Slashdot Mirror


OpenOffice 2.0 Criticized on Use of Java

karvind writes "Yahoo is running a story on how OpenOffice 2.0 Faces Opposition over Its Use of Java. According the article: "The problem, according to some free software voices, is that OO.o relies too much on Sun Microsystems Inc.'s proprietary Java programming language in an open-source project. In particular, free software advocates are objecting to the use of Sun specific Java code for such OO.o 2.0 features as the new, Microsoft Access-like database management program, Base and Writer's (OO.o's word processor) document wizards." Linus Torvalds also moved to an open-source solution for software configuration management system."

805 comments

  1. It's not GPL'ed either! by Gentoo+Fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's here, it's (basically) free. Why not use it?

    Also, who is Linus Trolvalds?

    1. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Stallman viewpoint is here under The Java Trap. Interesting.

      While I agree with him on his, "Everyone needs to be slowly dragged out of the not-free-as-in-beer arena, one finds it tough to imagine that rewriting these basic data-interaction Java classes is going to be easy to get done. The Access mirroring probably requires extensive use of this kind of API, and err.... Not the most glamorous of tasks... Since SUN's stuff is currently Free- As-In-Parking, one might think that getting people to do the redevelopment might be tough to motivate until really necessary.

      A lot of parallels between this situation and the BitKeeper one, but rather than it being a third party tool it's a completely integrated API. One might think that this could be a problem in the future larger than the BitKeeper problem, were Sun to take a completely weird turn on things.... Suddenly needing to mirror an API's functionality - especially one as big as the entirety of the JVM's data-processing infrastructure.

      So it seems Stallman has a very good point here. Can you imagine trying to, say, re-implement DirectX if Microsoft suddenly wasn't going to let you code using it? I don't know if this is a comparable task, but it's the only thing I can think of in my terms....

    2. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Also, who is Linus Trolvalds?

      Probably some Linux zealot that likes to troll message boards.

    3. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Janitha · · Score: 1

      Haha, I think its a spelling mistake.. "Linus Torvalds"

    4. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Captain Obvious to the rescue!!!

    5. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to be a spelling Nazi, you might not want to make a similar mistake yourself...

    6. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by pg110404 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also, who is Linus Trolvalds?

      He's an imposter! A bad one at that. This has got to be microsoft FUD designed to scare people away from free solutions and back to their lovely products......(Microsoft Access-like database management program?)

      Don't believe any of it. MS fud machine must have been freshly greased just for this one.

      AGHHHHHHHH! WHERE'S MY TINFOIL HAT?????

    7. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by m50d · · Score: 0

      Windows is there and basically free, and many people use it. But for open source people that's not enough. Likewise, for strict open source people (Debian) OOo is not free enough, because it depends on something that is under a very non-free license

      --
      I am trolling
    8. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Speaking as Captain Obvious, I;d like to say, Well played sir!! You're response to the GPP could have been more... obvious? Hehehe. I love to give a good rugburn. ;P

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    9. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misread, they are talking about Linus Trovalds, Not Linus Trolvalds.

    10. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by yog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's like saying that Linus is going to patent Linux and stop everyone from using it for free. That's simply not going to happen. I think we're pretty safe in going with Java, certainly safer and more cross-platform-compatible than the C#/DOTNET thing Microsoft is foisting on the world.

      So Java's not open source; who cares. Out in the real world, no one cares whether Java is open source or not. Anyone can quickly obtain it with a couple of mouse clicks. If it enhances the functionality of OOo then why not use it?

      The only worrisome thing is if Microsoft were to buy Sun and start slowly tightening the screws on Java. That would be awful and disastrous, but it's highly unlikely to occur given past history of anti-trust suits and such.

      Now, what I'm really keen on is a version of OOo for PalmOS. That would be sweet. Why doesn't Sun cook that up while they're at it. Of course then they'll have to create a JVM for PalmOS as well. Also, we'll need Ghostscript, ghostview, xpdf, and a few other goodies to round out the Palm offerings. But with 600Mh processors, gigabyte-plus storage, and larger RAM, how hard can all this be to achieve?

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    11. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 1

      Rugburns, you mean as in "your" instead of "you're", and "I'd" instead of "I;d"?

      --

      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    12. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      While not having achieved the esteemed rank of Captain, I, Lieutenant Obvious, would like to, obviously, commend the obvious obviousness of the GGPP. Props.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    13. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      more cross-platform-compatible than the C#/DOTNET thing Microsoft is foisting on the world.

      Nope. C# runs at least as places Java 1.5 does, thanks to Mono/ASP.NET.

      With Java, Sun's proprietary moving target policy means you're stuck between the "old standards" that Gnu's java and other non-licensees have, or the small handful of supported platforms from Sun and a couple licensees.

      Thanks to Mono, with C# you're good anywhere you feel like cross-compiling to.

    14. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      So it seems Stallman has a very good point here. Can you imagine trying to, say, re-implement DirectX if Microsoft suddenly wasn't going to let you code using it? I don't know if this is a comparable task, but it's the only thing I can think of in my terms....

      The ironic thing here is that Gnu has a Java compiler, gcj, *and* gcj is intended to ultimately become the Java solution for Open Office.

      You'd think nobody knew there were open source Java implementations... Java is a great language, and there is significant effort going into Open Source versions. It's all good...

    15. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, the WINE project is doing just that - implementing DirectX.

      You're right, it's no fun. But it's not quite at the same task level as reimplementing the Java libraries. People have been hacking at them for a number of years, and there's still not complete free replacement.

    16. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stallman is also a maniac who refused to give a speech on his views to the SIGLinux (LUG at the University of Texas) because we were using the name "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux." He doesn't know where to pick his fights and often ends up embroiled in petty feuds over things largely tangential to his main cause. His solutions are often overly idealistic and impractical, i.e. moving everyone who uses Java off of Java.

      Java code, in itself, is not bad. There is a need for a good, compile-once-run-anywhere format, and it seems Java has become the standard for this. Lots of people know how to code Java (in large part due to Sun's involvement in college curriculum,) and this is important, because when writing a piece of software, you want a large pool of knowledgable programmers to choose from. Lots of people know Java, and if Java fits your needs, you're gonna use it.

      Java also makes perfect sense for the kind of stuff OO.o is using it for: basically "plug-in" features not central to the usage of OO.o, but still very useful. This is useful because of the large number of platforms supported by OO.o, they can just release an update to the java code and it will more or less run the same on every platform they support.

      I think in the *nix arena, Java is more useful for application code because of the wide variety of OSes. Java VMs exist for pretty much every known architecture, and they were mostly written by the standards makers for Java (Sun) so they're gonna work pretty much the same. This involves a lot of trust in Sun, but it takes trust in some sort of standards-making body to unify any disjoint architectures. In any case, I trust Sun to start a project like this and stick with it over the years more than I do Stallman and the Free Software goblins.

      The BitKeeper issue is different entirely; it was a commercial product being offered for free, with the possibility that it could be yanked out from under them at any time. There should have been background work on an eventual replacement for BitKeeper well before anything happened. Why is this different from the Java example? Because the OS kernel is totally different and there was no alternative. If Sun were to suddenly make Java pay-to-use, the programs could, for the most part, be rewritten in C++ with minimal effort (most of the work could be done in 15 minutes by a Lisp program.)

    17. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by David+Leppik · · Score: 4, Interesting
      So it seems Stallman has a very good point here. Can you imagine trying to, say, re-implement DirectX if Microsoft suddenly wasn't going to let you code using it? I don't know if this is a comparable task, but it's the only thing I can think of in my terms....
      s/DirectX/Visual Basic/
      Funny, this isn't as far fetched as it seems.
    18. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by zaphod123 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Am I the only one that cringes anytime I see access and database in the same sentence?

      --
      :q!
    19. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by abe+ferlman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Will you do me a favor and speak at my club? It's called 'mild insight to your life's work'.

      "Um, no thanks, but call me if you change the name."

      "MANIAC!!!"

      Geez...

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    20. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Metzli · · Score: 1

      If certain groups (Debian, FSF, etc.) don't like OOo and/or Java, that's fine. But, why don't they use their considerable talents to write a replacement? If they don't like the licensing, there's nothing preventing them from "rolling their own" office suite that'll replace OOo, MS Office, or whatever.

      --
      "It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
    21. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by harrkev · · Score: 2, Funny
      Also, who is Linus Trolvalds?
      He's the guy who keeps Magnetbox, Panaphonic, and Sorny in business by buying their stuff.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    22. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SIGLinux are also maniacs because they wanted to force RMS to make a speech.

    23. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      er, that should be "insult", but I think you get the point.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    24. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by m50d · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Replacements are already there, e.g. koffice, but they could do with more developers and users. So we point out the problems with OOo in the hope more people will come and use them and code for them, in the same way the OSS movement as a whole points out the problems with closed source software like windows.

      --
      I am trolling
    25. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Innova · · Score: 1

      Can't find string terminator '"' anywhere before EOF at JavaComment.txt line 13.

    26. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by walt-sjc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Out in the real world, no one cares whether Java is open source or not. Anyone can quickly obtain it with a couple of mouse clicks. If it enhances the functionality of OOo then why not use it?

      What about platforms where Sun does not provide a JVM? Those people will never be able to tun the full OOo, and the more Java used, the less they will be able to use. Will it eventually be zero?

      This really is the problem. It ties OOo to only the platforms that Sun wants to support. Open java and the problem goes away.

    27. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      Just to make the response from an overwhelming number of people known again: I don't fucking care if it is not OSS as long as there are no alternatives.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    28. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by drakaan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, in the article, they make plenty of mention of gjc. The fact that it's available is not the issue. The issue is that right now You have to patch OOo to compile under gjc and OOo is using some vendor-specific functionality from Sun's Java in order to get a number of improvements and some base functionality.

      If the first "O" in OpenOffice stands for "Open", then having to rely on a particular company's implementation of Java is not a good thing. Look at the various Java apps written for Microsoft's version of Java, or webpages of the past that relied on vendor-specific extensions for examples of why that's not a good thing.

      Any time a particular implementation that is *not* free (as in speech) becomes a defacto standard, everyone becomes tied to the whims of that vendor's implementation. True, Sun probably won't do anything drastic, but there's still a very real possibility that they won't see eye-to-eye with the OOo developer community on some random issue somewhere down the line.

      I would rather have the fallout from such a situation be that Sun was left without the ability to force the developers into a move they didn't like, rather than having the developers be forced to fork and re-engineer the whole shebang or start over from scratch. That much work shouldn't get pissed away over something like that.

      Again, that's a possibility, not a certainty, but why take chances?

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    29. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by samkass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More like...

      "Would you speak to my group? We have a product we call 'Foomaster,' and we used a development approach you advocate to develop it."

      "Only if you change the name of your product to Stallman-is-great:Foomaster."

      "uhhh... no thanks. (maniac.)"

      --
      E pluribus unum
    30. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by d_jedi · · Score: 1

      I want to see a JVM for PocketPC. That's a pretty glaring omission for the "write once-run anywhere".. especially considering that .NET - which is a competitor to Java (if programming languages can really "compete") - is supported through the Compact Framework on PocketPC (it's even burnt into the ROM of more recent devices).

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
    31. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by m50d · · Score: 0

      In that case, why do you bother using OOo? Why not just stay with windows and MS Office? Because that's all you'd have if that attitude prevailled. And there are perfectly useable alternatives, KOffice is IME ahead of OOo in many areas.

      --
      I am trolling
    32. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by drakaan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gambas kind of does that, actually (re-implement Visual Basic)...Java doesn't, really. If they'd turn it into a scripting language for apache, I bet a lot of asp coders would abandon ship...

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    33. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 3, Informative
      The only worrisome thing is if Microsoft were to buy Sun and start slowly tightening the screws on Java.
      Yours seems to be a simple world... There are many scenarios where the owner of Java might do stupid things. Just imagine Sun running out of money and selling everything valuable (if you think this is impossible, just remember what almost happened to big blue); or dividing into multiple separate companies, one of which would own only Java... There is no telling what would happen.
    34. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by filesiteguy · · Score: 1
      Absolutely agree!!!

      If one really doesn't like Java than it isn't absolutely necessary. This just really annoys me that such a small issue is being blown up.

      One could always use KOffice or some other office program.

      Get a fscking life!!!!

    35. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by synthespian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think in the *nix arena, Java is more useful for application code because of the wide variety of OSes.

      The point is, except for GNU/Linux, there is no Java in the Libre *Nix arena.

      Reliance of Sun proprietary sofware is a pain in the ass for everybody who's not on a Microsoft/Linux/MacOS system. The point of libre software was freedom, and there is no freedom when, say FreeBSD, has to argue with Sun (a competitor in the server arena, by the way).

      It's too bad that a new generation of Linux users forget that freedom is what Free Software is about, and are smug in their "just works" attitude. This hurts the community, and treads upon the history and the heritage.

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
    36. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      No no you are not. We are legion.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    37. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by kbranch · · Score: 1

      Now, what I'm really keen on is a version of OOo for PalmOS. That would be sweet. Why doesn't Sun cook that up while they're at it. Of course then they'll have to create a JVM for PalmOS as well. Also, we'll need Ghostscript, ghostview, xpdf, and a few other goodies to round out the Palm offerings. But with 600Mh processors, gigabyte-plus storage, and larger RAM, how hard can all this be to achieve?

      First of all, that 600 MHz CPU is far worse than a 600 MHz P3. I'd say it's closer to a 150 - 200 MHz P1.

      Also, the PalmOS is a real pain in the ass to program for. I spent far more time trying to get the damn OS to do what I want than actually programming when I wrote Gem Heist.

    38. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Free Software is not a "development approach". Open Source is a "development approach".

      Free Software is a philosophy about how a system should exist that is completley free, and available to everyone because it's the right thing to do. Open Source is about getting corporate types to open up thier products so we don't have to pay for them.

    39. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Thanks to Mono, with C# you're good anywhere you feel like cross-compiling to.


      The reality is that 99% of C# programmers only care about windows. Where as 99% of Java programmers could care less what platform they use.
    40. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Nikademus · · Score: 1

      Indeed, now could you show me how to run this stuff on my Apple powerbook laptop running OpenBSD?

      Java is _not_ portable...

      --
      I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
    41. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by CarrionBird · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The probelm is stallman thinks HIS/GNU's contribution is/was more important than any others. So he insists that it be GNULinux, meanwhile nobody is crapping themselves because it's not called xf86Linux for example. GNU tools isn't much of a useable OS by itself either.

      If you want to be correct the entire distro is the OS, and they should be called "linux kernal based or GNU/linux based whateverdistro 1.45923x".

      Add to that the fact that anyone who disagrees with him is considered to have a moral defect and you have one grade A, USDA choice mainiac.
      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    42. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      1) Mono has about a billion times the liscencing issue then java and classpath put together

      2) .net is a toddler, and mono is a baby, while java is a standard in enterprise development (hell, its almost synomous with enterprise development)

      3) mono isnt 100% compatible with ms .net, and never will be until ms stops working on it. neither will wine. or classpath. or any reimplementation of a framework of modest size that is under active development.

