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!"
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.
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
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.
Used PAM to login to a Linux box lately? PAM comes from Sun.
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.
>|<*:=
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..
Instead, lets bash Sun for not sufficiently acknowledging it's Linux roots in the JDS. (Something that the GPL does not require)
just because it's GPL and you allow people to use and disribute your work for free, does not mean you are giving away your copyright. you still own the copyright on that product, if you disribute it you MUST acknowledge it, and if you modify it you MUST provide the source. forget SCO, the next big legal battle will be greedy/stupid companies thinking they can take take take and not comply with the GPL. This kind of attitude is so ingrained in modern corp. thinking it is enevitable.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Exactly!
I think one of the reasons the OpenSource community likes Sun is because they are the lesser evil.
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.
Is it because that they are the underdogs? Maybe so. But be assured that tomorrow if they do come to the top, they will be ostracized even more.
And another thing is that, I do not think we can blame Sun for what they've done. Hey, you give your source out? That in no way means I have to or let you do what you let me do.
C# and the .NET CLI are ECMA standards. Web Services/WSDL is a W3C standard. Java is uhhhh.... not a standard.
What was that about more open standards than the competition?
--K
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
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