Sun Unilaterally Revokes the FreeBSD Java License

ravenII writes "The FreeBSD foundation has announced the news of Sun terminating the SCSL OEM-like license given to FreeBSD foundation. The foundation's attempts to contact Sun to renegotiate the license have gone unanswered. Javalobby.org also carries the news." It would seem that Sun has terminated all SCSL licenses across the board in preparation for the release of Java 5, and while the renegotiation process may be a bit bumpy, it's likely that Java will continue to be ported to FreeBSD.

Comments

I never understood

[miyako]

I never understood how it's good for Sun to prohibit the redistrobution of Java with BSD or Linux.
It seems to me that any benefits there might be would be lost because they are opening themselves up to having an open source, or at least more easily re-distributable JVM become the most common, and therefore standard, VM.
Besides, if they are giving it away for free anway, what benefit is there to forcing anyone who wants it to get it from Sun?

Re:I never understood

[swdunlop]

One of the last standing feature points for Solaris has over most other OS's is first tier support by Sun's JRE's -- it is Sun's best interest to confuse and cripple any efforts to make ports of the VM that make good use of the host operating system's strengths, to protect what is becoming the last good reason to use Solaris in the datacenter.

Sun's SCSL was originally a poorly considered defense against a licensee trying to pull the same embrace, pervert and promote strategy that Microsoft employed with their JVM, but it has become a way for Sun to try to make some money off its competitors with convoluted license issues.

Re:I never understood

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD is distributing it. They call it Java(tm). Anyone who uses the VM sees it called Java(tm) and knows that Java(tm) apps will run on it.

However, FreeBSD has not actually paid up to have the JVM branded as Java(tm). So Sun says, that's not branded Java, and if you keep saying it is, we will revoke your distribution license. And they did.

It's still dumb, because you can still get Java(tm) directly from Sun.

Though Java(tm) is available free, if you want to distribute it and you aren't Sun, you're going to have to pay to have a TCK (certification test) performed. That costs a lot of money that a volunteer project like FreeBSD probably isn't interested in fronting.

So no more Java(tm) for FreeBSD users, unless they go get it themselves from Sun.

Re:I never understood

[michaelggreer]

Apple distributes their own, with features that have only now made it into the Sun JVM for other OSes (shared memory, etc). It is most definately first tier, and has been done with Sun's full support.

The FreeBSD issue was a licensing mistake, and is now cleared up. It shows the weakness of non-free Java for the community, but it is not evidence of a vast conspiracy to make Java slow. Could you provide such evidence for your argument?

Re:I never understood

[arivanov]

This means that you do not understand the meaning of java as far as Sun marketing strategy is concerned.

Java as far as Sun is concerned is a method of pushing a large number of customers onto Sun's native *sparc/Solaris platform and the associated software and support contract. The only reason for the existence of ports to other platforms is to bait people into switching.

• It is the only platform with first tier support and the only platform whose scheduler is continuously updated and optimised specifically to match the Java current threading model.
• Java is a big-endinan platform. All internal data representations must be big endian (this is in the standard) and execution on any small endian platform like x86 will always incur a performance penalty. This is similar to what MSFT is doing with .NET. It is specified as little endian for the exact same reason.
• And if performance fails to help the fledging sales (Sun is having a really bad quarter), licensing comes to the rescue.

Re:I never understood

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the FreeBSD Foundation actually paid the cash to get FreeBSD certified for Java. This means the jdk/jre package has to pass a series of tests. Then, and only then, you can distribute java and have your OS approved. The problem is that Sun has changed the licensing for Java5 and a new agreement hasn't yet been reached.

--
HawkinsOS, kick Smorgrav in the ass.

Re:I never understood

[mwvdlee]

Uhm... I kinda think the big endian/little endian thing is due to CPU's used. .NET is primarily designed for x86 CPU's which are little endian and Java is designed to be platform agnostic, meaning using the most common (as in models, nog numbers) format for CPU's; big endian.

Please remember that practically every CPU architecture besides x86 is big-endian; Mac's, 99% of UNIX (AIX/HPUX/Solaris) machines, Z/OS machines, etc.

At some point in the distant future x86 will cease (as all things must come to an end) and we'll most likely be left with the superior big endian format.

If you were to design a platform agnostic virtual machine, would you nog make it big endian?

Besides; with recent JVM's the performanc penalty is neglicable at best, it's mostly recompiled to the native CPU at run-time anyway.

Re:I never understood

[dtfinch]

All external data representations must be big endian. For internal data, they just go with the endianness of the machine, and endian conversion is done when serializing/unserializing data.

Re:I never understood

[Sunspire]

One of the last standing feature points for Solaris has over most other OS's is first tier support by Sun's JRE's

Which is kind of funny considering the Solaris JRE is pretty much widely considered to be the worst version available. As anyone who has had the "pleasure" of working with said version will know, it has had a whole slew of issues and is to this day not on par with the Linux or Windows versions.

Re:I never understood

[SunFan]

So...basically this whole Slashdot article is one big troll. People will bash Sun at every opportunity while not realizing that Sun is 1000% friendlier than Microsoft, HP, and IBM, especially with regard to OSS. HP and IBM's Linux efforts are more of the "me too" category, while Sun releases OpenOffice.org, Tomcat, Netbeans, Grid Engine, provides Java on Linux, is open-sourcing Solaris, they are major GNOME supporters, and they are major Mozilla supporters.

The Slashdot trolls really need to think about who their enemies are. They may suprise themselves.

Re:I never understood

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is similar to what MSFT is doing with .NET. It is specified as little endian for the exact same reason.

What does Microsoft have to gain strategically from Little Endian? Practically that's where it's code runs but Microsoft isn't beholdant to Intel.

Actually, Microsoft's newest platforms are the PowerPC which is going into the XBOX. Microsoft would like to have its own platform with XBox3, so it will actually be at a loss with little-endian .NET at that point.

Better alternatives to Java

[Anonymous Coward]

There are now much better alternatives to Java for many programming tasks.

I've switched over to Ruby and my productivity has skyrocketed. Anyone who's done object-relational mapping using Java for example, should take a look at how Ruby does it using ActiveRecord.

I still use C++ for some programming tasks but find the need to do so less frequent each year. Thank God for smartpointers (boost library).

I might take a look at OCaml in the near future. Heard great things about it.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[davegaramond]

Actually I'm glad that Sun restricts JDK/JRE distributions. It allows other (and better!) languages to flourish in Linux/BSD environments. Perl, Python, Ruby... I'd hate to hack Java OSS (but I fear in the future we will be seeing more and more C# OSS).

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[bhurt]

And if you think Sun is bad, just wait until Microsoft starts playing with you.

My recommendation: learn Ocaml.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[hey!]

I've been looking at Groovy, and its very promising.

Right now the documentation is very poor and tools are rudimentary, but it seems to bring a lot of the benefits of scripting languages like Python or Ruby the the Java VM. The ability to use the Java libraries is huge; even huger is the ability to compile to class files, which allows you to use it every place you can use java. By that I'm not talking just about operating systems but things application servers and database triggers.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[Archimboldo]

I vaguely recall performance comparisons between Ruby and Java, and that Java was significantly faster. True or no?

