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
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
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?"
"'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.
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!
I don't know if Sun is violating the letter of the GPL, but it sounds like they might be violating the spirit.
-- Alastair
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.
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.
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.
>|<*:=
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.
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.
-JemThat 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!
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
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
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
GPL
The article c) as posted is actually under section 2.
a) and b) also skipped, but still required for actual compliance.Emphasis mine.
This, I think, is why bash and such can get away with not showing a license when run; they normally don't announce their readiness to receive commands, it's assumed and/or self-evident. IANAL and I am not part of the FSF.
I think the more damning portion is actually what comes right after 2c:
Emphasis again mine.
NB: YMMV. IANAL. Take the above with a grain of salt.
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
You do know that Sun does have this entirely separate business which is thousands of times larger (not to mention almost 35,000 people) than their Linux/GNU related business? Trying to compare their output against that of a company whose core business is Linux/GNU is absolutely stupid. That's like comparing Apple's contribution to mice technology with Logitech's.