      4) sun has given us a real royalty free liscence, microsoft has given an ecma standard, which means they can charge a (reasonable) fee for it if they wish, and ownership remains in their hands. novell doesnt even offer indemnification for mono.

      Anyone using mono for serious projects either has zero forsight, or is a special kind of reckless.

    43. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by resiak · · Score: 1

      If Sun were to suddenly make Java pay-to-use, the programs could, for the most part, be rewritten in C++ with minimal effort (most of the work could be done in 15 minutes by a Lisp program.)

      It could? Then why don't you do that right now with OOo? You'd be a hero, and only at the expense of "minimal effort".

    44. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a guy whose work is so unimportant, it's a wonder that their group would have wanted him to come speak.

    45. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What moron gave the parent +5 Insightful? If Microsoft or any Sun competitor buys Sun & Java they won't "slowly tighten the thumb screws" they'll just kill it in a second.

      Don't expect an anti-trust suit to achieve anything. By the time the courts have reached a conclusion so many years will have gone by that the final verdict will be irrelevant to the market place. Historically, this has worked in favour of many monopolists (in the USA).

    46. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's "important" and "more important than anyone else's". Something can be important without being more important than everything else.

      But I guess that distinction gets in the way of your overzealous "righteous" fury.

    47. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't say Stallman's work was unimportant, nutlicker. Learn to fucking read.

    48. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by PHP+Addict · · Score: 1

      We don't permit Brown Nosers in my Corps. See that armory? 10 laps. Now. GO!

      Colonel Obvious
      --
      Laziness, check. Impatience, check. Hubris, double check!
    49. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus is the guy who developed Linux! I hope to god you were kidding.

    50. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      It ties OOo to only the platforms that Sun wants to support.

      Or vendors that supply their own Java, such as Apple and OSX.

    51. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While your point is valid, I would argue that you can run OOo on more platforms that MS Office.

      This really is the problem. It ties OOo to only the platforms that Sun wants to support.

      This link (java.sun.com) has the interesting line "Other vendors provide ports of J2SE to various operating systems and CPUs not listed here.". Does Sun really restrict which platforms Java can run on? My guess is that the platform developer may have to port and test their Java software, but why would you figure Sun to only want to support a limited set of platforms?

    52. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      Actually, IBM provides a JVM as part of its WebSphere Micro environment for the Palm.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    53. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Java code, in itself, is not bad. There is a need > for a good, compile-once-run-anywhere format, and > it seems Java has become the standard for this.

      Try to get something requiring Sun's JRE to work on a GNU/Linux running on a PowerPC processor and then we can talk again :-S

      SomeMe

      P.S. I'm all in for run-*everywhere* software ;-D

    54. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Decaff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What about platforms where Sun does not provide a JVM? Those people will never be able to tun the full OOo, and the more Java used, the less they will be able to use. Will it eventually be zero?

      You simply use a JVM from someone else. Use Apple's VM, or IBM's, or HP's, or BEA's.

      Although Sun largely controls Java, it is by no means the only supplier of Java.

    55. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Excelsior · · Score: 1

      Do people read Sun's EULAs, or do they listen to RMS and assume he's justified?

      From RMS:
      A program is free software if its users have certain crucial freedoms. Roughly speaking, they are: the freedom to run the program, the freedom to study and change the source, the freedom to redistribute the source and binaries, and the freedom to publish improved versions.

      By analyzing the EULA that comes with a Java SDK download, I can run the program, I can study the source, I can redistribute the binaries and source, and I can publish improved versions (I can extend core Java classes, so long as I don't make them part of the java, javax, or sun packages).

      I can't change the source. But in object oriented fashion, I can make my own version of any class, or I can extend any class in OO fashion. So I don't give a rat's butt that I can't change the core source itself. As a developer, I still have all the freedom I need.

      I also don't see what all the fear and uncertainty is about. Sun may at some point take away my ability to download the next version of Java. But they cannot take away the versions they've already distributed. Sun has given me rights to redistribute. That cannot be undone.

    56. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by slick_rick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't believe I'm replying to an AC, but AMEN BROTHER!

      I have yet to meet a single programmer who works with mono "for pay". I would wager that 99.999999% of programmers who are getting payed to write C# are getting payed to write C# under windows. Can you say the same about Java? The Java projects I see are fairly well distributed between straight VM plays on windows or linux, or bundled into a platform like Oracle or Websphere. There is a lot of platform diversity in the Java arena, nearly none in the C# world AFAICT.

      --
      apt-get install redhat please god - Me (take it easy, I love Debian)
    57. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by eyeye · · Score: 1

      I agree, OO is quite good actually.

      I do however object to bad use of java, many java applications are a pain to install (so much for cross platform compatibility) and azureus has eaten up nearly a gigabyte on my linux box even though i never had a problem on windows.

      I've had to use java apps on low spec PCs too and boy do they struggle to run those bloated apps.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    58. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Simple answer.
      1. Take the Open Office code.
      2. Fork it.
      3. Rewrite the java parts to be as "Free" as you like.

      The great thing about OSS is you can do this.
      There is NO comparison to BitKeeper. I have never heard that the Java agreement states that you can not work on a another VM or programing language if you use Java like BitKeeper did.

      So if you want to complain but not do anything I suggest that you just use any of the free office style programs and stop complaining.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    59. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

      The Java code in the newest OO.o, however, does not compile well with open-source Java compilers like the GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java Programming Language).

      GCJ is still a work in progress. If OO.o does not work well with it, there is probably a problem in GCJ. GCJ is *suppose* to be compatible. Doing this is difficult work but there is nothing saying that it will not occur, atleast to the point of working with the latest OO.o.

      There are also several other free-as-in-beer JVM's. Classpath and Kaffe to name just a few. Have these been tried? Apache has a purposal for a BSD licensed JVM called Harmony that only shows that there is more JVM's on the way.

      Sure, the latest OO.o may only run with Sun's JVM. But this is not to say that this will change in the very near future. With that said, the imagined Java Trap by Stallman is only a scare tactic used by a person with his own motivations.

    60. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by vertinox · · Score: 1

      It's like saying that Linus is going to patent Linux and stop everyone from using it for free. That's simply not going to happen.

      I think what he means is that What happens if Sun broke Java? As in, they release an update that hoses your API's and you don't have the slightest ability to fix that since the source is closed

      And the only thing you can do is send requests asking Sun to fix it.

      I think that is more likely than Sun just saying "We decided to let no one use Java at all! Nanabooboo!"

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    61. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      But there's nothing stopping one from existing either!. There are already JVMs that are OSS, and SUN seems to leave non-supported platforms up to those who need it to support. (kinda like linux on oddball platforms) Sounds pretty free to me.

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    62. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      Then why haven't the additions mentioned in the article to Sun's base API's and the tweaks / enhancements also mentioned been inherited by the other OS compilers? It doesn't make sense...

    63. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Better yet, try 64-bit AMD64 code.

      Freenet swallows 100+MB of RAM to run in a JVM, and doesn't run at all in 64-bit, since just about every JVM is buggy as anything on that platform.

    64. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by tim256 · · Score: 1
      How is the Sun JVM not free? You can download it from their website without paying anything. I think that both Sun and Java are great.

      I read the article, I don't see what the problem is. Is there a problem because the Sun JVM isn't open source?

    65. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by daVinci1980 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is such a ludicrous point of view.

      The source code is available for free. You can look at it, peek at it, poke it and prod it with a stick.

      And then, since you know how all of the algorithms work, you can go reimplement it in another language if you so choose.

      Frankly, if I were developing a piece of OSS (of which I've released a few), I'd be pretty pissed if people chastised me for my choice of language.

      The source code is there. If you don't like the language I used, then fork and port it.

      But get off your ludicrous soap box about how I should make sure to use "open" everything. I've fulfilled whatever "moral obligation" you perceive by making the source code available.

      Anything else is just a temper tantrum on your part.

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    66. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      He just doesn't support people who disagree with him, and for that you call him a maniac? Ooook.

      Every time someone flips out about Stallman's insistence on calling it "Gnu/Linux" instead of linux, his complaint gets another airing.

      Think about that, and then come back and tell me Stallman doesn't pick his battles wisely.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    67. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by neurojab · · Score: 1

      >What about platforms where Sun does not provide a JVM?

      Not to be antagonistic, but what exactly are the platforms for which no JVM is available? Undoubtedly such platforms exist, but are they widely used? It might help to understand the scope of the problem.

    68. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Then why doesn't someone write it and kill the whole point?

      --
      I like muppets.
    69. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by LEgregius · · Score: 1

      The real question is: how easily could it be converted to used gcj.

    70. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by kscguru · · Score: 1
      Best point I've seen made here. Applause!

      And frankly, what is the benefit of altering the core source? I can't think any, and I'd love to hear a legitimate reason. Well, I can think of one ... to wipe out the work of the original authors, which seems to be what the GPL zealots want but that, ironically, goes completely against the principles of the GPL!

      --

      A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire

    71. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      You have a point there about the battles he chooses, he's no idiot. I disagree with Stallman, but I wouldn't throw a hissy fit and refuse to debate the issue with him. You and I are able to discuss in a civil manner, why can't he?

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    72. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by duggy_92127 · · Score: 4, Informative
      What about platforms where Sun does not provide a JVM? Those people will never be able to tun the full OOo, and the more Java used, the less they will be able to use. Will it eventually be zero?

      From TFA:

      Scott Carr, OO.o's quality assurance project co-lead pointed out, "OO.o will run perfectly well without any JVM, but if there is a JVM then it has to do checks to make sure what features are supported in the JVM as well as run various functions. These are only run in the presence of a JVM."

      So, no. It will never be zero, and it's currently 100% usable without a JVM.

      Doug

    73. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have several Firefox tabs open, a few terminals, XMMS and Azureus (downloading/uploading a large number of torrents). The whole lot is eating up around 250MB and no virtual memory.

      If Azureus is eating nearly 1 GB on your Linux box, something is seriously wrong.

    74. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by LEgregius · · Score: 1

      doesn't gcj run? java.sql works find in gcj (Are they ever using java.sql?). Couldn't they port/recompile all of the database stuff to that? I imagine they aren't doing any ui work in java.

    75. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      If you had read your parent post, you would have seen that Stallman is a maniac and he refused to speak, not necessarily because he refused to speak.

    76. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by pg110404 · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one that cringes anytime I see access and database in the same sentence?

      What is more deserving of your cringing? The two words 'access' and 'database' in the same sentence or actually using access (snicker)database(snicker)?

      I was fortunate enough to write a program (front end) to a real database (ok perhaps more real than access) MySQL. If I want to cough a furball, I'll go back to the old access records. It's disgusting just thinking about access.

      Great, now I want to take a shower.

    77. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    78. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 1

      Funny, I didn't realize Microsoft quit allowing developers to code in VB.

      --
      R.Mo
    79. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by LEgregius · · Score: 1

      Okay, I just checked. OOO DOES work with GCJ, so all of this discussion is really moot.

    80. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      Or IBM on AIX, AS400 and OS/390.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    81. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been writing Java web-apps for nearly 6 years now. In that time, most of them have been deployed to Linux under resin (caucho.com); recently, they've been deployed under WebLogic (a couple of clients asked for it, so they got it, despite not actually needing it).

      I've used a variety of different versions of Linux and Windows on my desktop as suited my whim at the time. As you say, that's essentially irrelevant though; my code targets the JVM, not the Windows JVM or the Linux JVM or the Mac OS X JVM, just the JVM.

      As it happens, I develop under the Sun JVM, but may well be deploying to that, or IBM's, or BEA's jrockit JVM. As long as it's the correct release, it's immaterial. (And in fact, sometimes I've not even *known* what JVM is being used in production)

    82. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What stallman keeps forgetting is that the rest of the world has bills to pay, like for "soap", "water", "razors", "laundry detergent", etc

    83. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Becuase it is easy to replace it with better faster (java is slow... you have to load the VM it's just not as fast as C I don't care what you java fanboys say)

      MS word replacement:
      abiword (cross platform OSX win32 linux etc...)
      http://www.abisource.com/download/index.phtml

      excel replacement:

      Gnumeric (cross platform linux win32... not sure if it works with OSX)
      http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumeric/downloads.s html

    84. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by bckrispi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And certainly, users of these systems can't run MS Office on them either. I can get Java for my Linux PC, my Win32 PC, my Solaris workstation, even my PDA and Cell phone....

      ...Wait a minute! My MP3 player doesn't run Java! Goddamn Sun and their POS proprietary Language!!

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    85. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So Java's not open source; who cares. Out in the real world, no one cares whether Java is open source or not. Anyone can quickly obtain it with a couple of mouse clicks. If it enhances the functionality of OOo then why not use it?"

      Apparently it does matter, if those few clicks dont matter then why does fedora/redhat take crap every review, every release about the mp3 et al thing?
      Unless those people have another reason for bringing that up again and again....

      So which is it? few clicks arent a big deal or people who complain about mp3 et al stuff not being in redhat/fedora are have ulterior motives?

    86. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      The issue is that right now You have to patch OOo to compile under gjc and OOo is using some vendor-specific functionality from Sun's Java in order to get a number of improvements and some base functionality.

      I believe the patches were needed because of deficiencies in the current gjc and not because of "vendor-specific functionality". Java by it's very definition is vendor neutral and if gjc was implemented 100% according to the spec then there wouldn't be a problem. I'm sure it will eventually but just not today.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    87. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by eyeye · · Score: 1

      If Azureus is eating nearly 1 GB on your Linux box, something is seriously wrong.


      I agree :-)

      I do like azureus but java apps seem to have wierd problems I dont get with non java software.
      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    88. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Considering that Sun uses OpenOffice for StarOffice, they'll probably be careful not to break OO.o with a release of Java.

    89. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Third, there are lightweight java implementations for palm. look into J2ME. =]

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    90. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by McDutchie · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If Sun were to suddenly make Java pay-to-use, the programs could, for the most part, be rewritten in C++ with minimal effort (most of the work could be done in 15 minutes by a Lisp program.)

      If that is true, then why is there any reason to use Java at all? Convert to C++, gain huge speed increase, retain cross-platform compatibility with a simple recompile. Either Java is unneccesary or the conversion is more complex than you make it out to be. In the latter case, the "Java Trap" is very real, indeed, and very dangerous.

    91. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by podperson · · Score: 1

      [code]If Sun were to suddenly make Java pay-to-use, the programs could, for the most part, be rewritten in C++ with minimal effort (most of the work could be done in 15 minutes by a Lisp program.)[/code]

      Of course, this hypothetical Lisp program does not exist, and writing it will be approximately as hard as, say, rewriting the Java APIs in C++ from scratch.