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[SunFan]

Java is probably the most mature and complete cross platform environment in existence. People should not look upon this lightly.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[Anonymous Coward]

There were then much better alternatives to Java for many programming tasks when Java first came out. Now it's too late. Java is entrenched, and we're stuck with it. At least, some of us are.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[utlemming]

The big problem is getting to work on a browser. That the main reason that I don't surf the web in FreeBSD -- getting a Java plugin to work is less fun than going over to the dentist. And I hate the dentist.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[boelthorn]

Take a look at Common Lisp (see: http://www.common-lisp.net/ or http://www.cliki.net/ or http://sbcl.sf.net/ ).

It is a language supporting every paradigm you'll ever need. And if not you can (portably!) code it. The hacker's language of choice.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[boelthorn]

I surf this site with Firefox on FreeBSD. I have no problem with plugins (Java, mplayer, flash (via linuxpluginwrapper). I did nothing special. FreeBSD has improved a great deal in this area the last year.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[hey!]

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. There's been a huge amount of work done over the years to improve java's speed, the startup of certain crappy Swing applications notwithstanding.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

I used to program in LISP, but I find that Ruby takes alot less typing. Closures in LISP need macros so they don't look so complex & don't wear out one's fingers.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

no, COBOL is. It runs on even more platforms than java (a 30+ year old computer isn't going to run java) COBOL has objects, platform independence if you want it & code that way, GUI libraries for any gui there ever was, web libraries, networking libraries for any network there ever was, SQL and nonSQL DBMS libraries, bidirectional C API that can deal with any other langauge, compiles to assembler or machine code....heck, let's just make sure I also mention that unlike Java it's also one of the most painfully verbose and inconvenient languages to code in EVER. 8D

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[boelthorn]

Why do closures in Lisp need macros?

(lambda (a b c) (+ a (foo b c)))

is not actually very long to create a simple closure. And does Ruby even have macros as powerful as Common Lisp's?

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

Anything more than the really simple lamdas always seemed to need macros. the short answer to macros is they're not needed; Ruby method coding really is a type of macro building. the long answer is to spend say four hours and learn some Ruby, it's fun!

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[boelthorn]

I recommend to you "On Lisp". If you read it and still do not see the power of macros, then I do not know... ;)

http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html

Ruby seems to be very Common Lisp-oriented but without parentheses and thus macros. This removes very much from it. Can you implement a new Object System with multiple inheritance in Ruby?

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

Won't argue: LISP is great, macros in LISP are Great & Powerful. Multiple inheritance? Ruby has something better called mixin methods, all the fun and usefulness of MI without being in the position of having to weld a fish to a bicycle. Could *i* implement a new Object System with MI in Ruby? If nothing else, Ruby is so very introspective one could take a list of classes and the methods from each that were of interest, and another list of proc (code with closure of environment state) objects that would modify or use each of those methods, and spit out a funky kind of dispatching class that could make objects of that funky class. and call that my MI thang.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[boelthorn]

But it will not be the same, as you are stuck with Ruby's syntax. CL's syntax is extendable as you like.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[joshmccormack]

If you're hired/paid to use Java the quality of alternatives doesn't really matter. Also, finding Java folks is probably easier than Ruby or some other languages.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

Sure, if one wants to invent new syntax and grammar. But let's get back to the original idea of doing the least typing to get the most work done, and of someone who's maybe done LISP in last decade or two wanting to try something fun and interesting. Also, have to add that there are a few projects like RIPPER out there that directly manipulate (some even replace) the Ruby parser if you really must invent a new grammar or syntax, and of course the fun lexer/parser libraries like RACC for new languages.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[boelthorn]

But it is awkward to manipulate Ruby syntax. Any language that has a one-to-one mapping from text to a simple data format, that is easy to manipulate can be considered to be a Lisp anyway...

(defmacro while (condition &body body)
"Executes body while condition holds"
`(tagbody
loop-begin
(when ,condition ,@body
(go loop-begin))))

How long would the corresponding Ruby example be?

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

while (condition) eval(body) end

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

heh, parenthesis optional, too: while condition eval body end

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[boelthorn]

Not really. if you wrap you code snippet into a function, how do you call it from outside? Will it look and behave like Ruby's builtin looping constructs?

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[boelthorn]

What is 'condition' in your code snippet? In my original macro this is also a completely arbitrary piece of CL code. And in your example 'body' is just a string. You can hardly manipulate what's in there. It's straighforward to extend CL to support, say, pattern matching like haskel does:

(defh foo
0 ?y -> ?y
?x ?y -> (foo (1- x) y))

I have written this macro that forms the above in the appropriate code to identify each situation.

You can also can use predicates to test whether a variable in a pattern meets some criteria:

(defh bar
(?_ ?(x evenp)) -> (/ x 2)
(?_ ?x) -> (1+ x))

So if you call bar with the list (1 4) you would get 2 back. If you call it with say (1 3) you get 4 back. Just a stupid example, but proves a point...

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

Your macro is the core of a LISP computer, essentially. in my example, body would not HAVE to be a string, it could be ANYTHING that responds to the message "eval". Now by default, yes eval takes a string which contains ruby code. But I can override that to be, say, a LISP interpreter. And "body" could be a string, or a file, or anything else I wanted. Just as condition would likely be a flag that I set to false when I'm done doing evals & changing body. So what I really showed was a possible core of a LISP computer that looks exactly like a thing that could be an interpreter for any language.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

and I should have added that by all means "body" could be a list, perhaps implementated by array that could contain strings, numbers, and booleans...just as long as I made sure it would respond to the method eval by doing something like say invoking a LISP interpreter and modifying itself accordingly, and changing "condition"

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[boelthorn]

Yes, you can build an interpreter in Ruby to achieve this. But you will not be using Ruby then anymore, you will use your interpreted language. With Common Lisp macros you can build COMPILERs for any language you want, as your macro turns the "description" you pass to it into CL code which is transformed to machine code by the CL compiler. Ruby CANNOT do this, even if someone writes a native compiler for it.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

the looping constructs aren't really built in, they're the result of a method being able to receive a block of code, and the ability to execute that code with closure & with arguments from within the method. In Ruby I can put code (with closure) into proc object and call later

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[happyemoticon]

A little late, but today I was writing some shell-scripty type stuff in Perl, and I realized I could represent 4 lines with 1 complex string of gibberish. Then I realized I should learn something like Py or Ruby before it's too late.

I find Java to be way too restricting. But then again, I'm a script monkey.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[Breakfast Pants]

If you want to run a native freebsd browser and not a linux emulated one you tend to have to compile java to get the plugin to work in freebsd.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[boelthorn]

That's true. There is nothing particular painful or mysterious about this. Just download the sources from Sun and type portinstall java/jdk14.

Ah, I understand now.

[iainl]

There was me trying to figure out: How do you revoke a BSD license? Surely someone can just take the code already?

