Slashdot Mirror
Java Fallout: OO.o 2.0 and the FOSS Community
Joe Barr writes "Bruce Byfield has an interesting look at the 'fallout' between OpenOffice.org and the free/open source software communities because of their reliance on Java in the latest release. As he says, "It seems a decision based largely on practical considerations -- and with a disregard for the consequences for both the rest of the free and open source software (FOSS) communities and the future of OpenOffice.org itself." This is an issue that is not going away."
Who cares if it's using a non-Free java or a non-Free toilet paper? As long as it DOES THE JOB, it's good enough for me.
Lots of people say that this doesn't matter; as long as OO.o works well, who cares about what free or un-free components it uses. The article does an excellent job outlining the real issues here.
Although it's true that functionality is important, at what cost? Using java not only adds dependencies, but dependencies that some parties are uncomfortable with. Corporate adoption may be slowed, as OO.o isn't a completely "free, fully functional" product anymore. Some of the core features (wizards) require java. Even though a wizard isn't "core" functionality, they're something that people in a workplace would likely need to use.
Either way, this is a good article... it explains the issues in a very clear way.
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
A few years back MS made a lot of fuss about Java while developing an alternative (.NET). In the process, they've planted some seeds such as "Java is neither open nor free!", and "Java is lock-in!", or the confusion surrounding Java on Windows, thanks to the MS VM supporting only v1.3.
.NET-based or native code. So if you, the open source community, cause more fuss over Java and whine about using it, then Microsoft has truely succeeded in it's FUD plan over Java.
I'll tell you all now, I'm a Winodws developer and I write C# code. For us Windows devs, no one uses Java anymore; if you do, it's for support of an existing product. Virtually all new projects are
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Free as in not free enough? Give me a break
"A small but vocal minority.."
Apparently nobody has cared to complain to the marketing people. Not that I want them to, lol.
Java is free, people. Java is probably already on most desktop computers. Sun gave us OOo, and still do 75% of the programming. Unless you're willing to reprogram the Base, HyperSQL, and the other components that require java in C++, then don't complain.
You're getting an office suite, which, while it admittedly isn't perfect, it's definately the best *value* out there.
Jay | http://oldos.org
I read this earlier. If they're going to use java, they should at least make sure it works with GJC out of the box. The one Java alsmost all distros ship with.. So redhat et all. don't have to jump through hoops to get it installed.
I sometimes wish Linux had a application packaging system like MacOSX where you have the option of brining tons of libraries with you hidden under a file system pretending to be an app icon. It just works (most of the time). I'm tired of ldd.
Whether or not the complaints are sensible, I've got to think that if this "fallout" involved more than a tiny handful of disgruntled people I would have heard about it before this.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I cant see this making that much of a difference. Is there going to be a price tag on OOo? Will it actually affect any end-users. I doubt it. The only people this will affect are serious afficondos of the GPL. They are just cutting off their nose to spite their face. OOo is a great suite. I havent tried this new java dependant version, but I cant see any actual practical implications. Oh noes, java is owned by sun!11!!!one!!1! So?
What would be nice is a ppt reader to go along with them...maybe Evince could be made to read ppt?
As for Java, I am only interested in the subset being promoted by RedHat - the free gcj/classpath variant. Call it FreeJava or whatever, but to me anything else is unacceptable. Come on folks, we came this far insisting on free software, don't give up now over one lousy VM and language spec.
I haven't heard anything so retarded since the last time I heard steve balmer give a speech. How excactly is ".net much more free than java"? Last time I checked, microsoft was not giving away any open sourced versions of any .net compilers without at least purchasing the operating system, so it's not really giving it away, plus its not open sourced. On the other hand, you can freely download jre and jdk from the sun website
and though I'm not sure whether that is open sourced or not, there is always the open sourced blackdown java implementation.
So the closest thing I see to irony here is that in order to defend microsoft, you have to be totally ignorant to the everything, much like all of microsofts products.
OpenOffice.org is released as an open-source license, right? So if they have such a big beef with the direction it's going, then someone can create a fork of the project and put the work into ridding it of this supposedly undesireable Java dependency. Or pick up the codebase, write all the currently java-dependent code in C++ and submit it as a patch.
To me, this sounds like a bunch of politicians and lobby activists trying to make the most noise so that they achieve their respective ideological agendas. As an end-user of OO.o, I really don't care either way as long as the functionality is there. And, afaik, the current Java license allows for redistribution of the Java Runtime Environment so they can't retroactively pull that license and prevent people from doing something they've already granted.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Here's a case where the FOSS (Free/Open Source Software) acronym doesn't work, because Free Software and Open Source Software are not the same thing.