    92. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1
      Suddenly needing to mirror an API's functionality - especially one as big as the entirety of the JVM's data-processing infrastructure.

      Personally I would much rather re-implement the Java API than re-implement OpenOffice. The Java standard library is fairly simple and the behavior is all documented, it's just that there is a lot of it. OpenOffice on the other hand is very complex and huge.

      The reason classpath hasn't caught up is because they let only a tiny fraction of developers work on it that have never seen Sun sourcecode. Since the source codes with Java and any competent Java developer looks at the source from time to time this is a pretty severe limitation. If the Java API needed to be cloned quickly they could relax their clean-room requirements and it would get done in no time.

    93. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by horza · · Score: 1

      It's like saying that Linus is going to patent Linux and stop everyone from using it for free.

      Er, not it's not. Linux is under the GPL and it can be forked at any time. Java is closed source and proprietry and the rug can be pulled out from under it whenever Sun feel like it.

      Phillip.

    94. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by braindead · · Score: 4, Informative
      I want to see a JVM for PocketPC. That's a pretty glaring omission for the "write once-run anywhere"..

      Well, let's see... OK, so what you're asking for is that Sun should write a standard for a slimmed-down version of Java, just for PDAs? Say, we could call it Java 2 Micro Edition? And maybe you'd want that standard to be implemented on PocketPC machines?

      Wait, it gets better. You can also find a full java implementation (Java 1.3) for iPAQ.

      If you want something in between, there's also PersonalJava. It has more features than J2ME, but fewer than a full java. It's nearing end of life though, I'm not sure what will come out to replace it.

      There are JVMs for PDAs and cell phones and yes, PocketPC too. They are a very good way of getting your software to run on many portable devices. The only downside is that your code will run slower than something hand-crafted for a particular type of device.

    95. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      If you want to be correct the entire distro is the OS

      Actually, if you want to be correct, the entire distro is not the operating system.

      Add to that the fact that anyone who disagrees with him is considered to have a moral defect

      And where did he say that? It is a polite request that you include his contribution (which he is allowing you to use for free) in the name of the OS. You might disagree with his request and not acquiesce (I don't) but to call him a maniac for doing so is absurd.

    96. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by rleibman · · Score: 1

      Or apache: News on Harmony

    97. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he's so keen to seek glory, then how come he goes out of his way to correct people who mistakenly use "GNU/Linux" or "GNU" when they actually mean "Linux"?

      He's a terminology pedant, like most geeks. That's all.

    98. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you might want to be familiar with the point of view before dismissing it. You don't address any of the points on either side of the debate. What was the purpose of your post?

    99. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      You should laugh instead. It's better for your soul...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    100. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

      ...and is his attitude changing anything?

    101. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Java's not open source; who cares.

      Question asked.

      The only worrisome thing is if Microsoft were to buy Sun and start slowly tightening the screws on Java. That would be awful and disastrous, but it's highly unlikely to occur given past history of anti-trust suits and such.

      Question answered. Trading one prison (Microsoft Office), for Sun's Java detention center isn't an option.

    102. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Replacements are already there, e.g. koffice, but they could do with more developers and users.

      I think you've touched on something at the heart of the argument there.

      OOo is open source, so anyone who doesn't like the way it's going is free to fork it and develop it themselves if they want to. Of course, since very few people who aren't Sun employees are actually contributing to OOo and everyone else simply takes advantage of it, this is unlikely to happen.

      I'm afraid the hype supporting many of the claimed advantages of OSS just came crashing down around the evangelists in spectacular fashion. This whole argument is just a lot of people who want high quality software for free bitching when those kind enough to provide it decide they actually want to do something their own way. If Stallman et al don't like it, they're free to try and do better: it's step up or shut up time.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    103. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thread was about OO.org using SUN's Java now. Java comprises JVM + libraries, and all that stuff from SUN is not free.

      OO.org people are not waiting for a free replacement. Nor do they seem to care, since they advanced so much the dependency on Java for the newest release.

      What this means is that there are practical consequences. OpenOffice, of all the open source applications, is amongst the least portable, thanks to those developers who only think about "Linux", "Windows", and "Java" when they work on it.

    104. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by JianTian13 · · Score: 1

      "The point is, except for GNU/Linux, there is no Java in the Libre *Nix arena."

      Eh? What about http://www.freebsd.org/java/? Works pretty damn well for me, running little things like Tomcat and JBoss...

    105. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by CarrionBird · · Score: 1
      You are right. It is less portable. What I am (perhaps poorly) saying is that it is not less Free. Like any OSS project, it is what it is and those who need something different are encouraged to change it to thier needs.

      Not that I would be capable of doing so, but that's not my field at the moment.

      Also unless the article led me astray, the code is not calling on non-free libraries, but on libraries that are not yet well implemented in free JVMs. (TFA mentions patches that allow it to function with a certian alternative JVM)
      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    106. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      If Sun were to suddenly make Java pay-to-use, the programs could, for the most part, be rewritten in C++ with minimal effort (most of the work could be done in 15 minutes by a Lisp program.)

      While I agree with your main points, this one is rubbish. While it's trivially easy to convert byte codes (which JITs do), and mechanically also transform sources (Java syntax is simple), this is not the main problem. One problem is that the actual implementation classes of the big JDK API. Sources for core classes are not Freely available; and sources for classes under sun.* hierarchy are not available at all. The other problem is that the managed runtime (JVM) itself is not written in Java, nor is source code available. And while up to 1.1 (and esp. 1.0.2) writing a JVM wasn't all that difficult, from thereon its complexity has vastly increased -- so much so that it's in many ways comparable to writing an OS (that is, for production quality, efficient implementation).

      So no, it's anything but trivial to convert. And it'd be foolish to go from Java to an evolutionary dead-end like c++ in any case: C# (Mono) or a scripting language would usually make much more sense.

    107. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Or Nintendo GameBoy. Oops! Wrong thread.

    108. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by EggyToast · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If anything, Java is almost supported in too many places. Supporting all of those platform likely slows the development of the "core" platforms a bit. Although I have no idea to how much of an extent, if any.

      But I agree, the "But it's tied to the JVM" argument is almost identical to "it's not GPL'd!" cries.

    109. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Deusy · · Score: 1

      'If the first "O" in OpenOffice stands for "Open"...'

      Don't forget, the nomenclature was probably considered according to the general misinterpretation of the term 'Open Source' which most people take to mean 'Free Software' when really it's a far more ambiguous term.

      Plus 'FreeOffice.org' sounds like a charity to enlighten and release the millions of poor souls trapped in their chronicly tedious desk jobs.

      --

      Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary

    110. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java is also a lot older than .NET, jackass :-)

    111. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If that is true, then why is there any reason to use Java at all? Convert to C++, gain huge speed increase,

      Firstly, you are right in that conversion is definitely anything but trivial. However, even if it was easy, there would not be any significant speed increase -- as is, JVMs with JIT/HotSpot compilation run very close to native speeds; c++ implementations are seldom significantly faster than the equivalent Java implementation (except for some byte-manipulation things) nowadays. At least for long-running server processes -- there is definitely some startup overhead associated when starting up a java process.

    112. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      I use Oo since it is better than any other system available under Linux for my use.

      Besides, you really misunderstood. It's not about OO but about Java, Find another OSS alternative than can do the same job as java and I'm sure OO will be more than happy to use it.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    113. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Is this really the biggest priority out there? The platforms that I know of that have a JVM (either Sun or 3rd party) are Linux, Windows, OSX, Solaris. Seriously, how many people are out there not using one of those 4 on a desktop?

      I'm not saying it's an ideal situation, but dealing with issues like open document formats rates way above this.

    114. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by tacocat · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point of what Open Source really means. And this Java issue is probably one of the best examples that can be found.

      There are always the arguements that tomorrow Sun will announce that everyone using Java has to pay them big sums of money or go to jail. But this isn't the problem to worry about. Sun knows there would be a lot of fall-out on an about face like this.

      The problem is the outside forces acting upon the core concept that Sun has outlined on Java. These can alter or erode the philosophy upon which Java has thrived for so many years and turn it into a revenue generating scheme.

      The easy example is Microsoft buys Sun tomorrow and tells everyone to pay up or die. And all Unix support can just kiss off for all they care. Could this happen, yes. Will it? I don't know yet.

      So what's the worry? The slow process of erosion. Lets say Sun gets back on it's feet in making some really decent hardware. They have the controls on Java to start making it work better for them and not necessarily as well for others. What's there defense? They have limited resources available in their corporation and in order to remain competative, they have to innovate on their preferred hardware platforms. This could also happen in a partnership arrangement between Sun and another hardware manufacturer. Now you have a problem with getting the proper support for your platform.

      But you say such things can't happen. They already are. Finding drivers compatable with last years NVidia card proves troublesome. Are they working on it? Not as fast as they are working on their next hardware release. This is example that I experience personally and can vouche for. I'm sure others can be found.

      As long as the development platform of Java is owned and operated by a tangible entity, which can also itself be owned, sued, purchased, or coerced, there will be the possibility that things may take a turn for the worse and unless you are in exactly where they want you to be, you're screwed.

      How hard would it be for them to continue with a seemless OO platform with Java integration only to pull the plug on Linux in six years after signing a partnership agreement with Windows? Could it happen? Certainly. Where would all the Linux users be then? Without a database interface and without a lot of utilities that they've grown accustomed to on their Office products. Sure they could revert to something else that would work, but why take that detour of using closed source in the first place?

      It's called "bait and switch" marketing. It's also referred to as Pusher marketing. You give it away for free until they are hooked on it and then you start charging for it after they are convinced they have to have it.

      Some of these Open Source Dudes seem pretty whacked with their zealotry, but when you consider that the two most common development tools in Unix: Emacs and Vim, are both free it drives home a point that Open Source software CAN be as good as anything else. So why shouldn't it be? Open Office picking up Java is a step backwards.

    115. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      Don't you get it? He's bad cop. There are a million good cops out there- Linus, ESR, Bruce Perens, Eben Moglen, etc. etc. Movements don't get anywhere by being polite.

      Still, he's no maniac- he just sticks to his guns and people who don't like his principles get upset about it.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    116. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by daVinci1980 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I misunderstood RMS' position on this. From reading "Free but shackled," (as linked in the parent to my post) I get the impression that he is complaining that pieces of Open Office are written in Java but require other pieces of Java that are not available in the GNU/Java implemntation, rather they are only available in the SUN Java implementation.

      He then seems to complain about the fact that having a free piece of software which relies on other non-free software somehow makes the first piece of software not as good a piece of open source software.

      My belief (as I tried to state above), is that this view is lunacy. The major value of my code being open sourced in the first place is that someone else can figure out how I did the interesting bits. The fact that I require a non-free library to skip over low-level, uninteresting details is irrelevant to the real value of my code being available for others to look through.

      My point is that my decision to make the code freely available in the first place is the value in this situation. "You" shouldn't complain because "I" decided to use a piece of closed-source software as a dependency. If it bothers you so much that I did so, then the source code is available for you to change it. But if you want people to continue to open source their software, you need to cut them some friggin slack.

      Is the point of my original post a bit clearer now?

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    117. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      It's letting people hear his perspective. Some people are convinced.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    118. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by nycbicyclist · · Score: 0
      Maybe you're being misled by the title of Stallman's piece, The Java Trap. I don't think he's arguing that people should stop using Java altogether. (If that were the case, why would the GNU Classpath and GCC Java compiler projects exist?)

      He's arguing that those who use Java should try to stick with functionality that's available in the free (in Stallman's sense of the word) implementations of Java.

      It seems like a perfectly reasonable point of view to me.

    119. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      So Java's not open source; who cares. Out in the real world, no one cares whether Java is open source or not. Anyone can quickly obtain it with a couple of mouse clicks. If it enhances the functionality of OOo then why not use it?

      I care for a few real-world reasons:

      1) The JRE is NOT freely redistributable. Therefore I can't legally add it to my OOo CD's that I pass on to customers and I have to make them download it first.

      2) Some of my customers are still on dial-up. They are not going to be happy to be asked to download the entire JRE over their dial-up connections.

      This is the same reason I decided not to work with Tkinter for some of my Windows python programs. I.e. I didn't want to be dependnet on a non-freely-redistributable component where I had to get permission (which costs $$) before distributing CD's to my customers.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    120. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The default OOo installer will not work with any JVM except from Sun. In other words, it won't work with any of those you mention. Part of the problem is that OOo depends on the Sun JVM.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    121. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      Gambas isn't a drop in replacement for VB, there's some changes:

      msgbox "hello", vbinformation 'in vb
      is
      message.info "hello" 'in gambas

      also (much better in gambas)
      'VB
      dim myFileHandle as integer
      myFileHandle = freefile()
      open myfile for input as myFileHandle
      'Gambas:
      dim myFileHandle as file
      open myfile for READ as myfilehandle

      as in gambas, myFileHandle is a file object, as opposed to an int in VB. also its READ instead of input.

      if you read the FAQ, it covers most/all of the differences between vb and gambas.

      only problem is, you need the gambas runtime installed (which afaik isn't packaged for many distro's), plus some other stuff (gambas-qt, etc) to run the software. it does include a package creator though, which can do many package formats for many different distro's.

    122. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      If Stallman et al don't like it, they're free to try and do better: it's step up or shut up time.

      i believe the phrase is "Shit, or get off the pot"

    123. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by cryptocom · · Score: 1

      " It's here, it's (basically) free. Why not use it?" ...because it sucks. Period. I was sucked into the hype hoping for a nice open source alternative to the MS Office Suite, and found OO.o to be cumbersome, inefficient, incompatible with many formats that were claimed to be compatible, and a processor hog. Here's a clue: a document editing program should not need a program running constantly in the background so that it starts quicker. My opinion: Yuck.

      --
      It takes just a moment and an action to destroy. It takes some time and thought to create.
    124. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...

      BSD advertising clause is called "obnoxious" by RMS. What is the Linux naming request then?

      Does it not become something which has a similar problem though without the legal teeth?

      Lets see if we can get the founders of KDE to speak and see if they require that we rename our LUG to KDE/Linux User's Group.

      FTM, why not just rename it to the "UNIX-like Operating Systems User Group" as a way to expand its mission and avoid the issue altogether. "We discuss Linux (with or without the GNU tools...)"

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    125. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Um, Miguel de Icaza? Nat Friedman? I know I'm being cheap, but hey :)

      --
      No comment.
    126. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Let me know once the Linux kernel can be built with something other than GCC.

      --
      No comment.
    127. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by gallir · · Score: 1

      > Stallman is also a maniac who refused to give a speech on his views to the SIGLinux

      So you think he is __obligated__ to give you a speech even if you association does not mention what he is promoting?

      So, come to my university and give me a speech about GNU project and free as in speech software. You are now obligated, maniac zealot.

      > Java code, in itself, is not bad

      You see...

      So, you think proprietary code is OK and nice, and at the same time think Stallman is obligated to satisfy your desires?