BSD the OS, not BSD the license; it's a fairly oddly worded title...

Re:Ah, I understand now.

[Homology]

The SUN Java is NOT under a BSD like license! Of course, OpenBSD will never agree to the terms offered by SUN, so here you must manually fetch the relevant files from the SUN and agree to their obnoxius license. On OpenBSD the port tells you where to download the relevant files as part of installation : Java 1.4_2 Makefile

My guess is that FreeBSD has to something similar.

Re:Ah, I understand now.

[lisaparratt]

By being the copyright holder. Yes, you can take the code, but if the license has been revoked, then you're breaking the law.

Re:Ah, I understand now.

[setantae]

The normal ports already do that.
This license was for precompiled binaries.

Re:Ah, I understand now.

[molnarcs]

The licence FreeBSD had extended to JDK 1.3.x binary distribution only. If you wanted a higher version, you had to do what apparently OpenBSD users have to: download the sources manually and put them in /usr/ports/distfiles/ .

Re:About the money.

[Tet]

Oh for a -1 Inarticulate Rambling modifier...

Story is wrong

[cperciva]

I'm not directly involved here, so I don't know all the details, but I talk to people from the FreeBSD Foundation on a regular basis. Hopefully they'll forgive me if I get some of the details wrong here.

Basically, the story can be summarized as follows:

1. Sun dropped the ball by mistake.
2. FreeBSD Foundation didn't know what was going on, and mentioned the problem in their newsletter.
3. People at Sun realized that they had dropped the ball.
4. Sun picked up the ball and put it through the goal posts (or whatever the right sports analogy is).

This whole story is really just a misunderstanding. Sun wasn't trying to be evil, they just made a mistake, and as soon as they realized that there was a problem they started doing all that they could to fix it.

The new license should be announced Real Soon Now.

Re:Story is wrong

[endx7]

So (trying to get this straight), has the FreeBSD Foundation gotten a hold on the Sun licensing people yet (since the newsletter was posted)?

Re:Story is wrong

[endx7]

Nevermind, phk clarified. :)

A case of bad communication

[phkamp]

Justin Gibbs, The foundations founder and financial officer said yesterday that this was just a case of bad communication and that it was already resolved. Poul-Henning

Re:A case of bad communication

[Homology]

Justin Gibbs, The foundations founder and financial officer said yesterday that this was just a case of bad communication and that it was already resolved. Poul-Henning

But a very nice reminder of what SUN can do to those using Java.

Re:A case of bad communication

[Homology]

Fuck off Poul, and fuck that Smorgreff asshole as well.

--
HawkinsOS, enterprise ready today.

I've seen your immature post here on /. now and then. You are representing that company, perhaps started it? In case you are part of that company, it's clear that your posts is only doing damage to it. Perhaps that's your point?

Re:A case of bad communication

[SunFan]

But a very nice reminder of what SUN can do to those using Java.

So...what do you think about .NET?

Re:A case of bad communication

[csokat]

HawkinsOS, enterprise ready on June 15th 2004

Re:A case of bad communication

[Homology]

But a very nice reminder of what SUN can do to those using Java.

So...what do you think about .NET?

Someone modded you as "+1 Funny" :) On the more serious note, Microsoft does not claim .NET to be Open Source Run Everywhere(TM) like Sun. They do have some patents that are troublesome for the Mono project. Appart from the patents issue, Mono is GPL and thus less risky. I don't use Mono myself, though.

Re:A case of bad communication

[TravisWatkins]

Only the compilers and 'tools' are GPL. The majority of the work (the class libraries) is licensed under the X11 license. See here

Re:A case of bad communication

[Valar]

Stanford University Network.

Re:A case of bad communication

[Valar]

oh yeah, url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems

Re:A case of bad communication

[jeif1k]

So...what do you think about .NET?

Unlike Sun, Microsoft isn't pretending that .NET or their .NET implementation is "open" or "free". Unlike Sun, Microsoft isn't asking open source developers to contribute or getting free labor out of anti-Microsoft nerds as part of a so-called "community process".

If you want to use a free and open source system that's like Java or .NET, just use Mono with the Gnome bindings: it's high quality, it's fast, it's easy to learn if you already know Gnome/Gtk+, and you will not be at risk of interference or legal problems from either Sun or Microsoft.

Re:A case of bad communication

[R.Caley]

HawkinsOS, enterprise ready on June 15th 2004

February 30th, surely.

Who is the rambling, raving lunatic now, uh?

[hummassa]

Disclaimer 1: I have READ the Fine Article.

What it is: Sun licenses the JVM to the FreeBSD community under the SCSL. Sun unilaterally has the right to revoke it. Sun DID revoke it, albeit in preparation to negotiate terms for new community license. Guys at FreeBSD do not know who to ask right now. E-mails from non-revenue-generating FreeBSD got unanswered.

What it really is: RMS is right. Anyone deploying Java apps under FreeBSD for a reason or another is now a hostage in this situation. Why? Because Sun *can* (and, depending on shareholders $$$ desire, *will*) pull the plug at any time. Why? Because the JVM and standard classes are NOT FREE SOFTWARE. Free Software is about freedom, not about price.

Oh, come on, everyone with prospects of starting their first Java projects, especially governments going the Free Software way, should DROP it and go to other platform.

Re:Who is the rambling, raving lunatic now, uh?

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

Now, will you take to browsing at 1 before you post too? (RTFAing does not seem to be enough.)

Your point is valid - Sun can revoke the license unilaterally. However, when you shot off this post you already had a couple of factual errors: Sun revoked it by mistake, the guys at FreeBSD knew who to ask, and their emails did get answered.

In short, for not having done your research (there are not that many comments here yet, and they were fewer when you posted), you look at least a bit raving IMHO.

The duplicity of Java

[breakbeatninja]

Sun's Java, a programming language aimed for all platforms and operating systems, supposedly ubiquitous in any computing environment. So, let me ask, why would they, with that goal in mind, revoke *any* license for *any* operating system? They simply limit their potential users and the potential of their language as being widely adopted.

Re:The duplicity of Java

[mrogers]

From a hacker's point of view portability is Java's raison d'être, but from Sun's point of view portability is second to profit. Sun could profit by encouraging people to deploy Java software on a variety of platforms, then pulling the rug out from under their feet by restricting Java to Solaris. Investment banks with Java on their servers would have the choice of shutting down operations for six months while they rewrote everything in C#, or meeting Sun's terms. Admittedly this would make customers furious, but it's a "nuclear option" if Sun gets too close to bankruptcy.

Point being...

[hummassa]

The FreeBSD issue was a licensing mistake... that with Sun's current licensing scheme, you are at the mercy of their mistakes, because the license is revokable (in other words, because Java is not Free Software).

IRT Apple, Sun did not Give support, they Sold support :-) because OSX is Not Free Software either.

Re:Point being...

[michaelggreer]

That is an excellent point (which I think I also made), but not the one I was refuting. The parent claimed Sun was doing all this to keep Solaris the best Java platform. I simply think that idea had no merit.