Practical, pragmatic decisions like using Java are not a problem for Open Source. That's what Open Source is: developing software in an open manner because of a belief that software developed this way is technologically better than closed-source software. It does not insist that every tool (or language) used in the development process be Free Software or Open Source. From a practical standpoint, it is sufficient that the tool or language meets the needs of the developers and is available on the required platforms, and does not appear to be a patent or other legal liability.
Free software on the other hand, insists for idealogical reasons that any software or tool which is not completely free is deterimental to the community. It's important to have respect for this opinion, but it is not a catastrophe for the OO.org team to choose the Open Source route.
Pardon my hazy understanding of the subtle issues surrounding Java and .NET, but isn't the major problem not so much about the JVM or the CLR, but all the libraries that applications written in either C# (Windows forms) or Java (com.sun.whatever) tend to use?
Well, that , and that either "standard" is subject to change without notice due either to paranoid-possesiveness "No we won't define an ISO" (Sun) or to gorilla-sized "We are the standard despite the stinkin' standards bodies" (MS).
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Fork it.
KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!
People are just being crybabies. All of the functionality that relies on java is new, and in my opinion non-core. Yes, they need to clean up the menu system so that choices that require java are greyed out if its not available, but 2.0 is worth it just for the ui enhancements and better filters.
Base is a lame Access knockoff that crashes all the time. It won't be stable until OOo 3. And why do we care if we can't use wizards, aren't we always lampooning MS for their endless "wizard to create xyz"?
What now we're mad cause someone used the best language available (to them) to produce some new features? I though FOSS was about choice, but I guess thats only if you pick the language that FOSS condones... You can pick anything as long as its lisp and emacs! Anyway, I'm not a java fanboy, I much prefer python or perl, but java does have its place and there are alot of coders who know it, so now we're saying you can't develop OSS in java.. that's a great stance to take.
Grow up, download the JRE, or don't whatever, I've been running the 2.0 beta since it was released without the JRE and I haven't missed anything, for what I need an office suite for it works great. To be true I did install the JRE to check out Base, but it sucks, and I ditched it after about 10 minutes.
Okay after reading TFA, I think there is good reason for concern. I can also see the possibility of additional compiling projects. It's my understanding that since these are Java programs and there are programs that compile Java into binary. So I'm thinking we'll see custom OO.o distros featuring "now without Java dependancies!"
And why not? That's the primary strength of the Open Source movement -- don't like where a project is going? Fork or customize in some way. Ultimately the popularity of the standard package versus the customizations will steer the project in the most popular direction.... in theory. (There are some hard-headed asses out there who, as in the case of XFree86) won't bend to popular demand and a completel fork would result. But the bottom line? The public should have its way if it wants it bad enough.
Sun has a stake in the acceptance and popularity of Java. The motivation behind this should be fairly obvious. It's my understanding that in the future, Java itself will be open sourced and will ultimately take away a lot of the argument that many FOSS people have against this situation. (The other part, asside from the license stuff, is the poor performance... I hate Java performance sometimes...sometimes it really seems to drag.)
You are joking Right?
Esclipse
Help fight continental drift.
Are there any legit reasons that they didn't use an OSS alternative, like Python? It seems to satisfy all of the issues mentioned in the article...am I missing something?
BenCurry.net
ummmm two things wrong there... A. .NET IS Java (1.3) Numerous lawsuits were filed, some lost, some won, but ultimately, Microsoft is still producing .NET
Secondly the very site you link to has links to 15 FOSS JVMs Some of which attempt to ensure full Java 2.0 suport.. (read JRE 1.5)
So what's the issue here? FOSS has a harder time keeping up with Sun's Java development, but because mono was ripped off by a fleet of laywers, FOSS developers can more perfectly implement it?
Oh yeah the problem here is someone is actually using Sun's Java in an Open Source app, which means it isn't FOSS... FOSS is an ideal, and you can build entire distro's off of it, but it's not going to appeal to everyone. I have Sun Java Installed on Debian Oh nooo... IMO your efforts are wasted trying to make the _entire_ open source community embrace FOSS principals. It's a lost cause, because free as in beer will always be embraced by part of the community.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Java is many things. It is a programming language. It is also a runtime environment in the form of a protable virtual machine. It also comes with a huge class library.
