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
"'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?
'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.
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.
Oh good god.
BSD is best...no gpl is best.. no licence X is best..
get over it. They all have advantages and disadvantages.
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.
Non-free stuff works when it's profitable, and the company that owns the code decides they want it proprietary to keep their advantage in the market.
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*
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
Somewhere on the path to Mordor....
"We hates them, the nasty Linuxies!", hissed Darllum. "They STOLE the precious from us. Evil Linuxies! We hates them!"
"But Linuxies helps us!", he wimpered. "They gives us nice IPO...they gives us Kernel Personality. SAMBA is our friend!"
"We don't have any friends!", he spat, eyes glowing with hatred and fury. "Evil, tricksie Linuxies! They STOLE it! We HATES them!"
"OK, Sam", sighed Frodo, "I've changed my mind. You can kill him now."
YooHoo/2U2
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
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.