No need to attack me...

[hummassa]

A) I was reading at -1. The "this was a mistake and we cleared it up" post had not showed up when I started posting.

B) It is not relevant that the revoking was by mistake. Eventually, it can be done on purpose, too. And that is the problem.

C) No, they did not knew exactly who to ask, and at least when the FreeBSD foundation report was done they did not receive any answer. It's irrelevant for the discussion of this piece, IMHO, that they eventually cleared up the situation. Had the climate at Sun WRT FreeBSD been different, Sun could stall this and caused a lot of damage. And they still can, at any time, because Java is not Free Software.

D) I am not raving and nor is RMS, which is whom I was referring to. Java is not Free Software. If you are considering Free Software (as a lot of governments are doing nowadays with a lot of good reasons to do so... see http://www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html) you should not consider Java as a good option for software development (unless Kaffe [or other Free JVM] + GNUClassPath is good enough for you). And this was my conclusion in the end of my post.

E) As an aftertought, disclaimer, etc: I started to post my piece as soon as I saw the blurb (when I woke up this morning) and it had only 9 posts at -1. When I finally organized those three short paragraphs, and clicked Submit, it had 20+ posts, with some (3?) of those under the "A case of bad communication by phkamp (524380) (#11273654)" post. I took good 10-15 minutes to write this answer up, because I don't troll. I believe that RMS is right and that proprietary software is a legalized scam. And I really like J2EE (technically) as a platform but I really dislike the power that Sun exerts over it and the MS-like lock-in that it represents.

--
And this is not a sig.

Re:No need to attack me...

[cculianu]

I completely agree with this quote:

I don't troll. I believe that RMS is right and that proprietary software is a legalized scam. And I really like J2EE (technically) as a platform but I really dislike the power that Sun exerts over it and the MS-like lock-in that it represents.

Actually.. if you take this point of view truly seriously, it becomes obvious that many laws that protect corporations and eliminate competition can be viewed as legalized scams. I strongly believe this but convincing people in a culture where so many people are dependent on their 'corporate masters' (to use a cliche) is very difficult. So many of us are either involved in the scam or strive to be (eg we are in college and would really like to be employed by a scammer) that convincing people that software patents and much of copyright law is a scam is really rather like convincing a person that his wife is a whore, or his brother is a liar, or that his country sucks or that his family is retarded. It is difficult for a person to accept negative truths about something they are emotionally involved with.

People make excuses for those close to them or those things on which they depend.

The cognitive dissonance is too much for some people and they choose to look the other way...

However, if one can be impartial -- copyrights and patents on software are legalized scams. Any arguments that they 'benefit society' in some way are just regurgitations of the scammer's lie.

If you think I am too extreme in my views, perhaps I am. Perhaps you are right and I am wrong. However consider at least the question of whether we give the scammers too much power over the marketplace and whether we unnecessarily protect already-successful companies that have long since stopped actively contributing to the benefit of the market or the economy in general (I am thinking in particular of giants in the music industry or giants in the software industry that try and patent software techniques, etc).

Re:No need to attack me...

[i_r_sensitive]

People make excuses for those close to them or those things on which they depend.

Like perhaps their dearly held views that patents and copyrights are just legal scams?

So, copyright and patents are just legal scams perpetrated by the scammers, or the man, or whitey, or whatever to keep you down are they? So when the patent office opened all those years ago it was just to keep you down? Oh, sorry, I forgot about feeding your over-weaning paranoia...

No, in point of fact the raison d'etre for the patent office and the origins of patent law is quite the opposite. This is called history, and it is fact.

So you may abhor what that body of law has become, and you may abhor the gross abuses of the spirit of that body of law, but at least do yourself the courtesy to stop propogating lies to yourself. Arm yourself with some facts so that when dawn's battle arrives you at least are oriented in the the direction of the true enemy, and not flailing at his pawns and surrogates...

Now, copyright law, I agree is nothing but a scam, designed to keep the poor on the bottom and the rich on top. Copyright law is the reason we have no cure for cancer, it is a mechanism designed by the illuminati for the sole purpose of stiffling creativity, preventing the free flow of ideas and information. And you "know" you must be right because your prophet RMS made no use of copyright law when he drafted the GPL to protect F/OSS software...

There ought to be a new class of logic error for this. Fallacious Appeal to Misquoted Authority or something along those lines...

The point is, without copyright law, the GPL is just high grade toilet paper. Without patent law, Edison never has the means to realize the inventions of his later years.

It's called throwing the baby out with the bath water, and it is widely recognized as a sub-optimal choice. Perhaps if we can learn to seperate the abuse of process from the process, we can treat the abuse of process in a meaningful fashion. However, such a goal is nearly impossible to realize when otherwise rational, well-articulated folk refuse to identify the real issue, and consequently dilute and confuse the issue for the rest.

Re:No need to attack me...

[0racle]

B)It is not relevant that the revoking was by mistake. Eventually, it can be done on purpose, too. And that is the problem.
Its only a problem if your an idiot and didn't read the licence that Java is distributed under. Also did you know that your 'right' to GPL software can be revoked as well if you don't follow the terms of the GPL? Is that not also a problem by your statement here?

It was relevant that Sun revoked FreeBSD's license to Java since it was a mistake. Mistakes happen.

Re:No need to attack me...

[Joey Vegetables]

We live in a world that we would like to believe is largely free, but, because of various systems of power and control, including those you mentioned and many more, it is not.

The book linked to in my sig contains many additional examples, and a strategy for overcoming them.

Re:No need to attack me...

[Homology]

Its only a problem if your an idiot and didn't read the licence that Java is distributed under. Also did you know that your 'right' to GPL software can be revoked as well if you don't follow the terms of the GPL? Is that not also a problem by your statement here?

Far from it, really. Sun can, more or less, at any moment revoke the license at their own discretion. This is not the case with BSD or GPL license.

Re:No need to attack me...

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

Well, look at it as a friendly advice then, and not an attack. I much prefer Free software myself (only non-free code on the 4 'puters I admin is the nvidia-driver - the graphics driver situation on Linux is a good demonstration of why Free is better than free), and when I do program I avoid Java for the same reason as you do.

Still, when I read the comments to this story (browsing at 2), I first read 4-5 comments about how this is already fixed. Below them, I read your comment - which came out as a bit agressive. So, maybe you could have reread the comments before pressing submit?

Emulation

[the real darkskye]

Well i guess its time to find out how well the svr4/sunos emulation in freebsd holds up and run the native version

Netcraft confirms: BSD trolls are dead.

[AtariAmarok]

What? a BSD news item with only 1 out of 31 messages modded down? What is the world coming to?

There is absolutely no need to freak out...

[pmike_bauer]

The maner in which most people use Java on FreeBSD is not affected by this. Here is why

1. This only affects binary distributions.
2. The only binary distribution available is JDK 1.3
3. Most FreeBSD Java users (myself included) build JDK 1.4 from source.
4. Most FreeBSD Java users do not use the 1.3 binary distribution.

Re:There is absolutely no need to freak out...