      Crazy unbalanced moronic people.

      --
      sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
    128. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Phleg · · Score: 1

      *cringe*

      --
      No comment.
    129. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by mlg98 · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is the case. I installed Fedora Core 4 Test 2 and it came with the GNU free version of Java. Open Office comes installed with it and works great without ever having downloaded the Sun JVM.

      --
      Code to live, live to code.
    130. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard too many people refer to the kernel as GNU.

      I guess terminology pedants do pick on these things prety quickly when they do happen though.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    131. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Do you have access to Base?

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    132. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      If certain features are disabled without a JVM (like the database part) then it's not 100% functional. It may be 90%. From other articles it sounded like the trend to use java was going to increase. What other new or old features will non-java users be unable to use? These concerns are valid.

      I'm not slamming java as a language. I'm not slamming Sun. I however do NOT belive that the java integration in OOo is a good idea due to the impact it has on the maintainability, portability, performance, and ease of installation. I also urge Sun to open up the java standards process, and use a better license instead of the restrictive license it currently has that doesn't allow open source OS's to bundle the Sun JVM.

    133. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Randseed · · Score: 1
      The BitKeeper issue is different entirely; it was a commercial product being offered for free, with the possibility that it could be yanked out from under them at any time.
      Bitkeeper was never free. They provided a free "single-user" license that, among other things, required that you "check-in" your source to their servers.
    134. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, so its GNU/BSD now is it? You stupid, stupid fuck.

    135. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by yog · · Score: 3, Informative

      1) The JRE is NOT freely redistributable. Therefore I can't legally add it to my OOo CD's that I pass on to customers and I have to make them download it first.

      This is an utterly uninformed statement. The JRE is indeed freely redistributable.

      The whole point of the JRE is to allow developers to ship a runtime environment with their products, should a customer require it. If it were not freely distributable, few would develop for Java because there would be no guarantee that a customer would wish to download the JRE separately.

      Regarding adding the JRE to OOo CD's that you pass on to customers, some people have done just that; google for this and you will find examples of people adding a JRE folder to the OOo iso.

      Why would Sun restrict the distribution of JRE along with OpenOffice.org? It would be shooting themselves in the foot.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    136. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you stupid fuck

    137. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > There is a need for a good, compile-once-run-anywhere format,

      Why? Perhaps in the closed source world, but we do something called compile & run everywhere here in the Free one. GNU autoconf/automake is a bitch to make heads or tails out of but it works on a lot more platforms than JAVA does. Oh, and native apps will always outperform a VM. Java apps could run, but don't on most of the machines I use because it is too much bother to download and install it everywhere. When there is an implementation of JAVA that can come pre-installed, then you might have a point.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    138. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      The probelm is stallman thinks HIS/GNU's contribution is/was more important than any others. So he insists that it be GNULinux,

      Uh, if he thought his contribution was more important than any others, wouldn't he be simply calling it "GNU" instead of GNU/Linux or GNU/Solaris or GNU/Whatever? As others have stated, he's being pedantic. When most (all?) people speak of Linux as an OS, they're speaking of GNU/Linux. For desktop users, X/GNU/Linux would be even more correct. But find someone who uses Linux without GNU and you'll find the exceptional case (Linux embedded seems an example where possibly only gcc is used of gnu; has Stallman every tried to label it GNU/Linux embedded?). The same can't be said for those who don't use X, KDE, etc (look at the tons of servers).

      So, while certainly it is a bit of Stallman blowing his own horn, he's also being rather correct in stating that GNU/Linux is what most people hold true and dear to their heart when they think of any Linux distro.

      Add to that the fact that anyone who disagrees with him is considered to have a moral defect

      Considered by whom? You? Himself? If you think Stallman thinks that you going against his morals is a moral defect, well congratulations on your understanding of what morality is defined as. Tolerance of others isn't about accepting that your morality could be wrong (though that's one way people achieve it--such really leaves one without much morality); tolerance of others is not taking a stick upside someone's head even though you think they're wrong. So, even if Stallman were to think you were morally inferior, it really doesn't matter much since Stallman is damn well tolerant of it.

      The people who are the real maniacs are the intolerant people, the ones who consistently try to use force by law to stop people from doing things because they find it morally repugnant. This includes people of the right and left, who want to stop people using drugs, buying guns, or running around naked. To think just because you and someone else disagree over a moral issue makes the other person a maniac defines a very small set of non-maniacs. I think that's actually a very sad, and unproductive, way of viewing things.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    139. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      GNU tools isn't much of a useable OS by itself either.

      "GNU tools" isn't a OS. GNU is an OS, which Stallman et. al. started working on in 1984. It was shy only a working kernel when Linux came along in 1991. Poeple put the Linux kernel into the OS that the GNU project had been working to create for seven years and created GNU/Linux.

      Linux is a kernel. It is not an operating system.

      GNU is an operating system.

      It's natural to measure the contribution of this kind of project by specific programs that came from the project.

      If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be ``GNU''.

      But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we did. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a complete free Unix-like system: GNU.

      Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the GNU Project set out to make it one

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    140. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Doyle · · Score: 1

      Also, who is Linus Trolvalds?

      He's the troll alter-ego of Linus Torvalds. He doesn't do any Linux development work, he just sits around all day shouting "Windows is for lusers, Macs are just toys". ;)

    141. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Shaklee39 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      paid

    142. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as it's the correct release, it's immaterial.

      You mean to say it's immaterial if one JVM supports tail-recursion and the other does not (just an example)?

      See, that's the problem with you Java monkeys. You are just cheap labor. Java was designed for people like you. I believe the correct term is "code monkey." That's why you think JVM is consistent. That's why you don't see a problem, because your job is to mechanically glue parts together, fill in the gaps...Because probably you don't even know what tail-recursion means.

      However, if you search you'll read experts giving different versions of the story regarding JVM.

    143. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Informative


      1) The JRE is NOT freely redistributable. Therefore I can't legally add it to my OOo CD's that I pass on to customers and I have to make them download it first.


      1) this is bullshit.

      2) this is wrong.

      3) this is FUD.

      4) Sorry to say that ... wow I see my Karma burning: you are an idiot!

      Why? Why do you think, there is a JDK and a JRE? Hm? Wow ... well, one is for software developers to develop and one is for software developers to redistriute! Oops?

      Every software based on Java, to be bought on CD or DVD has an JRE bundled .... obviously you either never buy software or you do not watch what gets installed.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    144. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by d31337 · · Score: 1

      Whatever people might think of the way Stallman goes about making his points, the fact remains that without the availability of gcc, Linux wouldn't have been able to attract as many developers/bug-fixers as it has. Can you imagine what might have happened if working on Linux required you to buy a compiler from (say) Intel?

      Let's give the man the credit he's due, shall we?

    145. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    146. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by synthespian · · Score: 1

      Are you just being ignorant, or intellectually dishonest? Aren't you aware of the troubles the FreeBSD community has gone through?

      Let me cite this from the URL you gave: The current release of the JDK and JRE available via the FreeBSD Foundation is 1.3.1 and These binaries are not intended for use with FreeBSD 5.X, due to a binary compatibility issue.

      Like I said, there's no Java in the Libre *Nix arena. And, besides, The FreeBSD Foundation has negotiated a license with Sun Microsystems to distribute FreeBSD binaries. As you might be aware, this means it's not Free Software.

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
    147. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Informative

      usually there are vendor specific classes that underlie the public api

      in suns java theese are in the package sun. and if you use such classes then you can end up with jvm specific java code.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    148. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      sure you can extend a class in oop fasion but that doesn't nessacerally allow you to fix it without rewriting much (or even all if the encapsulation is especially horrible) of the functionaility and/or making a dirty kludge

      not to mention the fact that you would then have to change everything to make it use your new class. and it gets even worse if the class you want to fix has descendents (fix them all sperately?) or final methods (which you can do nothing about).

      i'd hardly say this compares very well at all to being able to fix an issue at source.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    149. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Decaff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean to say it's immaterial if one JVM supports tail-recursion and the other does not (just an example)?

      Absolutely. There are very, very few practical situations where this matters.

      However, if you search you'll read experts giving different versions of the story regarding JVM.

      Why should the typical (or all but the most specialised) developer care? The details of VM implementation and optimisation techniques simply have no relevance for the vast majority of software written in the real world.

    150. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by d_jedi · · Score: 1

      Ouch. I got pwn3d.
      OK, I'll shut up now.

      I was led to believe that there wasn't one for PocketPC.. I guess I'll need to do my research better next time :-:

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
    151. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by babble123 · · Score: 1
      Let me know once the Linux kernel can be built with something other than GCC.

      By that argument, hello Gnu/FreeBSD and Gnu/MacOSX!

    152. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      Ok. It can be built with icc.

      --
      Why not fork?
    153. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by jbplou · · Score: 1

      You never will find a Monon programmer for pay. What company is going to say, "gee I like using Linux but I would like to program to Microsoft standards"...ding ding ding ... "lets use Mono". I also hate the fact on here everyone says Mono gives you .NET it doesn't even have all the functions. Plus I'd wager atleast 50% of the .NET code out there is written VB.NET and maybe 1.5% is in J#. Java is cross platform and .NET is really aimed at accross the different windows architechtures both of which have there places depending on purpose.

    154. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      I don't think rewriting code already written in Java would be a productive and worthwhile use of time, however, I do think something needs to be done to address the need for an open source Java implementation that can be used by projects. Suns Java already is sources avialable for free, but still under a non-open source licence. Hopefully Sun will make the thing open source, that would be the best. Free software/open source, is pretty important to assure someone cant pull a "Bitkeeper" sort of thing on us and suddenly withdawing software from avialability, and to assure peoples freedoms to edit and modify the software and distribute the changes.

    155. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by S.O.B. · · Score: 1
      In Sun's Java there are no sun. packages (JDK 1.5 API).

      If OOo has any sun. classes then they have to be included with the application because they are not part of the runtime. That would make these classes application specific rather than vendor specific runtime classes.

      Also, the article mentions that:
      A source at Sun said, "OO.o 2 works OK with GCJ" and that "Red Hat has been tremendously helpful in the effort to make that so, filing bug reports etc."

      Apparently Red Hat was able to figure out that if OOo doesn't work with gcj then you submit a bug report and get it fixed whereas the FSF whines about it and issues demands to Sun that it run the OOo project according to the FSF's agenda.
      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    156. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      It's nice to see someone own up to an error, even when it's a small and relatively unimportant one.

      What I'd like to see next is someone who responds informatively to that error without being a jerk. A little voice in me says, "don't hold your breath".

    157. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      sun.* packages are NOT part of the documented pulic api and but there is nothing to actually stop apps from using them (ofc they can dissapear at any time so using them is risky).

      last i heared OOo was using them but only in some parts releated to loading applets.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    158. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by ESqVIP · · Score: 1
      Also, who is Linus Trolvalds?

      Author of Lunix, I guess.

    159. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Metzli · · Score: 1

      "Reliance of (sic) Sun proprietary sofware is a pain in the ass for everybody who's not on a Microsoft/Linux/MacOS system"

      It doesn't hurt those on Solaris.

      --
      "It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
    160. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      J2ME hardly counts. Every device implementing it does things slightly differently. And don't think that code written for J2SE will run unmodified on J2ME.

      And I don't know about PDAs, but cell phones tend to have silly limits that influence the entire structure of your program.

      J2ME is NOT "write once, run anywhere." It's more "write once, hack for every platform."

    161. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by johansalk · · Score: 1

      Doesn't KOffice and the whole of KDE have a trolltech QT problem? I'd much rather have a Java "problem" than a QT one.

    162. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by mkw87 · · Score: 1

      Linus Trolvalds is Bill Gate's 'society name', you know, like Batman is known as "Bruce Wayne" in society

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
    163. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then call it Open Open Office (.org)

    164. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      NOt the same thing. The reason the BSD advertising clause is obnoxious is because you have to list *all* developers in your advertising. So your advertisement might have to list 100 developers (how many are there just for Linux right now?). RMS just wants you to list one project, GNU. So it's not the same. :)

      I have to say I agree with RMS about wanting to make sure people are aware of the Free Software philosophy, but in practice I find I'm better off saying "Linux" and "open source". If I say Free Software, people think "cheapskate" or "I can get it for free". If I say "open source", people want to know more, and then I jump in with "GNU did this and GNU did that, and then later some guys corporatized it etc etc ...". So *not* inserting GNU and Free Software in everything I say is actually a better way to start conversations on the subject. :)

      SO my point is that RMS's motivation is to make sure people are educated on GNU, GNU's mission, and the Free SOftware philosophy. So it's only like 1 part credit to GNU and 2 parts education on Free Software, the user's rights to the source code, and so forth. In the long run, satisfying RMS's motivation by explicitly *not* satisfying his actual requirement will associate Linux and Open Source with him and GNU and completely undermine RMS's two nemesi, Linus Torvalds and ERS, and give RMS the mechanism under which he will default to receiving all the credit.

      If you want to leave RMS and GNU out of it completely, then he gets pissed. If you work it (like I am) so that he and GNU wind up with the credit, he gets pissed. SO his solution is reasonable, in that sense.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    165. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Excelsior · · Score: 1

      If you feel you *must* fix an issue without using OO techniques, fixing issues "at source" can be accomplished. Sun is now accepting contributions directly into Mustang (the latest pre-release version of Java). See http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/J2 SE/peabody/ for more info.

    166. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      I don't think that anyone can spend any time in the FOSS world and not come across the name GNU enough to at least wonder what it is....

      GNU Networked Object Model Environment
      GNU Compiler Collection
      GNU Image Manipulation Project

      Etc.....

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    167. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Excelsior · · Score: 1

      But, I probably won't get modded up because I disagree with RMS. Funny, especialy considering I am pragmatically pro-GPL. I say pragmatic because I support anyone's right to choose the conditions they release their copyrighted works under. I think choosing the GPL is a great choice, but if you aren't comfortable with it, so be it. If Sun wants to release Solaris under the CDDL, or if Sun wants to keep Java proprietary, they have every right. Who am I to complain?

    168. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Heh, I'm with you on that. :) I definitely disagree with the GNU/LInux thing even if I agree with the fundamental motivations.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    169. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by TelJanin · · Score: 1

      I develop with Mono "for pay". I'm working with a guy who wrote an absolutely awsome piece of software in C#. He's good at it, but doesn't know Linux. My job is just to make sure it compiles + runs well on Linux so that there is a non-MS upgrade path available if needed.

    170. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by TelJanin · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're running ONLY classpath Java? Are you sure you're running OO.o v2, and not v1?

    171. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Dionysus · · Score: 1

      And what is the trolltech QT problem?

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    172. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      You mean to say it's immaterial if one JVM supports tail-recursion and the other does not (just an example)?

      Absolutely. There are very, very few practical situations where this matters.

