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."
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
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.
If your corporation builds infrastructure with it, you're stuck with it a LONG time.
Consider all those foolish companies who built infrastructure on VB6 now that Microsoft is cutting off support for that platform
Had they picked an open source platform it would be much less disruptive for their business.
Free as in Java may be OK for hobby use, but has no places in my company.
As much as I wish I could be a purist, I have to agree with this simple statement. I started my business on softare that originally used Abiword and was controlled by Perl (Abiword was only called from the command line through Perl), but when OOo reached 1.0, I converted, which meant I had to learn Java (which I don't regret), and I had to base the entire program on Java and the Java interfaces with OOo. And, unlike command line purists prefer, my software is used in the real world, by real people who pay good money every month for my company's services (and I don't mean some measly 29.95/month -- they're paying enough to expect an easy to use program. I can't run it on Blackdown, or other forms of Java that don't have a GUI.
If OOo changed, I, and I'm sure, thousands of other developers, would have to re-write a ton of programs. Such a change would make me seriously re-think OOo, since it would make me wonder when they'd do that again.
I know we all make jokes about how those of us on Slashdot don't have lives or girlfriends, or have poor social skills, but it seems to me those who are pitching a hissy fit over this need to get their heads out of the ground, look around, and try living in the real world for a change. Instead of complaining about their bosses and cramped cubes, maybe they should try to run the business and find out just how hard it is to make sure they have an income if they insist on staying purists.
I don't see how anyone who has had to make decisions based on what customers want and will pay for could seriously expect a product like OOo to dump Java. People like that are the real 100% geeks, like Harold on Red Green, who have no life, no girlfriend, and no concept of what it's like to interact with the rest of the world.
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.
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.
Yes, and again: who cares about the "free software movement"?
I am a simple COMPUTER USER.
I care not about politics, especially when it comes to bits and bytes. If the software I need costs money, I will just buy it. If it happens to be Free/free, even better! But I don't care about any "movements" and "religions" or "politics".
As a computer user, these are the last things I care.
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.
I agree with your points. And the grandparent's point as well. If you want to compete with MSOffice (or any of the other packages that are leading over OpenOffice.org) then you have to get market share. Ordinary consumers couldn't care less about whether it's open source, built on free-as-in-Java, etc. They want it to work. They like the free as in beer, but if it doesn't work (at least as well as MSOffice for whatever they're doing) they won't use it.
There is no java for linux outside of x86.
THAT is a major problem with requiring java.
Sorry, but what competitors to VB6 does the OSS community have?
PythonGTK is nice, but still nowhere near VB6 (look at the complexity of the runtimes). There is a few 'fringe' programs but to be honest you have to get much closer to the bone to do anything on Linux. Even Mono is still lacking true click and drag programming.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but there is some areas where Linux still is 'lacking' vs Microsoft/Apple/Sun/whoever, and of course it'll get fixed, but suggesting that people who built CRM suite in '97 would be better off now if they had chose a non-existent Linux/OSS solution is a bit silly.
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
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.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your distinction of the hobbyist and corporate markets. Asking "who cares?" is obviously indicative of being a personal user who does not have any concern for the licensing issues involved in corporate adoption. The author of the article is right on with his assertion that OpenOffice is one of the seminal applications in the road to more widespread adoption of free desktop alternatives, and I find the scariest part about this situation to be the lack of communication taking place. This has to get resolved, and sooner rather than later.
http://jeffkrimmel.com
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.)
I'm not disagreeing with you -- I have to say I wasn't even thinking in terms of market share (I have a business that doesn't have to worry about advertising, market share, or most of the marketing stuff most businesses have to face -- I am VERY lucky!). I was just thinking in terms of income. I could have saved a LOT of time by writing my software so it is all command line based, 100% open, and using something like Blackdown. But that would mean my customers wouldn't even use my service (and no, most of them don't have someone else to turn to). I directly improve their bottom line, but if they had to keep looking up references and using the command line, they'd drop it, or I'd spend hours a day on the phone for tech support (my clients hardly ever need to call me for tech support!).
I was thinking more along your point about ordinary customers. That's where, to me, it's not even a market share question. It's about whether anyone will buy or nobody at all. Yes, OOo can go for 100% open source, but I'm sure using Java for many functions saves months of programming time over C or C++, and lets them put out a better product.
Another point: Life is a process. Sun is talking about opening Java. The purists here are like people in PETA -- especially the ones that threw a fit and said the city of Fishkill should change its name because it had violent conotations, then later found out kill means stream, and that's where the "Kill" came from. These people are so full of anger and frustration, they have to take it out on others, so they hold everyone to a really stupid and high standard, so they can always criticize others for not meeting THEIR standards.