[ChristTrekker]

Where's this source? Since when is Java OSS? If I knew there was source, I wouldn't have been shouting about availability of Java for NetBSD for the past year.

Re:that's why java should be gpl'd

[BoomerSooner]

Actually it's why Java should be ignored. You're just as safe using an MS product as you are a Sun product. Actually with Sun's bleek future I would say being a MS shop is significantly more secure. I love Tomcat but this is one more reason to be wary.

1/2 my companies applications run on Tomcat the other half run on IIS. They both are behind firewalls and are both very stable (you don't have to reboot for every windows update, just stop and restart the services the same way you do in Unix-based OSes).

I'm a big fan of the new .Net architecture and the VS.Net tools that now allow you to step through ASP.Net code and SQL Stored Procedures. I guess I'm one of the rare people who like almost every platform available to develop on. ASP/SQL Server & JSP/PostgreSQL are my favorites.

This confirms it

[one9nine]

Java licences are dying ...

WTF?

[nurb432]

While its their product and their choice, the attitude they are expressing makes me want to NOT continue with Java ( or sun ) in any form.

Revoking existing licenses is just uncool. It also is bad business.

Some people need older versions of software.

Re:that's why java should be gpl'd

[TheLink]

"They both are behind firewalls and are both very stable (you don't have to reboot for every windows update, just stop and restart the services the same way you do in Unix-based OSes)."

You sure? I think one problem on most Windows O/Ses is you can't remove/overwrite a file whilst it is in use. Whereas with Unix stuff - you can. So on windows the update software has to either rename any file/executable that is currently in use, copy in the new file and then remember to delete the renamed stuff AFTER everything restarts and the old stuff is nolonger in use... OR postpone the overwriting till some other time.

AFAIK I don't think the typical windows update method does the first method - often (not always) it appears to put the updates somewhere else, and the files are copied in during the boot up (overwriting the old stuff) - so you need to reboot in order to update.

I suppose if it is really supported by the update - you probably have to stop the relevant service THEN update the necessary files (windows update, hotfix etc), THEN restart the service.

This involves a lot more downtime AND tends to be more error-prone given the style of the way things are done in Windows - the joy of "seamless integration" = you might miss out one service that you are to stop and start.

So unless I see real evidence, I'd just reboot if the update requires it - hopefully stuff is in running a cluster or something.

Migration

[nurb432]

Its can make Sun's OS's more attaractive to people that have bought in, and sold their soul on Java applications..

Re:that's why java should be gpl'd

[BoomerSooner]

So you install a new version of Tomcat over a running copy?

How hard is it to (in Windows):
1. Stop the Service (10-15 seconds)
2. Update Files (1-2 minutes)
3. Restart Services (10-15 seconds)

SQL Server is the same way except it does those things for you.

If you want evidence simply test it out for yourself. All you need to do is check the dll/exe/etc versions that are being updated.

Personally I generally do reboot because I'm lazy. But if you're really concerned with up-time it can be done.

BTW Here is a link to a longest up time on netcraft. It's doubtful that they have installed no patches on #15 (Windows running Apache).

you did not articulate your argument well.

[hummassa]

Have *you* read the SCSL? can *you* quote what you're talking about?

Re:you did not articulate your argument well.

[0racle]

I don't use Java on *BSD's so no, I have not read it since I have not agreed to it.

The real problem, to me is that ...

[hummassa]

As I said in another post (#11167772), I believe every producer of what lawyers call "Intellectual Property" should be remunerated mainly by producing it and less by generating a lot of copies of it.

This is, mainly, what happens today to the real *producer*: programmers get salaries, journalists (who are the *real* writers in terms of quantity) get salaries... while Britney/Eminem gets a lot of $$$ for ... well ... being themselves, and Sony/EMI/*AA-affiliate gets the REAL $$$^$$$ for copying and distributing it. Do you get the difference?

Linux ABI runs Linux JDKs on FreeBSD

[ewg]

I have run Linux JDKs on FreeBSD/i386 using the Linux ABI. Not in a production environment, but it's what I would consider if the native port ever went away.

Re:Linux ABI runs Linux JDKs on FreeBSD

[Brandybuck]

That is until Sun revoke's Linux's license...

So, just to clarify:

[hummassa]

A. the SCSL can be revoked at any time by Sun (sections 6, 7, and 8).

B. this applies IIRC to other JVMs for Linux and Windows too.

C. those facts (A and B above) permit that Sun exerts enourmous pressure on the Java Free Software Comunity, because...

D. (surprise, surprise)Java is not Free Software.

E. (conclusion) Thou Shall Not use Java to build Free Software.

Got it?

Re:So, just to clarify:

[0racle]

A, B and C are irrelevent because you had to agree to it to to work with the Java *SOURCE* not the not the JRE or the SDK, used to deploy and write Java apps. The license for the JRE and SDK clearly state that if you do not abide by the licence then you no longer have the right to use it, not simply because Sun is having a fit. You do not have to agree to the SCSL to use Java or write Java applications.

You must feel like a real genius to be able to point out that Java is not FOSS, your only the millionth or so person to do so.

I will use whatever language I want to write software, free or otherwise, when I want to do something in Java, I will.

Re:So, just to clarify:

[hummassa]

I will use whatever language I want to write software, free or otherwise, when I want to do something in Java, I will. AND you can jump off a cliff without any ropes or equipment too.
What I wrote and you refused to read is: once you develop under Java, you are under Sun Microsystems' reign. I would not recommend it. There are options. Especially if you want to develop free software. You are trolling. End of transmission.

Re:So, just to clarify:

[NeoBeans]

What I wrote and you refused to read is: once you develop under Java, you are under Sun Microsystems' reign.

How so? Can Sun control how I distribute my own software? Can they force me to use a specific license for my application? This thread makes me think folks are as terrified of Sun as Microsoft is of the "viral" GPL.

Keep in mind that Sun != Java much like Red Hat != Linux.

ARM and MIPS endianness in game consoles

[tepples]

Please remember that practically every CPU architecture besides x86 is big-endian; Mac's, 99% of UNIX (AIX/HPUX/Solaris) machines, Z/OS machines, etc.

ARM7 and ARM9 can be set to big-endian or little-endian, but they're frozen to little-endian in every Nintendo Game Boy Advance and Nintendo DS handheld video game system. The MIPS processor in Sony's PS1 and PS2 video game consoles is configured little-endian as well.

Free .NET clone vs. free Java clone

[tepples]

The .NET framework has a free implementation. The Java platform has a free implementation in the combination of GCJ, Kaffe, and GNU Classpath. Which is more complete in practice?

Re:Free .NET clone vs. free Java clone

[SunFan]

Which is more complete in practice?

Java is 100% on Window, Linux, and UNIX. .NET is 100% on...Windows.

Re:Free .NET clone vs. free Java clone

[SunFan]

Your post doesn't address that at all.