For some reason, that monkey Miguel went and decided to write his own version of M$'s Java clone, C#/.NET, for "Linux" (i.e. Unix-like OSes) to undermine everyone else's work.
Now, you can get branded Java from people other than Sun e.g. IBM. IBM is currently a great favourite of the slashdot peanut gallery.
In addition, gcc comes with a Java-language to native code compiler as well as byte code (to run on the evil, nasty closed-soure Sun (or IBM or whoever's) JVM).
If you don't like Sun, or IBM, or Blackdown or kaffe's JVM, including their JIT compilers which can optimise to exceed the efficiency of statically-compiled code, then you can always revert to gcc's Java language compiler.
However, I'm sure these facts will be conventiently ignored for the sake of a good, heated argument, and many rants.
Stick Men
Correction, he rips J2ME a new one.
The problem with J2ME is that phone companies have been adding their "extras" onto the platform or worse, not making them fulling compliant. Samsung's major HTTP screwup on the A500 is a great example of that.
As for Java being slow... give me a damn break. It's running on a PHONE!
So of the rest of that article, particularly the "no memset" and " the inability to read resources into anything but a char array" so a complete lack of understanding.
Blaming a language on a bad implementation of a JVM on a phone is just stupid.
The only time I got in an accident my vehicle had 4 wheels, so now I only drive a motorcycle.
On a more serious note: Do you honestly believe that a homegrown macro language would have been any more secure than choosing a language which they know they can get help from the project sponsor on? I would guess that Python was the second choice, and would have been trendier, but they would be more likely to get integration help from Sun than from the Python crew (for financial/marketing reasons, not because of a lack of benevolence on Python's part).
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
People complain about releases not being quick enough and when Java is used to make the build environment less complicated, people bitch about it not being open source. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Yes, you can, it's just that the OpenOffice guys haven't figured it out yet.
Have you seen the OOO build process? Have you read the OOO source code? They're the most complex, convoluted, cryptic crap I've ever seen. The code is half German, half English, and full of undefined acronyms. I speak both languages and I don't know what the fuck most of the UHCRAprefixes on HRPEvariable JMWKnames mean. Or when you've got 30 folders, each with a 2-letter name, and no README or anything else to tell you what the secret codes mean.
You don't need Java to make a less-complex build process; plenty of C++ projects are very straightforward to build. Adding Java may have made it easier to add new features, but it didn't help those of us who want to improve existing features. In fact, it made the build just that much more difficult.
I still maintain that the reason OpenOffice is moving forward so slowly is because it's so damn complex, and the number one priority of everybody involved with OpenOffice should be to make it simple enough that more hackers can help out.
If you want the real "can't have your cake and eat it too" problem, it's this: developers complain that there isn't enough manpower, but instead of lowering the barrier-to-entry they're *raising* it by adding dependencies that they know many people (like Fedora and Debian) will have to spend effort just to work around.
Java has a very good security record. Anyway, this java stuff has not to do anything with remote execution, just with application code. The chance that there is a buffer overrun in Java is very small (it would mean a serious bug in the JVM). No software is perfect, but Java has a much better security record than most execution environments out there (compare it for instance with ActiveX).
The problem is that there is little to choose from if you want rapidly developed, secure code. C++ code gets complex very fast, and is difficult to check for memory leaks, buffer overruns etc. PERL and Python are less maintainable. IDE's for Java are getting very easy to use as well. MONO, well, this IS a Sun project...
Disclaimer: I am an OpenOffice.org Mac OS X developer and a founder of the NeoOffice project
One of the biggest problems with Java in OOo is the way that it's being used. Probably the largest volunteer developer community outside of Sun is in the porting project which mostly aims to recompile OOo onto other Unix and Unix-like platforms. Part of the portability lure is that the older architecture of OOo made porting easy; OOo itself has its own internal complete abstraction layers for operating system functionality, windowing, widgets, and the kitchen sink. By simply porting those layers, OOo could run anywhere and even the most obscure Unix variant could have access to a MS Office compatible office suite.
Java breaks that. Why? Not all of the platforms on which previous versions of OOo could be built have any official Java implementation (e.g. Linux/PPC).
Now, Java is no longer optional. Java is actually becoming a requirement not only for running OOo. Some of the build tools are becoming implemented in Java. What's worse, many of these newer Java-dependent features and build tools actually require a specific version of the VM in order to be functional (e.g. reliances on libraries distributed with Java 1.4+).