      No, there are a lot of situations when it does matter. It means that one simply can't write Java code functional-style, because even if his JVM supports optimization of tail-recursive calls, the others might not.
    173. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      "Just imagine Sun running out of money and selling everything valuable (if you think this is impossible, just remember what almost happened to big blue)"

      Digital's a better example. They also made unix workstations and servers (like Sun). Their IP is mostly owned by HP now (HP merged with Compaq who bought Digital). No "almost" about Digital.

      Crazy stuff happens in the IP world. Look at the Woody Guthrie song ("This Land Is Your Land") that he issued with an open source style license (do whatever you want with it). The original license expired with the original copyright period. However, the copyright period was extended. As a result, something that the writer intended to be public domain is not. Part of the evils of perpetual copyright. Writers lose control of their works to their heirs.

      Hmmm...just looked into the Guthrie issue some more. Apparently it may have worked out. It turns out that the original copyright might have been in '45, not '56. As a result, the extension was requested too late. However, the point holds. If they had requested the extension in '73, they would have been able to enforce copyright despite Guthrie's clear intention that they should not. Especially ludicrous is that prior to '73, they could not have enforced the copyright, as the song was originally issued with a license to copy and modify.

    174. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Then why most Linux distros, even those with package managers, require you to manually download the JRE before installing?

    175. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by m50d · · Score: 1

      There are alternatives around, and even if there weren't there are definitely alternatives to the sun-only APIs they use. Make no mistake, they're using it because they're sun.

      --
      I am trolling
    176. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by AndyS · · Score: 1

      Woah, you should be careful with this. Different VMs have different unspecified behaviours and it's very easy to rely upon unspecified behaviours (such as .toString()) on DOM Text nodes which differs between IBM and Sun.

      Always worth testing on the different VMs, they're not alike as you would think.

    177. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Decaff · · Score: 1

      No, there are a lot of situations when it does matter. It means that one simply can't write Java code functional-style, because even if his JVM supports optimization of tail-recursive calls, the others might not.

      Which validates my point. Very few people indeed write Java functional-style, so to say there are a 'lot' of situations is exaggerating hugely. There may be a lot of situations for you personally, but not for developers in general.

      Like it or not, Java is not intended for that sort of development. It is a general purpose language, used mostly for business coding. If you want to write functional-style use a functional language designed for it.

      And anyway, exactly the same situation exists for similar languages like C++ - some compilers support tail recursion optimisation, some don't. Does this mean that C++ is not generally a portable language? Of course not!

    178. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There'd be another C compiler. Without Linux, GCC would be a fringe compiler for non-free unices and wouldn't attract nearly as many developers because they'd most likely be about doing something entirely different.

    179. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Because probably you don't even know what tail-recursion means.

      Ooooh, nice ad hominem there! We'll just ignore the couple of years of C and C++ I did before moving to Java then, shall we? Or the fact that I first started programming about 20 years ago?

      Because you're right, I currently code in Java, therefore I must be a drooling code monkey.

      God you language bigots piss me off something chronic. Still, it oculd be worse, at least you didn't rag on me for using Windows too.

    180. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Then I was actually right you weren't addressing the debate. Let me just clarify something right off the bat. If a piece of software is dependent on a library it is a derived work of that library. Neither side argues the more general position you are advocating that being a derived work of a non free library is OK since the important thing is right to inspect and imitate. That may or may not be a reasonable point of view but neither side advocates it so for the purposes of the debate its irrelevant.

      You are making a point but I don't think its fair to attack RMS for something that the OpenOffice people would agree with him on.

    181. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      Like I said, there's no Java in the Libre *Nix arena.

      That's strange, I must have imagined that I'm running Sun's Java on my NetBSD machine at work:

      $ java -version
      Java version "1.4.2_08"
      Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2_08-b03)
      Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.2-08-b03, mixed mode)
      $ uname
      NetBSD

    182. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that OOo depends on the Sun JVM.

      It's not the JVM, it's some additional libraries supplied with the JRE. But, other than that, you are right, and I was wrong.

    183. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by nikster · · Score: 1

      Anything can be done by a Lisp program in 15 minutes.

      The problem is writing the Lisp program :)

    184. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by chthon · · Score: 1

      Stallman is right.

      Right now, we are having an issue with sublicensed software, which is part of a compiler we use to produce images for embedded software.

      Somewhere down the compile chain, there is a DOS tool with the standard DOS limits and problems : it can only use a 127 byte command line, and it is written using the single-user, single-tasking paradigm.

      The result is that it only knows one temporary directory (\tmp) and two names for its output files.

      Because of that, I cannot start two builds of different products at the same time, because they might interfere with each other through this tiny program, of which nobody seems to have the source code.

      This means that instead of having done two builds in 4 hours, we now have to look at the priorities, build one target first, and then the other, which means an eight hour delay.

      And we are working on Windows, so no nice chroot environment ore something like that (and please do not start on VMWare, our IT department is moronic and backwards).

      Fuck closed-source software.

    185. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Stallman is also a maniac who refused to give a speech on his views to the SIGLinux (LUG at the University of Texas) because we were using the name "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux."

      He chose not to speak at your club and you piss on him?

      You shouldn't piss on your Founder like that. He was a major contributor to your beloved OS. He deserves his GNU in GNU/Linux, and your ilks are taking credit for his work by calling it Linux without the GNU. How would you feel if your Open Source project had someone else's name on it and none of yours? Go and read some history about how the Free Software movement was started, and credit where they're due.

      Try giving respect before demanding it.

      > His solutions are often overly idealistic and impractical, i.e. moving everyone who uses Java off of Java.

      Maybe if "everyone" didn't get caught in the "Java Trap", they wouldn't need to migrate from java.

    186. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Would you speak to my group? We have a product we call 'Foomaster,' and we used a development approach you advocate to develop it."

      GNU/Linux wasn't just a "development approach". It was software that compares to an OS distribution, but without the kernel. Linux was just that, the kernel. The two needed each other, so how can you credit one and not the other? What's wrong with you and your mods to think Linux was the entire OS, rather than just a kernel?

    187. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how you don't get modded up for this. It's also funny how these zealots think linux was the entire OS, instead of just a kernel, or think GNU was just a development philosophy, thus, it's fine to drop off the GNU.

    188. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the BSD advertising clause is obnoxious is because you have to list *all* developers [...] RMS just wants you to list one project, GNU. So it's not the same.

      Ahh, so it's not the same because it's RMS, instead of other people?

      Yeah, *that's* not hypocritical or anything.

    189. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by drakaan · · Score: 1
      I believe the patches were needed because of deficiencies in the current gjc and not because of "vendor-specific functionality".

      I said: "You have to patch OOo to compile under gjc and OOo is using some vendor-specific functionality."

      Two-part statement...I didn't think it looked like I was saying that you needed the patches because of the vendor-specific stuff. The statement I quoted from you is correct, and so was my comment. We agree substantially.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    190. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      They don't require you to download one.

      You download it becaue YOU WANT a JRE. Some Linux distroes dont bundle a JDK .... because SUNs JDK is not GPL and not OS either.

      Very likely you don't want a JRE (java runtime environment) anyway but a JDK (java developers kit, including compiler etc.). So you download it.

      If you install any Java based software, the vendor has bundled a JRE allready. Except when the software needs a JDK, like Eclipse e.g.

      Check MagicDraw, a CASE system (low cost and very mature) written in Java. You will see the download has the option with and without JRE.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    191. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by m50d · · Score: 1

      Nope. There was a Qt problem that got resolved about 4 years ago, Qt is now GPL, as free as it gets. Unfortunately gnome is still spreading FUD.

      --
      I am trolling
    192. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Very likely you don't want a JRE (java runtime environment) anyway but a JDK (java developers kit, including compiler etc.). So you download it.
      Actually, very likely the typical end user will want JRE, if only for Java applets to work out of the box. I don't see the reason to not include it, at least, if the license allows for it.
    193. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Which validates my point. Very few people indeed write Java functional-style, so to say there are a 'lot' of situations is exaggerating hugely.
      One of the reasons why noone would do that in the sane mind is precisely because it's not guaranteed to work properly on any random VM.
      Like it or not, Java is not intended for that sort of development. It is a general purpose language, used mostly for business coding. If you want to write functional-style use a functional language designed for it.
      What's wrong with using FP for business coding? Surely you know there are quite a few situations when it's useful, regardless of the domain. Basic algorithms tend to be similar anywhere, you know...
      And anyway, exactly the same situation exists for similar languages like C++ - some compilers support tail recursion optimisation, some don't. Does this mean that C++ is not generally a portable language? Of course not!
      Now that's a good point. True enough. Although I must admit, I've always considered C++ compilers which don't do that optimization somewhat defective. I know it's not in the standard, but it's a valid and useful optimization technique, and there's no excuse not to provide it, especially when it's so easy to do that.
    194. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      You completely missed the point.

      Let's say you take out a full-page ad in the newspaper for your wonderful, BSD-licensed webserver that has 1000 developers. You *must* list ALL of those developers in your ad. How much space do you have left to make your actual advertisement message?

      The GPL does not require you to say *who* wrote the program in your advertising. It doesn't even address any sort of commercial use of the program (other than disclaiming warranty, but that's not just for commercial use). RMS may *want* credit, but you don't see his license requiring it, now, do you?

      That's the difference. RMS is asking nicely, in some areas he's being heavy-handed, but nowhere does he attempt to force anyone. He makes it very clear that "it's your choice, but I think it's wrong".

      So yeah, an anonymous coward missed the point again. Surprise!

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    195. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by pebs · · Score: 1

      "1) The JRE is NOT freely redistributable. Therefore I can't legally add it to my OOo CD's that I pass on to customers and I have to make them download it first."

      1) this is bullshit. 2) this is wrong. 3) this is FUD. 4) Sorry to say that ... wow I see my Karma burning: you are an idiot!


      May want to do some research before you go calling someone an idiot. Read the license, it comes with strings attach, one of which is you cannot distribute it alongside another version of the JVM:

      (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software

      That is why Debian (and others) does not have Sun Java included in its non-free repository, they don't have the licence to because they distribute open-source versions of the JVM such as Kaffe. Sure, these versions are uncertified, but I think it would apply even if they were certified. Redhat and Suse (I believe) can distribute Sun Java but they had to sacrifice being able to distribute free versions of a JVM. Here is the bit from the license text:

      There are also some other questionable parts, though this one is big enough to be troublesome.

      When a license places restrictions like this, it IS a big deal. What reason does Sun have for this, other than to squash competing JVM's?

      --
      #!/
    196. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Decaff · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with using FP for business coding? Surely you know there are quite a few situations when it's useful, regardless of the domain. Basic algorithms tend to be similar anywhere, you know...

      Nothing particularly, but it just isn't the Java style. Java is a language based on C/C++, and in those languages recursion is generally avoided because in this type of language it is recursion is generally expected to result in high memory use. On the other hand if you use a language designed for functional program like LISP, this kind of practise is obviously expected. So use LISP! I don't think it is fair to blame the JVM for not supporting functional programming in a language not designed for functional programming.

    197. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by pebs · · Score: 1

      The BitKeeper issue is different entirely; it was a commercial product being offered for free, with the possibility that it could be yanked out from under them at any time. There should have been background work on an eventual replacement for BitKeeper well before anything happened. Why is this different from the Java example? Because the OS kernel is totally different and there was no alternative. If Sun were to suddenly make Java pay-to-use, the programs could, for the most part, be rewritten in C++ with minimal effort (most of the work could be done in 15 minutes by a Lisp program.)

      You have got to be fucking kidding. How on earth did this comment get modded up with this last paragraph is a mystery to me.

      Yes, the Bitkeeper situation is different, because the Java situation is MUCH WORSE. Bitkeeper was being used to manage kernel development, but Linux kernel code didn't actually depend on Bitkeeper. People who use the Linux kernel aren't depending on Bitkeeper. With Java code, the software itself depends on the tools to compile AND run. And this case (OOo 2.0) is especially worse because the use of Sun-specific API's (not just Java API's) forces you to use Sun's API's for those tasks. And for any situation, your "rewrite in C++" solution (even if you had said "rewrite in C#/Mono"), in addition to being completely unreasonable, is not possible because you don't have a license to do that with Sun's classes even if you do have the source code for all of it.

      --
      #!/
    198. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      How can you have an OS without a kernel??? GNU is an environment, but it's the kernel that does many of the defining functions of an OS.

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    199. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by pebs · · Score: 1

      forces you to use Sun's API's for those tasks

      that was a typo.. I meant to say Sun's JDK.. It is essentially vendor lockin.

      Although I like Java and the open-source community that surrounds it, I do think having a complete free open source implementation is a very good idea, and I hope Apache Harmony succeeds. I don't understand the huge amount of backlash that Harmony got. It IS an important project and there ARE many people who want such a thing to exist.

      --
      #!/
    200. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by pfleming · · Score: 1
      "Stallman is also a maniac who refused to give a speech on his views to the SIGLinux (LUG at the University of Texas) because we were using the name "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux." He doesn't know where to pick his fights and often ends up embroiled in petty feuds over things largely tangential to his main cause. His solutions are often overly idealistic and impractical, i.e. moving everyone who uses Java off of Java."
      He refused to mention our Install Fest (timed to coincide with his visit to NAU) due to us calling ourselves LUNA instead of GNU/LUNA which sorta loses something. It was back and forth over the mailing list... and we never did change our name.
    201. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've looked at sun code you can't contribute to classpath.

      Show me a Java developer who hasn't studied the implemetation of any of Sun's Java code and you're looking at a IT monkey who wouldn't know how to contribute to classpath anyway. It's shipped with the JDK and people look at it regularly.

    202. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! by aled · · Score: 1

      Please! Just go to https://mustang.dev.java.net/ for the snapshots for the next version of java. You can even send your patchs back to the project. Go to java.sun.com for older versions. Java sources have been available for download for YEARS.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
  2. If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey ASSHOLES, the current Java source code can be downloaded here, and the latest development version can be downloaded here. And if that's not enough for you, your precious Kaffe, gcj, GNU Classpath, and other "Open Source" projects are working on reimplementing the JVM. I don't particularly care if you like Java or not, but I've had enough of this bullshit about Java being open or not. It's a God damn language/platform with thousands of successful Open Source projects under it, and has been opened up six ways to sunday. Comparing the issue to Linus's predicament is disingenuous at best, is not outright dishonest!

    Not to mention that OpenOffice is Sun's baby. They PAID MONEY FOR IT. (I know that's a foreign concept here, since the entire fraking world is supposed to be FREE for the fraking taking.) If you don't like the direction OpenOffice has taken, then go play with KOffice. Oh wait, you alreay pissed them off too. Is there anyone you people won't make an enemy of in your Quixotic quests of stupidity?

    Apologies for the abrasiveness of this post, but crap like this deserves it. You've been given a gift and all you can do is look it in the mouth.

