"BSD is a great licence and fosters innovation, but if the original work is not kept up, spin offs may be non-free and so it does not have a guaranteed lasting effect. GLP has a guaranteed lasting freedom to it, but at the price that it has trouble combining with other licences."
Ok, this is retarded. The example given is fixed for the lame argument. The GPL guaranteed lasting effect of freedom is such bullshit. If a BSD or a GPL project stops, then everyone else is free to use the BSD code with little restrictions. However, the GPL code limits who can use it depending on their intentions.
Here's an example of non-free GPL code: Let's use the example above where third parties pick up where a project died. If a proprietary company wants to distribute only the binaries, then they cannot use the GPL because the GPL Restricts this Freedom regardless of no license attached - while the BSD does not.
However, a proprietary company can still use the GPL project for their private derivation without ever distributing anything. How the hell is the GPL guaranteeing lasting freedom while the BSD doesn't is beyond retarded.
"Non-free stuff works when it's profitable"
That's how the GPL mostly works - the owner usually expects an investment return from derived works or contributions, instead of cash - greed in another name. The BSD expects only recognition for due credits, not profit.
For lasting freedom and other things, BSD is just better and easier to read.
I've seen it, i have used it as well. It's not that good as ximian desktop and i personally think they call it 'java desktop' explicitly _not_ to mention linux. They just don't want anybody to know, because really SUN does not like Linux much. So 'java desktop' (basicly gnome with an ugly theme and sun logo's all over the place) runs on it, but only because they don't have that much choice (no, solaris x86 is no good for this, sure you might have it working, but i'm not talking about you).
I think it is also clear from the article that they are trying to create confusion in the linux market. When you read between the lines they are saying that all that stuff does/will not happen with solaris.
So what if SUN released a lot of open stuff in the past. It seems microsoft is starting to do that too, but that does not make MS suddenly good and great.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Diner: What's on the menu?
....Stallman aka Viking diners chorus.....
Waiter: Let's see there's Egg, Bacon, GNU, Saugage, GNU, GNU, GNU, GNU, GNU and GNU.
Diner: I'll have the Eggs, no GNU.
Waiter: You want GNU with that?
GNU, GNU, GNU, GNU......
OK. We agree that there are proprietary standards, and Java is one of them.
Sun kept promising to submit Java to an open standards body
Sun did not submit Java to an existing standards-approving organization, but they did set up the JCP. Java (excl. J2ME, which has its own list) is controlled by Apache, Apple, BEA Systems, Borland, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, IONA, Macromedia, Nokia, Oracle, SAP, SCO, Sun Microsystems, and 2 private citizens. Thay have approved all of Sun's recent releases and direct the roadmap for new enhancements. Why is this not good enough?
The APIs are defined at java.sun.com. You do not like them? I would hate to write a compiler from them, but it should be possible.
You complain that Java does not have a specification for a system that permits independent implementation. I thought IBM's JVM fit that description. If having the specification is important, why is the JCP not writing one? It is difficult to recommend changes to a system with no description of how it currently exists.
The JCP does have tools to verify that an implementation fits the standard. I could not find a document that states what is tested, but that may exist in the member-only area. (Individuals can join for free, but I have not joined.)
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
AC, I know that the GPL doesn't mention "free", as in monetary cost - in fact, it doesn't mention anything regarding money (with the one possible exception about providing copies of the source for a reasonable sum or something like that). A GPL'd piece of software doesn't even have to be free - you could sell it (the binary) for $100,000.00 - just realize that if the purchaser wants the source, they must be able to get it - and they can take it, make changes to it, then give that away free (of course, they have to allow you then to get the changes in code - the source - from them as well)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
The parent is a excellent analysis of java where it stands today.
Which slashdot nazi has marked this a flambait?
It is very on topic (java desktop) and very acurate and contains only facts, nothing but facts.
What are the rules to mark such an article as a flame!?!