This choice leave platforms without Java in the cold, but sadly it also leaves platforms with outdated Java VM versions in the cold. I only hope this doesn't further cause headache for some of the intrepid 64 bit porters out there since I don't know of any VM that can be safely embedded in 64 bit apps yet.
Porting developers have raised this issue as far back as 2002 and earlier. There's no excuse for the Sun-dominated engineering of OpenOffice.org to have been ignorant of them. Instead of lowering the bar for the build process, the dependencies have just been injected into core functionality! It's sad when the pleas of some of the most prominent non-Sun volunteers to the project get blissfully ignored by the powers that be.
I don't have a problem with using Java for open source software since, after all, NeoOffice/J is dependent on Java. As NeoOffice/J is focused solely on Mac OS X, however, portability isn't one of the NeoOffice/J goals. For OOo, however, portability used to be one of its strengths and is still one of the strongest development communities within the project that doesn't originate from Sun. It's sad to see decisions made that alienate one of the only vibrant non-Sun communities.
While OOo has built a great community of marketing, translation, support, and evangelization volunteers, there is no substantial core developer community outside of Sun. Alienating the precious little that exists doesn't help the situation either. Unless there is serious effort to build up a non-Sun developer community, the project can only be doomed for failure when Sun cuts their development team (or goes out of business).
ed
And once morethe FOSS community illustrates how it kills itself. A free, viable, functioning alternative to Office, and people get upset because it doesn't fit their personal definition of "free" enough.
Get some priorities. Sheesh. Only in this community do these minor issues get blown up into huge flamewars over nothing. "It's not FREE enough!" Who the hell cares, it works and it's free to use!
yeah, and moon is made of cheddar cheese. It's true, I saw it on Fox News.
Its not the JVM. We have that already. Rather, its the libraries that are still needed. Here is a link to the 14 JVM's using GNU Classpath
I tried OOo 2.0 beta on Windows and was unpleasently surprised. There were *no significant changes* in its ugly-ish user interface (other than it finally supports XP skins and Impress has slide sorter as dockable thingy; actually the ONLY thing i liked in OOo2 is more options in PDF conversion - too bad SWF support is stalling) and it's very bloated. Since it requires Java, especially in the database component/client, it's practically unusable - it devours memory and CPU for event the simplest operations.
Now, this is very bad PR. Consider a company with somewhat older computers and OS+Office (e.g. Win98, Office 97 or 2000) wishing to switch to Linux - that scenario is getting less likely by the day (If said company, for whatever reason (faster? smaller?) chooses FreeBSD, it will have even more problems w/java):
- User interfaces on newer Linux distributions are getting waaaay too memory-hungry (ref: a Slashdot article a while ago about bloat in Gnome)
- OpenOffice.org is getting bloated even faster
Unfortunately, OOo is still the only Open-source product out there that can reasonably understand MS Office file formats.-- Sig down
Well why don't you ask IBM to open up a JVM for you
They already did.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Fork OO.o. The source is out there. Create a Free Software-correct fork of OO.o, call it "Free And Open Office" and go to town. Replace the database module with MySQL or PostgreSQL or whatever database you want. Hack out anything and everything that you don't like. F/OSS sees proprietariness as damage and routes around it.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
With all the developers bitching about Java and the fact that it's not free, and considering the fact that there is a massive base of Java users and developers that are friendly to the idea of a *nix system to be won over, they sure do seem to be dragging their feet at getting an up to date free JVM.
Java is one of those things that you CONSTANTLY see ppl in the free software camp bitching about. Why don't they bloody well put their heads together, through their weight behind one of the many free software projects out there that are working on the problem and clean-room reimplement the damn thing if it's such an issue?
Even if they couldn't make a free JVM and call it Java, they could still include it all the distributions configured to drive things like OOo. I can't imagine that an OpenOffice 2.0 Kaffe Edition (or whatever the JVM clone turns out to be called) would be such a big task if everyone stepped up to the plate where the JVM was concerned.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Think of where you want to end up. A world with the freedoms of Free Software, or a world of proprietary software? Now ask yourself, how does accepting a proprietary platform bring us closer to a world with the freedoms of Free Software? Each step you take is a step in one of those directions. Step carefully.
I don't run Linux to run a non-free operating system, and I find OpenOffice to be a vital part of my distribution. Java, I'm afraid, is not open. A reliance on Java is not a good thing, even if the Java bindings for UNO are much cleaner than the C++ counterparts.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.