Okay. Of the free ones, NONE are complete. However, the Java ones at least have a chance, given that Microsoft is in a position to leverage patents and trade secrets against Mono and Rotor. At least certain versions of Java (e.g., 1.3.x) provide a fixed target and Sun allows complete implementations and encourages them. Sun is a hardware company and considers Java an enabler, Microsoft is a software company and considers .NET part of their only source of revenue. Only people completely committed to the Microsoft platform should ever consider .NET. Mono and Rotor are for entertainment purposes only.

Re:Free .NET clone vs. free Java clone

[Moridineas]

Uhhh, you DO know Microsoft released Rotor?

Re:that's why java should be gpl'd

[Homology]

Personally I generally do reboot because I'm lazy. But if you're really concerned with up-time it can be done.

Reboot has the nice property of actually testing that the server works after a power outage. Now, Microsoft Windows is a bit excessive on the need for rebooting, but that's another story .-)

License?? The "make install" is poisonned!!!

[relaxrelax]

Simple end user here.

License pull. Like it's gonna make any kind of difference!!!

I've been trying to have java in mozilla for browsing for weeks, but freeBSD 5.2 and linuxbase 7 won't cooperate and sun's instructions are a mess.

Who needs to use a license to pull in order to sterilize innovation when you can poison the "make install clean" process instead?

Anyone who knows better than me should visit the FreeBSD wiki and leave documentation proving mozilla CAN run java at all.

Or linux-mozilla. Or thunderbird. Whatever. I'm getting less picky every week about which browser to run java on. I may even downgrade my FreeBSD to run java if I can't find a solution in the next two weeks. *shudder*

I'm putting Sun on my no-buy list, next to Microsoft and Ron Hubbard's fiction books!

P.S.: The FreeBSD wiki won't pull license on the documentation or be hard to use. This proves Sun is not involved. (-;

Re:FreeBSD 5.3 Java 1.4 (and mozilla plugin)

[Daeron]

Looks about right ... except for the plugin location, i would personally use FreeBSD's nice /usr/X11R6/lib/browser_plugins/ directory to make the symlink in ... that way if you have multiple browsers .. they can all pick up the plugin in the same location.

at least this works if you have both mozilla & firefox, and very likely will also work with the gazillion of GNOME-browsers like epiphany, galeon and whatever ....

Re:FreeBSD...

[Daeron]

Let's not conveniently forget this test was completely UniProcessor, which is precicely where FreeBSD added additional overhead by its efforts to move away from the GIANT Kernel Lock (which NetBSD-2.0 still uses enitrely).

I would definately like to see these same tests performed on SMP-hardware and see if the NetBSD results are Still this much better than FreeBSD's.

Rewording of SCSL

[ciph3rBSD]

As far as I see it, it must be the rewording Sun is doing in SCSL, in order to use it also in OpenSolaris.

kaffe

[ChristTrekker]

This is what makes projects like Kaffe all the more important.

Re:that's why java should be gpl'd

[NeoBeans]

Actually it's why Java should be ignored. You're just as safe using an MS product as you are a Sun product. Actually with Sun's bleek future I would say being a MS shop is significantly more secure. I love Tomcat but this is one more reason to be wary.

I think it's interesting that in a thread about using Java on FreeBSD, you suddenly compare Sun to Microsoft, a company that has not contributed or licensed or otherwise engaged the FreeBSD community on any level.

The second point I'd make is that when you speak of Sun's "bleak" future, keep in mind that while Sun is the steward for Java, *if* Sun were to literally go under (not likely anytime soon), Java would still exist. Java permeates the enterprise, the virtual machine is strong in portable devices (namely cell phones), and with support from major players like BEA, IBM, Unisys, and other top-tier vendors, it doesn't require Sun to exist for Java to remain a viable platform in the long-term.

That said, the big difference between your IIS deployment and your Tomcat deployment is something that you may forget -- the natural abstractions available to you by virtual of the Java Virtual Machine greatly reduce the risks posed by the exploits available in the IIS domain... Granted, vigilant systems administration and solid coding help, but it does require greater attention than a comparable JSP/Servlet solution if for no other reason than the fact that Microsoft-based solutions have a giant bulls-eye painted on them courtesy of script-kiddies.

Re:that's why java should be gpl'd

[pthisis]

They both are behind firewalls and are both very stable (you don't have to reboot for every windows update, just stop and restart the services the same way you do in Unix-based OSes).

Stopping and restarting a service for any OS update other than a new kernel is basically unacceptable in production.

Hell, I can even upgrade my application server to a new version in the middle of the day, when it's handling 600+ requests per second, (or update the version of libc its using, networking libraries, etc) without dropping any connections--the old version passes off those network connections to the new version (before it stops) without closing them down, and it's seamless to the other end of the connection.

Yeah, that's what they'd like you to think.

[hummassa]

Keep in mind that Sun != Java much like Red Hat != Linux.
NO.

Sun CAN revoke any license for any "official"-JDK.
Red Hat can NOT revoke any license for any GPL'd software.

If you are not using kaffe/gij/gcj/... + Classpath, your JDK license can be revoked at ANY TIME and that is what I am trying to explain for six or seven posts.

Oh, yeah, they cannot control how you distribute your own software but they CAN control how you distribute THEIRS (their class libs, for instance) and they CAN control your USE of theirs (their compiler, their interpreter, etc).

And... as I said since the beginning, I would not recommend using Java for development. There are other options. Explore them. I even said in this same thread more than once: I think technically J2EE is a wonderful platform. Even so, I don't recommend using it to develop Free Sofware.

--
And this is not a sig.

Re:Yeah, that's what they'd like you to think.

[NeoBeans]

Sun CAN revoke any license for any "official"-JDK.

Okay, I'll bite... here are the details regarding termination of the license to use the Sun Java Development Kit 5.0.

Pay close attention to this part...

7. TERMINATION. This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement at any time by destroying all copies of Software. This Agreement will terminate immediately without notice from Sun if you fail to comply with any provision of this Agreement. Either party may terminate this Agreement immediately should any Software become, or in either party's opinion be likely to become, the subject of a claim of infringement of any intellectual property right. Upon Termination, you must destroy all copies of Software.

...which means that you're license to use the JDK can only be terminated in one of two scenarios:

1. You are involved in (or likely to be involved in) an intellectual property lawsuit that exposes Sun or yourself to liability (you can terminate the license yourself).
2. You break one of the other preconditions of the license. If you look through the rest of the license, this involves things like violating export restrictions, warranting the use of the application in nuclear facilities, and attempting to modify the code (a la Microsoft), redistributing it as if it were your own, and other behaviors that require you to essentially step on Sun's intellectual property to trigger the revocation of your right to use the JDK.

FreeBSD Foundation, Sun working on Java license

[ravenII]

HE FreeBSD Foundation and Sun say they are patching up a row they had over the distribution of binaries for the Java runtime and the JDK. Story on yahoo

OK, I'll bite.

[boodaman]

There are options. Explore them.