Open source is a process. Have any of these purists thought about what a BIG step it is that Sun is even considering open sourcing Java? It's a big step. It's not perfect, but it is a big move in the right direction. It won't get there overnight, so it is important to understand that it is more important to be a supportive part of the change than someone pissing and moaning because it's not exactly what they want -- instead of trying to help the process along.
How so? It's not like the VB6 DLLs that your infrastructure is dependent upon are going to go away. Sure, there are not going to be any more security patches, but equally there are probably not going to very more exploits either, if any. (Based on the premise that few crackers are looking for bugs in discontinued code - when was the last exploit specifically targetting Windows '9x for instance?) Besides, unless I'd had a third party write the application and had no access to the VB6 source, then I could still update the code to a newer version of VB, or even .Net, even though it might be a lot of work.
It's just as possible to get into exactly the same state with an open language as it is a closed one. If the developers all move on to other projects and the language whithers on the vine, unless you have the ability to update the language code on your own then you are in the same position as with the VB6 example. Development languages evolve, and sometimes that means that older code breaks; I've seen this with closed (VB), open (Perl) and "in-between" (Java) based code - open or closed makes no difference.
Yes, having access to the source is a better option, and it does leave more doors unlocked than the closed source alternative, but I don't think it's anywhere near as critical as you believe.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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
Have any of these purists thought about what a BIG step it is that Sun is even considering open sourcing Java? It's a big step. It's not perfect, but it is a big move in the right direction. It won't get there overnight
Or it might not get there at all. Declining to integrate Java in opensource projects because it is not free enough seems to me like a good way to motivate Sun to make it more free. To blithely accept depenceny on it in opensource projects on the other hand sends the message that there is no problem with the current situation.
how is it insightful? Java license specifically allows you distribution of the JRE with your products as long as you dont mess with it and it is required to run your program. Gratis.
This whole page of postings shows how nearsighted and ignorant new generation of slashdotters are: the only non-Free part in Java is the fact that Sun wants to preserve the standard in the language and thus wants to control it. I, personally, would prefer a completely OSS Java but it is good thing as is.
Consider all those foolish companies who built infrastructure on VB6 now that Microsoft is cutting off support for that platform
Had they picked an open source platform it would be much less disruptive for their business.
The point you have raised - the ability of a company to drop support for a development language - has nothing to do with whether or not that language or platform is open source. Most organisations that use a development language aren't interested in being dumped with megabytes of source code if a language provider either stops development or goes out of business - open source doesn't help.
Java is so successful and popular for commercial development because it is multi-vendor. If you don't want to use Sun's VM and JDK you can use IBM's, or HP's, or BEA's, or TowerJ's, or even GJC. Not all are available on all OSes, but you have a choice, and you are not going to be left abandoned, like VB6 users.
The problem is that SUN can remove all distribution rights after this really catches on. Didn't we learn anything from mp3.com or that big community created CD database? If you want to use other peoples stuff, fine, but protect yourself, and make sure they can never take it back.
What?
" Even if it takes you longer to code it up front you will save time later in the debugging and maintenance portions of your lifecycle. "
I wish more IT managers understood that... most places I've worked think that whatever gets us 90% done the soonest must be the best. If something costs us 5 minutes now, or 5 hours later, they always choose to wait until later.
But that logic always makes me think of how worth it it is to spend 5 minutes putting on a parachute before you jump out of a plane. Sure, foregoing the parachute will save some time up front, but it's going to make the landing much harder.
$8.95/mo web hosting
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
"If something costs us 5 minutes now, or 5 hours later, they always choose to wait until later."
They're probably figuring that they won't be working for that company 5 hours from now. VB is a fantastic tool for creating problems for other people.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
First of all, VB6 has been discontinued by Microsoft. Imagine what would happen if Sun decided as of April 1 to no longer support Java development and to not release it as open source to the world?
Second, you make an excellent example of why using Java is even worse then originally proposed. To use Java as a development building block only enforces the problem of having a non-free license dependency. If it does start getting wide acceptance, there is always the problem of Sun taking the initiative of claiming "all your data belong to us."
And you're still screwed.
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
That's pure FUD. Every Java distribution so far has come with a license that says it's free, indefinitely, and can be redistributed for free. Sun can NOT retrocatively change these licenses to include a license fee. It's no different than the GPL in that respect. Do you also say that one should not use GPLd software because the GNU guys may "decide they're going to charge a $4.99 fee"?
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Maybe it allows for faster implementation but it provides much slower and far more stupid solutions than true programming.
:-)
To be frank I am not a big fan of VB - but there are many cases where having a real short implementation time is what takes the biscuit. I recently came up with a fairly simple program for a one off migration, and chose to do it in VB, simply because it meant that I could deliver something that would do the job in under a week. While it may have taken 4 hours to run rather than 2, and would be harder to maintain afterwards - it allowed us to get the job done and move onto more exciting things - "real programming", if you will
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.