    1. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A-FUCKING-MEN

    2. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      StarOffice is Suns baby, OpenOffice maybe contributed by Sun but it was handed over from them long ago. Java is proprietry, thats a problem waiting to happen possibly, thats the issue. What if we find an issue with Java that blocks something on OO? We are dependant on Sun to fix it.

    3. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Amen my brother. It's silly when fanatics and obsessives get in the way of technology.

      I think their real problem is it's not GPL'd. I fucking HATE that virus of a shitty licensing scheme.

      So in the real world, Java is more free than GCC or many other GPL'd pieces of...code.

    4. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you for posting my exact thoughts

    5. Re:If you'll pardon my French by nb+caffeine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. I am not a fan developing in Java myself, but appreciate the technology, being both a windows (work) and linux (home) user. People seem to complain about a language that makes alot of previously hard things easy.


      I have lots of issues with java myself (antiquated JVMs on old platforms) and the speed of a heavy gui app written in java, however, there are tons of GREAT oss projects written in java. And i think thats great.

      To me, the fact that sun paid for OO.o seems irrelevant. To me its just another OSS project that uses java. So what?

      --

      "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
    6. Re:If you'll pardon my French by m50d · · Score: 2, Informative
      1. It's under a very restrictive license. The license isn't so restrictive by the standards of applications or operating systems, but by the standards of languages it's very strict.

      2. RTFA, the major problem is that they're using undocumented sun-only features, almost as if they're deliberately breaking it on Kaffe etc.

      I do leave it alone and use KOffice, and I try and encourage others to do the same. One way to do so is tell people about the problems with OpenOffice. Because make no mistake, these are problems.

      --
      I am trolling
    7. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Couldn't have said better myself, although I would have used much better swear words.

    8. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for mod points for you.

    9. Re:If you'll pardon my French by FriedTurkey · · Score: 1, Insightful


      What if we find an issue with Java that blocks something on OO?

      What if we find that using Java causes Cancer?

      What if we find out that using Java will make you sterile?

      What if we find out there is secret code to control your brain and make you buy really expensive Solaris servers?

      What if we find that Java actually has code to format you hard drive if you press up, down, left, right, "A", "B", "Select", and then "Start"?

    10. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Monkelectric · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Double agreed. The 1.x versions of OO use Blackdown IIRC? *BLACKDOWN SUCKS*. Yes its good to have an open source java platform. Is it good that its an order og magnitude slower than Suns java? *NO*. Open Office 1 was soo slow it was *unusable* on my athlon 1700 w/ 512mb. The OO 2 beta is downright *speedy* on the same system.

      End of story. Would it be nice if it was based on an open source stuff? Yes. Is the open source stuff up to par in this case? no.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    11. Re:If you'll pardon my French by natrius · · Score: 3, Interesting
      From the article:
      The most visible evidence of that is that the FSF (Free Software Foundation) is "is looking for volunteers to maintain a version of OpenOffice that doesn't require a non-free Java platform."
      This isn't about having something against Java as a language or being mad at Sun for implementing new features in Java. I think they should use whichever tools allow them to work most efficiently. All this is about is ensuring that all these new features can be utilized without Sun's JVM, since most distros can't ship it. This means people have to provide patches that deal with the incompleteness of the free JVMs. If the patches don't make it upstream, someone still needs to maintain them.

      There's nothing wrong with wanting a completely free software stack, and I think there's generally less animosity out there than people are making it seem.
    12. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I do leave it alone and use KOffice, and I try and encourage others to do the same"

      How's that effort going?

      Yeah, thought so...

    13. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Java coffee does cause cancer of the stomach if taken in large amounts for long periods of time.

      Solution, dont use as much Java :D

      Nice evasion of the issue there.

    14. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      trolling?
      It doesn't matter that java is free beer or that Sun had to pay for OO.org. You are missing the point. The complaints are because it will be detrimental to the OO.org progress to use a dependency on a non-free (as in speech) application. Its use in OO.org makes it impossible to redistribute a fully functional officesuite since java cannot be freely distributed. And kaffe and gcj cannot (yet) handle all the new java stuff in OO.org, although projects are underway to address this. In addition, it's possible that OO.org will only partly work on platforms for which no complient java exists (Currently Sun as no 1.4.x jre for my ibook running linux, although perhaps OO.org will run using IBM's jre).

      I think the people who are complaining are doing a good thing. It is not productive at all to have such dependencies on a closed language, its much worse as what linus did. You at least didn't need to install bitkeeper to use all the features of your kernel.

    15. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Hobbex · · Score: 4, Insightful


      The problem is not that it uses Java, the problem is that it uses a bunch of classes that in the com.sun hierarchy - classes that are NOT part of the standard Java library, and that bind it explicitely to Sun's proprietary (source code available does not make it Free - many people have the source code for Windows) JVM. The developers have made zero effort to try to make it possible for Kaffe, GCJ, or the upcoming Harmony to be used for OpenOffice.

      And yes, this is their right. If they wanted to drop everything but the Windows version, that would be their right too. If they wanted to stop development all together, or decide that future versions would be entirely proprietary, that would be their right too.

      But you know what, it is perfectly reasonable to try to bring up that this is a glaring problem in the presentation of OpenOffice as a non-prorietary open office suite. The people who do so are not whining, or demanding, and they aren't being rude ASSHOLES (that would be you). They are simply putting light on a rather crucial issue.

    16. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      1. It's under a very restrictive license. The license isn't so restrictive by the standards of applications or operating systems, but by the standards of languages it's very strict.

      Yeah. Whatever. I don't see IBM giving out their Smalltalk compiler for others to fork.

      Java is just as open as any other language, with the exception that the OSS fanatics can't seem to hire sufficient expertise to replicate a high-quality JVM. That's not Sun's problem.

      2. RTFA, the major problem is that they're using undocumented sun-only features, almost as if they're deliberately breaking it on Kaffe etc.

      You show me where that's stated, and I'll show you a pack of lies.

    17. Re:If you'll pardon my French by radish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      RTFA, the major problem is that they're using undocumented sun-only features, almost as if they're deliberately breaking it on Kaffe etc

      I did RTFA, and it mentions NOTHING about "undocumented sun-only features". It DOES mention that there were problems running it on GCJ, because GCJ doesn't yet support the full spec. Well, I'm sorry, but that's a problem for GCJ not Sun. Stallman even says as much in his document "The Java Trap" - he uses the words "sun only feature" to mean things which the free implementations don't yet support.

      Really - there's no conspiracy here. The only significant stuff that the source isn't available for from Sun is the JVM itself and stuff under sun.* packages. The JVM is a free spec which others are welcome to implement (s.g. GCJ etc al), and no app in it's right mind should be directly calling sun.*, for obvious reasons. If you find code in OO which does, then maybe there will be cause for complaint.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    18. Re:If you'll pardon my French by narsiman · · Score: 1

      Good god Batman. You are on a roll today. Crossed your humpday too early. BTW - amen to your comments.

    19. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever GNUFreak. No one cares. The world has left you kooks behind.

    20. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love you, why don't you join GNAA today. We could use huge, blistering faggots such as yourself.

    21. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      I'M FRENCH, YOU IGNORANT CLOD!

      I just thought my comment was as apropo as your title.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    22. Re:If you'll pardon my French by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      If it weren't based so heavily on Java in the first place, of course, this would all be a non-issue. The fact that it can only currently run properly on top of Sun's Java means that it is not as Free as some people would like. Those people are complaining that the Freedom of the product has thus been compromised. Why does this bother some people so heavily?

      A serious question that could and should be asked is why they are depending so heavily on Java when it will reduce the utility of the software?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. As someone with all the answers you'll obviously know how you can download and compile the "open" Java source on OpenBSD without violating the licence. Except that ... you can't.

      Guess its not such a great gift then eh?

    24. Re:If you'll pardon my French by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      It's called taking a stand on principle versus taking the pragmatic approach. It comes up every day on this forum.

      If there were a choice between the two, it seems to me that the geek crowd would prefer the former.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    25. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's have none of that sodomy here.

    26. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you weren't a dick?

      What if you could address his points without stupid meaningless questions?

      What if I hadn't already used my mod point for this article on a different post?

    27. Re:If you'll pardon my French by forgetmenot · · Score: 1

      I'm SOOOOO with you and no need to apologize. You're only saying what is on a lot of minds.

      The only thing you don't get for free is the code to the actual sun implementation of the JVM. Whoopdeefriggindoo.

      Stallman's whole Java Trap crap is just that.. crap. Doncha just love his whole "don't use features that gcj hasn't implemented yet" BS? Here's an idea: Get GCJ up-to-date and "usable" and people will use it. Until then, I don't see how Sun should be under any obligation to reduce functionality in a FREE application because not every JVM or library implementation is up to spec.

    28. Re:If you'll pardon my French by ignorant_coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, whenever I read the "but it ain't Free" pouting at Slashdot, I wonder how all the three-year-olds in the world learned to use computers, log into slashdot, and type their nonsense. Many threads at slashdot really are like living with a spoiled kid who grew up in a family who gave them everything, even the pony if a girl and a sports car if a boy. The sense of entitlement is rediculous. There is no "we will take what we can get, this is non-profit after all" it's all "you didn't give us everything we asked for so screw you". If anything ruins the credibility of the FSF fan club, it is this attitude. No compromises. No negotiable points. It's awful.

    29. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Praise the Lard! I couldn't have put it better myself.

      Well done!

    30. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone with all the answers you'll obviously know how you can download and compile the "open" Java source on OpenBSD without violating the licence. Except that ... you can't.

      Why not? Source is right there. You can download, you can hack it, you can even share the patches. You just can't redistribute the binaries.

      So what was your issue again?

    31. Re:If you'll pardon my French by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The developers have made zero effort to try to make it possible for Kaffe, GCJ, or the upcoming Harmony
      Wait, you mean developers working for free, have made zero effort to make their task more difficult?
      Those jerks.
      Why didn't they consult with us before giving us free software?
      Don't they know that we care more about the choice of development language than functionality and bugs.
      You can't seriously trust a developer to chose the implementation language for his or her project. Isn't it more appropriate for the users of software to decide the deveopment language. They are the ones who will get the binaries.

      --
      ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    32. Re:If you'll pardon my French by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for you.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    33. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the fucktard mods that modded the original post down most likely thinks that an "office suite" should only consist of an editor that only edits text files and nothing more;that an operating system shouldn't have a GUI, if you need a GUI, you're "too stupid to use even exist let alone use a computer"; and the only way to edit graphics is using a pen/penil/edt and paper/canvas/etc.

    34. Re:If you'll pardon my French by LarsWestergren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people who do so are not whining, or demanding, and they aren't being rude ASSHOLES

      It is if they are spreading FUD, and a lot of people here are. "Undocumented Sun only Java libraries" my ass. The code is open for anyone to look at. See what Kaffe, GCJ or Harmony is missing and implement that instead of wasting time bashing Sun.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    35. Re:If you'll pardon my French by smileyy · · Score: 1

      What kind of idiot explicitly uses the com.sun classes? You're not supposed to, and in my many years of Java development, I've never, ever found myself having to.

      --
      pooptruck
    36. Re:If you'll pardon my French by whoever57 · · Score: 1
      It's called taking a stand on principle versus taking the pragmatic approach

      Or it could be called taking a long term view rather than a short term view.

      I think the Bitkeeper episode shows that, over the long term, there is good reason to be concerned. Perhaps the best solution is is accelerate development of free (as in speech) JVMs. The advantage to this is that there is not presently a short-term problem -- so taking short term solutions is not appropriate.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    37. Re:If you'll pardon my French by matfud · · Score: 1

      The source for the 1.5 VM from sun is available you just have to download it.

    38. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Grrreat · · Score: 1

      I totally agree, people are getting too bent out of shape over nothing. Its free and so is the Java runtime. If its not completely free as in beer, so what.

    39. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Jooly+Rodney · · Score: 1

      Wow, you just don't get it (or, more likely, you are a huge troll) -- the OpenOffice developers are using proprietary classes from Sun's Java runtime library. This has absolutely nothing to do with JVMs. This has everything to do with runtime libraries -- not the same thing as compilers, Bonzo.

    40. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Code in the com.sun package is generally not reimplementable as it is not documented anywhere. The only way to reimplement it would be to download the existing Sun JVM and copy it. Obviously this is not allowed under the license.

      Stuff in the java.* and javax.* packages are publically documented by Sun.

    41. Re:If you'll pardon my French by matfud · · Score: 2

      The java runtime can be freely distributed as long as it is packaged with an application (OO for example).

      Admittedly this get a bit storage heavy if you try to distribute a large number of apps written in java.

    42. Re:If you'll pardon my French by mrsbrisby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you'll understand why Free Software advocates don't consider it a gift, you'll understand why there's so much hesitation and mistrust.

      I believe SUN _truly_ believes as you do: That they're doing the world a favor. That SUN is doing the virtuous thing with SUN JAVA.

      However, I would hope that someone at SUN- and others like yourself- would notice that maybe, JUST MAYBE, there's a motivation behind all this mistrust, and a reason why Free Software advocates feel threatened by SUN JAVA.

      And while we're making wishes here, maybe they could find out what that reason is, and do something to address it besides cramming their heads through their sphincters and calling people who reason ASSHOLES.

      Here's a fantastic reason to avoid SUN's Java: 10 years from now, your program might be worthless. It won't run on modern systems, and you will have the choice of rewriting it from scratch, or performing the effort SUN went through to MAKE Java, just to get your software to work.

      Because SUN JAVA isn't Free Software, people who write code for the SUN JAVA PLATFORM are giving an enormous amount of trust to SUN that they will make Java 1.5 (or whatever version they target) run until the end of time. Or at least, until the user of the applications' choosing.

      SUN will make a decision (as they always have) that some point exists where SUN JAVA 1.5 will no longer be supported. At that point, if you use an application that runs on SUN JAVA 1.5, you either have to ask your vendor to update it for you, or you're SOL. That vendor might've gone bankrupt, and have no other say in the matter.

      Yes, this is indeed an awful lot of trust to be vesting in SUN, so it's no surprise there are a number of people who have worries as to whether or not SUN can be trusted with their OpenOffice documents: I personally enjoy looking at documents I wrote 10 years ago, and I suspect I'll enjoy doing it 10 years from now.

      I think at the point SUN is at right now, it might be easier for them to change their behavior so that I can use their software. Surely they want me to use their software, and so I lobby them.

      If they don't want me to use their software, then they should say it- like Microsoft has time and again. But if they really want to make Free Software, than we'll keep telling them what they're doing wrong... ... until they do it right.

    43. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Usagi_yo · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. The license only restricts your ability to take java, change the name and call it your product, then start charging for it, without paying license and royalty fees to Sun.

      2. Seeing how the source code is available, I don't see how you can say they are using undocumented features and keep a straight face.

    44. Re:If you'll pardon my French by T-Ranger · · Score: 2, Funny

      People who have email addresses in the form of user@sun.com use com.sun classes regularaly.