The scenario: an application that must be readily distributable and runnable on Solaris, GNU/Linux, Windows, OS X, and (hopefully) *BSD. The definition of "readily" is:

- build once (meaning compile once)
- no installation of third-party software. In other words, the application's distribution package must have everything it needs to run
- it must install correctly on all of the listed operating systems simply by running a wizard and taking the default options

Business issues to consider: conservative estimates specify approx. 8 "man" years to develop. All versions of application must communicate easily with other versions of the same application regardless of platform, and must also communicate easily with third-party applications and services, a la web services (SOAP, XML, etc)

Timeframe: no more than 24 calendar months elapsed time to 1.0, including all QA and testing.

Now, let's consider the options.

C: requires multiple builds, difficult to find suitably accomplished developers to meet timeframe requirements, major issues with memory management and other difficulties.

C++: all of the above from C, developer pool is smaller for UNIX-ish platforms, larger for Windows

VB: Windows only, developer pool is large

Perl: requires third-party installation on Windows (ActivePerl), developer pool is sizable. Difficult to code enterprise-wide application (we tried it). Server-based installations require something like mod_perl and Apache.

Python: developer pool very small

Ruby: developer pool very small

Java: no third-party installations, easily distributable, one build, enterprise apps easily created, developer pool is large

Seriously, for many, many purposes in the business world (where people make money to spend elsewhere) Java is the only answer. I'm not saying that because of bias, I'm saying that because I spend several months of every year writing specifications and design documents for such business applications.

I've been hacking around with Python for a couple of weeks lately. Very cool stuff, but I wouldn't even attempt trying to justify choosing it to any of my clients or my bosses for any number of reasons.

If you want to just start writing some application so that you can release it under the GPL and get it onto SourceForge and Freshmeat and look cool, then yeah, there are many different options for language and environment.

However, in a practical, real-world situation with deadlines, management buy-in, long term maintenance and support, etc. the options these days are basically two: bite the bullet and go Microsoft only with .NET and the various languages they offer (VB, C++, C#) or avoid Microsoft and choose Java.

I welcome a reasonable case proving I'm wrong. Claiming I'm wrong just because you happen to be good friends with half a dozen people who are Perl/Python/Ruby or C/C++ gods doesn't prove your case, though, because I'm talking about being able to find the people needed through a normal hiring process. That means geographic location, skills, quantity, etc.

Disclaimer: my team is currently developing an application that could not have been developed with anything but Java unless we were willing to support Microsoft platforms only, and that wasn't an option.

You have bitten allright.

[hummassa]

Python is what I would recommend if you asked (and paid) me.

Let's see your requirements:

-build once: ok?;
-install: you can make an executable with everything needed, will install nicely;

small developer pool? I don't think so. lots of documentation around.

developing facilities? hmm... lots of Good and Very Good IDEs (DrPython, Eclipse, KDevelop and Komodo come to mind), unit testing, practically everything Java has in better packaging.

Mono/Gtk# is another alternative only if you don't have Win98 clients (does not work smoothly).

Where did you get the "developer pool size" you mention? I would agree there are more VB developers than cockroaches in the planet, but Python as small base strikes me as very odd.

No offense was meant.

Re:You have bitten allright.

[boodaman]

Skilled developers with 3-5 years of Python experience readily available in our Metro area. By 3-5 years experience I mean 3-5 years of serious application development, enterprise level, with Python. Not somebody who has read a couple books or a couple PDFs.

That's where your argument breaks down (as does Stallman's): its all well and good to champion doing everything only with free software, but the practical situation is quite different. The 100% as-defined-by-RMS free software means C, perl, or Python.

An multi-platform application used by an enterprise (hundreds of employees) in production, coded in C, would be a monster. Likewise perl, and probably Python, assuming we could even find the people with the experience. Regaring the C and perl comments I just made, I say this from experience.

I think you aren't being rational if you think you can take on development projects of large scope and get them done in the time constraints by telling half a dozen people to go read some PDFs and FAQs and then start coding.

Keep in mind, I'm platform agnostic. I don't really care what tools my team uses as long as the project comes in on time and under budget and doesn't fall on its face the first time people use it for real. I just don't think Python is that platform at this time, for all of the reasons I've stated.

I'll ask our HR guy to do a search on Monster, see how many hits we get for 3-5 years of Python experience in the Detroit metro area. My guess is, the number will be quite small, but maybe I will be surprised.

I don't understand your comments about IDEs. We already use Eclipse (as well as GNU/Linux for development, QA, and staging, using Apache and Tomcat)...which IDE you use is irrelevant to the specs I laid out in my previous post. Choice of IDE does nothing to help your app when it goes to production.

Re:You have bitten allright.

[hummassa]

A. IRT number of available developers; I addressed this in my metro area. I suppose that if I lived and had a similar carreer in Detroit metro area, things would be similar. Obviously I was talking about people with 3 or 4 years of developing in python... and people capable of "getting into speed" when needed (p.ex., people with 4-5 years developing Java apps, that are
versed in other languages too... most project teams can be composed with 30-40% of the developers in this category)

B. IRT 100% free software and practical considerations; well, if you believe -- and I do -- that proprietary software is unethical, then you don't really have a lot of choice, do you? Now, as you seem not to be ethically bothered with proprietary software, then this is a moot point to discuss. But you are right that C, C++, Perl and Python (and Lisp -- but Lisp is to be used only in special cases) are the only 100% FS tools we have today.

C. I agree a C system would be a monster; $DEITY knows I have worked with a 100KLOC inventory and sales system. Now, there is no reason but bad engineering and/or bad management if a similar system in Perl or C++ become a monster -- both are languages capable of building enormous systems without deviating too much from what a similar Java system would be. AND it's difficult at least IMHO to build a mess in Python.

D. I think you aren't being rational if you think you can take on development projects of large scope and get them done in the time constraints by telling half a dozen people to go read some PDFs and FAQs and then start coding. I agree -- I would be rather irrational if I ever said that, which I didn't. What I did say in (#11292769) below was: I can do your example project with this constraints within the boundaries of my geographic area with two high skilled Python devs, one medium skilled, and one who do not work nowadays with python but is capable of getting up to speed.

E. I just don't think Python is that platform at this time, for all of the reasons I've stated You asked for someone to prove you reasonably is wrong and you said that for all the reasons you stated, and this is what I am arguing: with the mentioned developers, you deadline of 2 years and estimated size of 8 man-years, in python, your project is feasible because (1) there are good developers to get from developer pool -- I can get them, and I suppose you could too, (b) the tool works without significant difference from Java -- that is where you would be aiming for reference, (3) if the "manager mind" is the significant fact, remember the PHB in case that Sun can pull the plug in the developer tools, and with Free Software you always have choice of support etc.

F. I don't understand your comments about IDEs I'll explain myself. I was giving a PHB once exactly the same arguments I gave you, and he asked me: but my developers will need an IDE, some sort of tools to refactor code, extract statistics, unit test, etc. So I said: fear no more, my friend. Python has all of those and some others. Got it?

Re:You have bitten allright.

[boodaman]

Now, as you seem not to be ethically bothered with proprietary software, then this is a moot point to discuss.

As I said, this is where your argument and Stallman's breaks down. You have to make a living wage, which means you have to have the skills that employers are looking for. The skills in demand at this point in time, in my area, are .Net (and to a lesser degree VB) and Java. It is just that simple. My family doesn't give a rat's ass about ethics if I'm not feeding them or housing them because I refuse to code using anything but what Stallman says I should use.

The "lone genius coder" style of doing things is all well and good, but in practice, corporate America just doesn't work that way. Do I wish it was different? Sure, but it isn't.

You have to get management buy in, then you have to have long term support. How do I save my ass if I convince my boss to go with Python, and a year into the project we lose two people and can't find any others with comparable Python experience? Saying "But boss, Richard Stallman and somebody on /. using the nick hummassa insist that we shouldn't be using anything but perl, Python, or Ruby so the fact that our project is behind schedule and won't meet our launch deadline is OK, and if the board doesn't like it, tough!" will just get me fired. Get it?

I pointed out that I support free software, in many ways. I don't need to defend my support, either. My point is simple: whether you support free software or not, in many, many cases the pie-in-the-sky theoretical way it "should" be isn't the way it actually is.

Actually, you did tell me to have people read PDFs and FAQs. I quote (from #11292714):

small developer pool? I don't think so. lots of documentation around.

That says "if you don't have any developers, have the developers you do have read some documentation and start coding."

IDEs aren't even an issue in my mind, as I said, we already use Eclipse. Got it?

Some more things I missed

[hummassa]

I welcome a reasonable case proving I'm wrong. Claiming I'm wrong just because you happen to be good friends with half a dozen people who are Perl/Python/Ruby or C/C++ gods doesn't prove your case, though, because I'm talking about being able to find the people needed through a normal hiring process. That means geographic location, skills, quantity, etc.

Ok. My point. In my 3million people city, there are at most 10000 good developers and I'm acquainted with circa 2000 of them, having headhunted around a lot etc (*), distributed:

Delphi 1200
VB 700
Java 700
C/C++ 600
Python 600
Perl 100

Capable of picking up python enough to be codemonkeys: 300 more.

You know, obviously, why the numbers do not add up.

(*) I was a PHB for a period of 4 years, and I did a lot of headhunting. I also maintained good relations with a lot of people in a lot of different levels at college. I know what I'm talking about, if we are talking about my specific geographic area.

Why me exactly... I dunno...

[hummassa]

but I'll answer you:

As a shareholder of Sun I feel like I should say something. You talk about Sun, like other talk about microsoft, like is some huge control freak of a company. Sorry to say that it isn't. I am not an expert on marketing, or any of that crap. But it seems that companies like Sun, and microsoft are getting crap that just isnt there fault. Java is a good programming language. And any control that they have was given to them, by the public. We build these companies up. So we gave them teh control. They are just trying to run a company as best they can

The best they can do, in the case of Java, in my Humble Opinion, is to GPL, LGPL, or BSDL the JVM and maybe regulate quality by means of using the Java trademark.
Why? Because then Java will become Free Software with all the goodies that it represents and with all the goodwill of a real community, etc. No Free Software developer would have to fear the comes and goes of the market, because they would have a non-rescindable-at-will license to the code and the ability to fork if needed.
Now, if you agreed with me, you can raise the subject in the next shareholders assembly.

Java basically was a wrong product for Sun

[vlad_petric]

In the beginning, it simply was a "write once, run anywhere" for the desktop market. Nothing wrong there. Once it ended up on the server side, it was quite effective at eating up Sun's market share, however, as it brought good performance, scalability, stability to the PC market.

it's not a naming issue

[jeif1k]

However, FreeBSD has not actually paid up to have the JVM branded as Java(tm). So Sun says, that's not branded Java, and if you keep saying it is, we will revoke your distribution license. And they did.

It doesn't matter whether FreeBSD calls it "Java", "Mocha", or anything else: Sun has revoked the license to the code and the technology itself; FreeBSD can't ship it under any name.

Java is and remains a proprietary system. Running Java on FreeBSD or Linux is a risky proposition: Sun can revoke your right to do so at any time.

Re:it's not a naming issue

[phats garage]

so how could they stop me from running it? I could understand if it went and asked sun each time upon starting up, but I'm not sure that it does that.

Re:it's not a naming issue

[Michael Hunt]

Wrong... once a piece of IP is licensed to an individual under certain terms, said license cannot be revoked later.

Case in point, if I develop software under the GPL, and then decide to move to a proprietary model after I have a substantive userbase, then it would be 100% legally correct for my annoyed users to fork the last GPL version and start their own (e.g. OpenMOSIX, OpenGFS, OpenSSH, etc.)

Whilst the FreeBSD Foundation's rights to distribute the software can, in fact, be revoked at any point, Sun cannot revoke the rights of end users to use the software distributed to them by the Foundation.

Microsoft and Mono

[jeif1k]

Microsoft doesn't have any control over Mono: Mono combines the ECMA core (which is clearly free and unencumbered) with standard FOSS libraries like Gnome and Gtk+.

So: using Java is not safe from a legal perspective because Sun owns Java, both the major implementations and the platform itself. On the other hand, using Mono is safe from a legal perspective (at least no less safe than any other free platform) because Microsoft clearly doesn't own it.

never contribute to a FOSS Java project

[jeif1k]

Most FreeBSD Java users (myself included) build JDK 1.4 from source.

By agreeing to Sun's source licenses, you have agreed to a lot of legal restrictions on what you can and cannot do. I hope you are aware of those restrictions and disclose them clearly when you participate in other FOSS projects. For example, you will not be able to contribute to GNU gcj or Kaffe.

that's bad

[jeif1k]

On OpenBSD the port tells you where to download the relevant files as part of installation : Java 1.4_2 Makefile

Sun won't let you download the JRE/JDK source unless you agree to their license terms. If you do agree to those terms, you become ineligible for participating in many open source projects because the conditions "contaminate" you. BSD seems to be a really brilliant way for Sun to infect a lot of FOSS programmers with their viral license. And unlike the GPL, which can be said to infect software, the Java license contaminates you.

Re:that's bad

[Cro Magnon]

And unlike the GPL, which can be said to infect software, the Java license contaminates you.

Is this another Soviet Russia joke?

Re:FreeBSD 5.3 Java 1.4 (and mozilla plugin)

[relaxrelax]

Java is now listed in "about plugins" in mozilla, but no java applet whatsoever will load.

Error: "Applet app noninited".

What to do? Demand a refund from Sun?? (-;

In any case I need java to work in order to get a job, I can't just let go due to the hellish nature of java configuration like a gamer would!

So why is it irrelevant that Java Isnt open source

[rastin]

This kind of crap is exactly what has stopped me from embracing Java. Its owned buy Sun and they make arbitrary decisions concerning its future. I can't depend on its longevity or future compatibility when someone is allowed to make decisions like this. Am I over reacting? Too bad, I'm not going to get stuck rewriting all my code when some idiot decides to pull the plug on something I need.

Pwttpt! I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough water! I fart in your general direction! You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Sun Confirms!

[vidnet]

Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, Sun is revoking the licenses!