    45. Re:If you'll pardon my French by kosmosik · · Score: 1

      > Hey ASSHOLES, the current Java source
      > code can be downloaded here, and the
      > latest development version can be
      > downloaded here.

      So what that it can be downloaded? It has distribution restrictions and cannot be distributed in free products like Red Hat Fedora or Debian GNU Linux. This is also the case since they *want* to distribute OpenOffice.org (and have full rights to it as it was licensed so it allowed) - but they can not since it is dependant on Sun Java.

      (...)

      > I don't particularly care if you like Java or
      > not, but I've had enough of this bullshit
      > about Java being open or not.

      There is not much to bullshit about, Java is not free, it may be open in some ways.

      (...)

      > Not to mention that OpenOffice is Sun's
      > baby. They PAID MONEY FOR IT. (I know
      > that's a foreign concept here, since the ?
      > entire fraking world is supposed to be FREE
      > for the fraking taking.)

      So what? They benefit from opensourcing Star Office - they get labour and testing for free it is very nice that they decided on such move but this is not like giving something away for nothing. They also take back from opensource community - they take back what they seeded.

      > If you don't like the direction OpenOffice
      > has taken, then go play with KOffice.

      Oh so this is so simple? What if somebody has contributed some code to OpenOffce.org (for FREE) and now you tell him to go play with KOffice? Why? You don't bother if people contribute to it or not? Using OpenOffice.org means also contributing to it - f.e. by testing it or propagating it - I've choosen OpenOffice.org because it is not expensive and its formats are open. I don't care to much that I need to install Java to use it - but I can imagine somebody who cares.

      > You've been given a gift and all you can do
      > is look it in the mouth.

      This is *not* a gift like some rich country gives money to 3rd world country or something. It is actually a model in which both Sun and OpenOffice.org users benefit. It is like a business deal - not a free gift.

    46. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the OpenOffice developers are using proprietary classes from Sun's Java runtime library.

      You mean the ones that are fully and openly documented, and have source code available in both the JDK binary download and the full SCSL source downloads?

      This has everything to do with runtime libraries -- not the same thing as compilers, Bonzo.

      That's "Bozo", bozo. ;-)

    47. Re:If you'll pardon my French by cahiha · · Score: 1

      Hey ASSHOLES, the current Java source code can be downloaded here, and the latest development version can be downloaded here

      Yes, and how long will you be able to do that? Sun can make Java completely proprietary any time they choose because they own it, lock, stock, and barrel.

      And if that's not enough for you, your precious Kaffe, gcj, GNU Classpath, and other "Open Source" projects are working on reimplementing the JVM.

      Yes, but those aren't working well enough. Furthermore, they probably violate several of Sun's patents, and they certainly violate the license on the Sun Java specs (whether that is enforceable is another question). Until all of those things are fixed, Sun Java is as proprietary as Microsoft Windows.

      Not to mention that OpenOffice is Sun's baby.

      Not anymore: it's open source and people can do with it what they want. That includes RMS forking it. That's the deal with open source software.

      Apparently, it's fine for Sun to milk the term "open source" for all its PR value, but when people actually try to call Sun on their commitment, people like you start whining and belly-aching.

      You've been given a gift and all you can do is look it in the mouth.

      A sick horse is a bad gift that may cost you dearly. Besides, neither OOo nor Java are "gifts"; Sun had specific business goals in doing what they did, and those business goals may well include screwing the open source community over.

      Apologies for the abrasiveness of this post, but crap like this deserves it.

      Well, all you have done is that you are an ignorant cad.

    48. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! But he has been a member for some time now. He's the guy in the corner that jerks off every time Penisbird opens his mouth!

    49. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Try people with addresses in the form of user@stardivision.com. No one in their right mind inside of Sun would use the com.sun APIs. The people that used them were the hackers who liked getting a little extra functionality out of Java 1.1 programs. e.g. There was a class to play AU files, a class to FTP, and a few security classes. The trick is, that THESE ARE ALL AVAILABLE INSIDE THE REGULAR CLASSES. You just have to jump through another hoop or two.

      I can't believe people around here are making such a big deal out of a STUPID mistake made by a few programmers. It would probably take less time to change the code, submit the patch, and be happy than it does to complain about it.

    50. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure no offense was meant. "Pardon my french" is a line from the movie "Ferris Beullar's (sp?) Day Off."

    51. Re:If you'll pardon my French by matthewn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey ASSHOLES ... Apologies for the abrasiveness of this post, but crap like this deserves it.
      Sigh. No. No it does not. The people you've called ASSHOLES are standing up for a principle they believe in. Their point is quite simple, and you're ignoring it: Java is not Free. Now, that may not be important to you. Fine! Say so! Make your argument. Maybe even try to convince someone you're right. But don't tell us that Java has been "opened up wix ways to sunday," because that's a red herring. We're not talking about the way you define freedom or open-ness. The story isn't about whether Java meets your standards. The story is about Free Software that isn't Free anymore. Some people get upset about these things. That doesn't make them ASSHOLES.

      The idea that there can be no criticism of Sun because they've provided a "gift" is silly. If you make a gift of pork to someone whose beliefs say "don't eat pork," should they thank you and chow down? Granted, the analogy doesn't hold in the end, because in this case, Free Software types can try to turn the pork into chicken (Kaffe, gcj, etc.). That doesn't make them ASSHOLES either.

      As for what you falsely label "abrasiveness" (it's actually something much deeper), if you have this level of intolerance for opposing views, well, there are words to describe people like you. You already seem to know one of them. Remember to turn the caps lock on.

    52. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Malor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good god, how many times does this have to be said? Free as in beer is great. Free as in libre is better. If I use free-beer code and become dependent on it, then I am giving the person who wrote it some degree of control over my life. And I may not really realize the consequences of doing so until much later. See Linus Torvalds and Bitkeeper. See also Microsoft, who likes to impose new license changes unilaterally in service packs, or modify file-save formats to force you to buy another multi-hundred-dollar upgrade to your office suite.

      People are upset because Sun can change the terms of Java whenever they choose. They have not been willing to really give up control of Java. They desperately want to screw people the way Microsoft gets to. They don't seem to realize that nobody else will EVER be able to print money like Microsoft does, at least not in the computer field. Between Microsoft already existing, and Open Source coming up from underneath, the best Sun can hope for is an honest living... they're not going to be able to both maintain control over their platform and also have it be a market-determining force. They can have one or the other, but not both. Only Microsoft gets both.

      People are uptight because using Java-based OO means making themselves vulnerable to Sun, in the same way that Word users are vulnerable to Microsoft. They want the assurance that they can't be orphaned, forced to upgrade, or forced to accept some other unilateral license change on Sun's part.

      I don't think I've ever heard ANYONE argue that OO is actually better than the Office suite. People use it because it is cheap and free-as-in-libre, and get most annoyed when the libre part starts going away. The few serious users they do have exist BECAUSE of Microsoft's abuse, and those customers are highly snsitive to behavior that looks even vaguely similar.

    53. Re:If you'll pardon my French by coaxial · · Score: 0

      But you know what, it is perfectly reasonable to try to bring up that this is a glaring problem in the presentation of OpenOffice as a non-prorietary open office suite.

      It's widely available to all takers, can be redistributed at will, and can be modified by anyone. That is the definition of nonproprietary. If you have any doubts, I suggest you consult a dictionary.

      The people who do so are not whining, or demanding, and they aren't being rude ASSHOLES (that would be you). They are simply putting light on a rather crucial issue.

      Actually it's not a "crucial issue". It's not even an issue. It's a manufactured controversy, by those that would use politics and dogma to dictate engineering decisions. Not just the refusal, but out right hostility to objectively superior technical solutions inevitably leads to subpar products where the development process breaks down to needlessly reimplementing the wheel and hissy fits filled with grandiose allegations of sabotage and oppression.

      Most reasonable people would rather have software that works, thank you very much.

    54. Re:If you'll pardon my French by daemonc · · Score: 1

      Where's the "-1, Wrong" modifier when you need it?

      "The 1.x versions of OO use Blackdown IIRC?"

      OpenOffice has always used whatever JVM you have on your system. So if you have Blackdown, then it uses Blackdown, if you have Sun's Java it uses that. And if you use Fedora the Java parts are precompiled using GCJ.

      --
      All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
    55. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why didn't they consult with us before giving us free software?"

      That sounds like a great idea! Think of all the worthless free/open software projects that would be eliminated!

    56. Re:If you'll pardon my French by m50d · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I assumed TFA would explain the issues better than it does. However, the problem is exactly that - OOo 2 is directly using sun.*

      --
      I am trolling
    57. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Deternal · · Score: 1

      Oh come on - there are 4 (!) community developers on Open Office, 40 developers from SUN and 10 from Novell [Ximian].

      Of course they'll choose java if the choice is between getting the feature or not.

      It's perfectly fine if the community wants a java free OOo or a free java - then go work on it. Stop bashing SUN or Novell for contributing code to OOo.

    58. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also download the source code Microsoft's .NET implementation for Unix. I wouldn't touch it without talking to a lawyer first, though. Sun's jdk source code isn't even opensource, you need to create an account and agree to their EULA. As much as I like java no the server, its days on the desktop are long gone. Thanks $DEITY for python.

    59. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Decaff · · Score: 1

      OOo 2 is directly using sun.*

      It is? Do you have proof? This is extremely bad coding practice if they are, as it could restrict the use of OOo 2 with only Sun JVMs, which is something that even a Java fan like me would object to.

    60. Re:If you'll pardon my French by k98sven · · Score: 4, Informative

      no app in it's right mind should be directly calling sun.*, for obvious reasons. If you find code in OO which does, then maybe there will be cause for complaint.

      There is code in OOo which uses com.sun classes. Quite a lot of it.

      Caolan McNamara is working on building OOo on GCJ. Right on his blog there you can see several examples listed, e.g: ./hsqldb/makefile.mk is breaking due to sun.security.action.GetPropertyAction being missing.

      Ok? Noone is saying it's all Sun's fault here. But part of it is.

    61. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Edward+Teach · · Score: 1

      No, if they are so damned principled, they would jump in and help solve the problem instead of just whining about it. If they care so much, why are they not working on coding a solution?

      --

      Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

    62. Re:If you'll pardon my French by nojomofo · · Score: 1

      Java is not Free.

      A nit to pick: Java is free. I can download it for free, I can develop with it for free, and I can package a JRE with a product of mine for free. RMS doesn't consider it free. But you know what? He doesn't own the word "free". It's like Monster trying to own the word "monster" or microsoft trying to own the word "windows".

      Part of what makes lots of geeks uncomfortable with the whole GNU/fsf thing is this "our way or the highway" attitude. If you're going to criticize people coding open-source alternatives (in free languages) because it's not free enough for you, you're going to get this reaction.

    63. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Baric · · Score: 1

      LOL. "Pardon my French" has been around a lot longer than Ferris Buellar.

    64. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People ARE, stupid.

    65. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. Incredibly well said. Looks like you've upset a few groupthink moderators though.

    66. Re:If you'll pardon my French by radish · · Score: 1

      Yuck...that is bad. Using sun.* is not only bad because of tieing you to the sun jvm, it also ties you to a very specific version of it. Bad bad bad.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    67. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You DICK. If you knew even the slightest bit about programming you'd know that re-implementation of those classes would be made stupidly easy by the fact that they are all FULLY documented.

      Look at the JavaDoc. Every last detail required for re-implementation is all there.

    68. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      OO 1.x will only *COMPILE* on Blackdown.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    69. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Dan-DAFC · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember from an article on here a few weeks ago that of 64 developers working regularly on Open Office, 50 are on Sun's pay-roll, 10 are employed by Novell and only 4 are volunteers.

      --
      Suck figs.
    70. Re:If you'll pardon my French by 51mon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > 1. The license only restricts your ability to take java, change the name and call it your product, then start charging for it, without paying license and royalty fees to Sun.

      Funny I could swear I cut and pasted this from the SUN site.

      "Modified source code cannot be distributed without the express written permission of Sun Microsystems, Inc."

      So basically you can read the code to find out how it works, but you can't distribute bug fixes, or enhancements, you can't port useful bits of the code to other Java implementations or other software (indeed writing your own version after you've read the source code might be legally risky I suspect). It makes no mention of whether you charge for it.

      Indeed the licence attempts to risk redistribution of modified binaries "internally", so modifying the code for your companies own private use may be a licence infringement.

      "Here is the source code, look and admire, but don't touch it."

      Compare and contrast the licence with the other 16,000 odd packages in Debian.

    71. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no you're not french, you don't even know how to spell à pro pos, you ignorant idiot.

    72. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Juergen+Kreileder · · Score: 1
      *BLACKDOWN SUCKS*.
      Thanks for the flowers.
      Yes its good to have an open source java platform.
      Our JVM in not open source.
      Is it good that its an order og magnitude slower than Suns java?
      And it isn't slower than Sun's (unless you do meaningless comparisons like Blackdown 1.1.8 vs. Sun 1.4.2). It's actually faster in quite a few areas.
    73. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, as always, a small number of people are working on fixing it, and a much larger number of people on slashdot are sitting and whining about the 'problem'.

    74. Re:If you'll pardon my French by m50d · · Score: 1

      Only in so far as I've read it on the Kaffe mailing lists and developer blogs, but it seems to be pretty accepted that that's what they're doing. I'll try and find a definate line in the source I can point to. Yes, it does limit it to only sun JVMs, which is exactly the problem.

      --
      I am trolling
    75. Re:If you'll pardon my French by m50d · · Score: 3, Informative

      Notice the sun.* packages in that API doc you link to? No, me neither. Oh wait, that's because THEY'RE NOT THERE

      --
      I am trolling
    76. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what was your issue again?

      I need Java to build it which can't be distributed as a binary -- you're obviously defending something that you've never tried.

    77. Re:If you'll pardon my French by bckrispi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Now, the FIRST bullet point of the release notes from EVERY Sun release since Java 1.1.8 *clearly* reads:

      THOU SHALT NOT USE sun.* PACKAGES, AS THEY ARE EXPERIMENTAL AND MAY BREAKETH UPON YOU WITHOUT WARNING!

      Now seriously, rub two brain cells together and come up with whose fault this is: Is it Sun's for providing unsupported libraries for developers to play with, or the OO.o developer who disregarded the warning that every Java codemonkey with more than a week's experience knows by heart and went ahead and used sun.* packages in a production-bound system. He shoots his own code in the ass, and it comes out to be Sun's fault. Fucking brilliant!

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    78. Re:If you'll pardon my French by linguae · · Score: 1

      The code may be available, but the code is proprietary. This means that if I look at it, I can't contribute to Kaffe, GCJ, or Harmony ever. There is no point in looking at the source code; I'll be officially tainted by doing so, and I don't want that.

    79. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sigh. No. No it does not. The people you've called ASSHOLES are standing up for a principle they believe in.

      Standing up for a principle you believe in is not a defense to such an accusation.

      We're not talking about the way you define freedom or open-ness.

      OK, so you've got special closed-minded meanings for words and use that to justify the position you've taken. There are things other than your view in the larger world.

      Some people get upset about these things. That doesn't make them ASSHOLES.

      Actually, becaue of the amount that they do get upset, I think it does make them so.

    80. Re:If you'll pardon my French by oddfox · · Score: 1

      Not everyone who is affected by this scenario can code or has the time to work on this.

      Furthermore, surely you realize that discussing the issue here on /. does not exclude you from at any point afterwards or before having tried to remedy this?


      This issue affects the success of a very important project that I happen to like and recommend to anyone that asks about these types of programs. However, I'm not quite competent enough in programming yet to pick up a Java tutorial/book and magically be able to hack at it. Some people simply are not able to fix it on their own, and in this case, Sun may themselves hold the key to the "fix" here.


      It boils down to your post being little more than bitching about bitching, with ultimately less impact and meaning than those complaining about the topic at hand (Especially the ones that actually are working on the issue), sorry.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    81. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      If you make a gift of pork to someone whose beliefs say "don't eat pork," should they thank you and chow down?
      If pork is what you've got, yes, they should thank you even if they decide not to eat. And if they starve, they shouldn't try to make you look like a moral inferior for only having pork to offer.
    82. Re:If you'll pardon my French by kosmosik · · Score: 1

      > Oh come on - there are 4 (!) community
      > developers on Open Office, 40 developers
      > from SUN and 10 from Novell [Ximian].

      OK developement is one thing - dont forget maintaining, testing, finding bugs etc. - that is what Linux distributors and users do and it *is* IMHO important input to the project. Add to it translating and writing documentation (even silly howtos on how to do mail merge *are* useful). Translating is done (I assume so) mostly by local developers and I don't think they are employed by Sun. Polish version (I am Pole) is maintained by UX Systems (ux.pl) they build services around OOo and Linux.

      Look I am not trying to bash anybody it is like I see the problem (the problem *does* exist) from both sides.

      > Of course they'll choose java if the choice
      > is between getting the feature or not.

      Good that they coded it anyway. :) Here you are perfectly right. But also keep in mind that free software is not about features - of course there can be excelent free software lika Apache, there can be software with less features but free. Free software is not about features only - it is about your freedom. I would not give my freedom for features. Of course it is a bit dramatizing OOo is still free but the use of Sun Java poses *some* difficulties - f.e. I use Fedora in my work - I use OpenOffice.org packaged with Fedora - now they cannot package it (the 2.0 vanilla version) - they must rewrite some stuff etc. etc. - but it can be done - so why the mainstream code cannot be done same way?

      > It's perfectly fine if the community wants a
      > java free OOo or a free java - then go
      > work on it.

      We do work. :)

      > Stop bashing SUN or Novell for contributing
      > code to OOo.

      Novel does not contribute Sun Java specific code AFAIK. But I think you got it wrong - the case is not about bashing somebodys useful job - it just focuses/highlighst some issues that *need* to be discussed - such discussion is *healthly* for the project itself - I am far from calling it bashing anything.

    83. Re:If you'll pardon my French by k98sven · · Score: 1

      Now seriously, rub two brain cells together and come up with whose fault this is: Is it Sun's for providing unsupported libraries for developers to play with, or the OO.o developer who disregarded the warning that every Java codemonkey with more than a week's experience knows by heart and went ahead and used sun.* packages in a production-bound system. He shoots his own code in the ass, and it comes out to be Sun's fault. Fucking brilliant!

      Yes, because the OOo coder in question works for Sun. Heard of StarOffice? Sun's version of OOo? Well these java parts come from there.

      It's not the Sun Java guy's fault. It's the Sun StarOffice guy's fault.

    84. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      No, me neither. Oh wait, that's because THEY'RE NOT THERE

      You're right, they're not there. In the OOo codebase that is. I just downloaded the OOo 2.0 codebase and did a search for any hidden sun APIs. Would you like to know what I found? Here you are:

      1. com.sun.* APIs are OpenOffice.org APIs, NOT Sun specific APIs! That's fairly easy to tell by things like com.sun.star.uno.UnoRuntime.

      2. There are exactly 29 files that reference sun.*. These files are JVM plugins that directly interface with the Applet mechanism to allow OpenOffice to run Applets. Files exist for each supported OS. Open Source JVMs are free to implement these APIs as used by the code, or completely swap out that piece of OpenOffice and compile against themselves. It's quite easy to do, as the code files have been separated into their own directories. (e.g. canvas/source/java) Note that some of these 29 APIs (e.g. sun.tools.*) are documented.

      So, I think a lot of people around here owe Sun and OpenOffice programmers an apology. Yourself included.

    85. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha good luck compiling java from source on any decent os made after 99 - why the f*** does a programming language require ALSA to compile? and the mozilla headers? i'm sure those old headers are fully functional and secure these days...

      keep dreaming and find a clue

    86. Re:If you'll pardon my French by danharan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you make a gift of pork to someone whose beliefs say "don't eat pork," should they thank you and chow down?
      Obviously not. They can politely decline, perhaps explaining why they choose to not eat pork.

      What is rude is "objecting" to someone using pork in their cooking. It's boorish, and no way to win an ideological/religious battle.
      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    87. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      From here:

      18. Does the JRL prevent you from being able to create an independent implementation of J2SE?

      The JRL is not a tainting license, and includes an express "residual knowledge" clause. Under the JRL, merely looking at Sun's code does not prevent you from being able to create your own independent implementation of J2SE, and in any event, you can terminate the JRL at any time for any reason. So, yes, you can look at Sun source code and then later on go and work on an open-source J2SE implementation.


      Source code is under that license here. So much for that lame argument.

    88. Re:If you'll pardon my French by linguae · · Score: 1

      The FOSS community is solving the problem. See for yourself. He's trying to get the Java-only features working with gcj. The gcj developers are also adding more Java features to their compiler, too.

      Whenever the FOSS community has a complaint, we voice it out for a while and then get to work. That's how we got the GNU project and freely available BSDs in the first place.

    89. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about sun.applet.AppletAudioClip? It looks fixable and not so important though. But it seems to me you are not speaking true here.

      Who do you work for!?!

    90. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      what about sun.applet.AppletAudioClip?

      What about it? It's not referenced anywhere in the OOo source. If it is, you'll have to prove it.

      Who do you work for!?!

      Who do you work for? For that matter, who the hell are you Mr. Coward?

    91. Re:If you'll pardon my French by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      I am really fed up with these assholes doing this. If they won the lottery, they'd probably complain that the amount wasn't a prime number.

      This is open source. That means, that any of you whiners who don't like java being in there can fork it and take it out. That's right, instead of sniping about something being given to you that doesn't meet your needs 100%, why not hack the code to make it how you want it?

      For once, can any of you purist whiners step out of your ivory towers, stand up and applaud the people who are working hard and donating time and money to make projects like OpenOffice.org better. Sure, raise the points, but remember the good work being done.

      Remember that OpenOffice.org is really important. It's one of maybe 4 things that can help bring about more choice in the world (Linux, Firefox and Apache being 3 others) of computing and lower the barriers to entry both in terms of cost and freedom. That's a pretty big thing - the idea that the people control the document formats, not a single company. Just remember that before you start your purist attacks.

    92. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being both a windows (work) and linux (home) user.

      Being a user of those two operating systems
      you couldn't care less. You are not sensible to this issue, because for you, "it just works."

      Because you don't work say, with a BSD system, you couldn't care less. But where the fuck do you think all your GNU/Linux software comes from?

      IT COMES FROM A PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM. FREE SOFTWARE. OTHERWISE, YOU'D BE STUCK WITH MICRO$OFT - OH, WAIT, YOU STILL ARE...

    93. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Xtifr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, it's just like those darn abolitionists saying that slaves should be free! My slave is free! I didn't pay a penny for him! John Brown doesn't consider him free, but you know what? He doesn't own the word "free".

      This so-called "nit" was stupid 150 years ago, and it's stupid today. You know what RMS is talking about when he says software should be free, it has nothing to do with "owning" the word free, it's a perfectly valid meaning of the word free, and the fact that there are other meanings of the word free has nothing to do with the topic under discussion, and more than my "free slave" is a valid rebuttal to the abolitionists.

      If you don't support free software (or free slaves), that's fine, just say so. Stop pretending that you're too stupid to understand what's actually being discussed, though. It makes you look like a fool. There are plenty of reasons why one might not buy into the free software philosophy, but the ambiguity of the English language is not one of them. Stop wasting everyone's time with this junk.

    94. Re:If you'll pardon my French by linguae · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, the JRL is a new license and it is much improved from the SCSL (Java was licensed under this license until Java 1.5), but still, it isn't GPL compatible, meaning that I can't use Sun code in gcj or Kaffe, and read this little tidbit of the license:

      If any portion of, or functionality implemented by, the Technology becomes the subject of a claim or threatened claim of infringement ("Affected Materials"), Sun may, in its unrestricted discretion, suspend Your rights to use and distribute the Affected Materials under this License. Such suspension of rights will be effective immediately upon Sun's posting of notice of suspension on the Technology Site.

      In other words, say I download the Java 1.5 JDK sources and start studying it. I then help out in a FOSS Java project, contributing some code. If Sun complains that some of the code in the FOSS project that I contributed is infringing on their IP, then I'm in some legal trouble. However, what defines infringement?

      This new Java license is much better than the old one (in fact, I might read into it more), but it still has many flaws, and it isn't compatible with the GPL (due to the above and other requirements) or any other major FOSS license.

    95. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah,
      if it's at all worth doing, it's worth doing right. You can call that an academic's, or an ASSHOLE's viewpoint (and, perhaps, I am indeed an ASSHOLE), but the point of Free Software is to stay unfettered by corporate shenanigans.

      Isn't Sun MS's bitch these days anyways?

    96. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thx. just thx. :-)

    97. Re:If you'll pardon my French by jafac · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you make a gift of pork to someone whose beliefs say "don't eat pork," should they thank you and chow down?

      Soylent Java is made of Classes!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    98. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 'à propos', AC.

      Or 'apropos' in english, like the language the post was in.

    99. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'M FRENCH, YOU IGNORANT CLOD!

      My condolences.



      Blah blah blah lameness filter bypass. Too many caps in your stupid post.

    100. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Caligari · · Score: 1

      Java as a language is not so bad. However, its portability is a joke.

      Java is available and stable on Linux i386, Windows, Solaris and Mac.

      But what about all the other platforms. I run OpenBSD/amd64. No working JVM for any of the 17 other architectures.

      I can use KOffice and Abiword just fine, but not OpenOffice 2.

      --
      The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.
    101. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem IS that they're using java. Why M$ succeeded ?? It builds many apps on one evolving platform. They wanna make on app with many platforms, for now native and java. Is C++ so unacceptable or is not so trendy and jazzy now ? Perfectionism is a virus, mess is even more...

    102. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      Our JVM in not open source.

      My mistake, I would have swore Ive seen Gentoo compiling blackdown.

      Im basing my speed estimation on my personal usage of Eclipse and Open Office, both of which *dog* your JVM.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    103. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Juergen+Kreileder · · Score: 1
      Im basing my speed estimation on my personal usage of Eclipse and Open Office, both of which *dog* your JVM.
      What versions of Blackdown and Sun JVMs did you compare? Our VM is based on Sun's, it's very unlikely that ours is noticeably slower for anything.
    104. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For that matter, who the hell are you Mr. Coward?

      I'm the Lord Jesus Christ!

    105. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Dwonis · · Score: 1
      A nit to pick: Java is free. I can download it for free, I can develop with it for free, and I can package a JRE with a product of mine for free. RMS doesn't consider it free. But you know what? He doesn't own the word "free". It's like Monster trying to own the word "monster" or microsoft trying to own the word "windows".

      Congratulations! You've managed to base your entire argument on a lack of understanding of the inefficiency in the English language in this particular case. For clarity, let's argue in French (as AKAImBatman seems to have suggested):

      I propose that Java n'est pas libre. Please explain how your argument that Java est gratuit contradicts that.

    106. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1

      No way!! I am seriously hanging out for the 10,001st GNU/K-CMS written in PHP!!! It will be so different and superior to the previous 10,000!

    107. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? YOU CAN'T DISTRIBUTE THIS WITH LINUX CDS, YOU CAN'T PORT THIS TO BSDS WITHOUT HUGE PAIN.

      If you knew anything about free software, you would just shut up. Latecomers to the free software movement like you don't seem to understand what's it all about. You always some with your use value mentality and never seem to grasp that there is a philosophy behind Gnu and BSD (different one, btw), that has garanteed us this body of work.

    108. Re:If you'll pardon my French by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Hey ASSHOLES, the current Java source code can be downloaded..

      Yes it can. By each and every person who wants to use it. But what none of them can do is redistribute it. They can't examine it, they can't learn from it, they can't change it. The only Linux distros who include it are commercial ones because a free distro is forbidden from it even if they aren't opposed to including un-free binaries.

      Once OOo depends on Java it can no longer be freely distributed. This is seen as a problem by anyone with a clue. There are three, and exactly three solutions. 1) Replace OOo with another of the up and coming Free office productivity suites, 2) Replace Sun's Java with a Free software rewrite or 3) fork OOo and remove the Java dependent portions.

      > Not to mention that OpenOffice is Sun's baby. They PAID MONEY FOR IT.

      No, StarOffice was bought by Sun and released as Open Source as Open Office. This means they expect Free/Open developers to assist them. However expecting F/OSS folk to help on a project that is no longer useful TO THEM is pretty silly.

      > You've been given a gift and all you can do is look it in the mouth.

      Yes. Some of us are smart enough to beware greeks bearing gifts. Especially when said greeks are a bunch of buttsiphons like Sun is infested with. OOo is clearly intended to be a Trojan Horse designed to force JAVA dependence. Given a choice of dependence on Microsoft or Sun, I'll take option 3, VI & latex.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    109. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Nailer · · Score: 1

      HEY, STUPID CUNT WHO SEEMS TO LIKE YELLING MORE THAN DOING FIVE SECONDS WORTH OF RESEARCH INTO THE ISSUE HE'S YELLING ABOUT, which Java 1.5 JVM meets the Open Source definition?

      Not from Sun (proprietary software)
      Not from IBM (see above)
      Not from Kaffe and Classpath (older spec)
      Not from GCJ (not a JVM)

      OK, you could compile the Java source to .Net bytecode and run it under Mono.

      Or you pretend 'open' meant 1990 era OpenClosedThing, rather than Open Source. Cause that's what we're talking about, yeah. Good luck with that.

    110. Re:If you'll pardon my French by kaffiene · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit. Noone is forcing you to use Open Office.

      If it offends your sensiblities that Sun gives the product of years of its effort and millions of it's dollars away in ways which are "free" in many different senses except for your special definition of "free", then be my guest and don't use it.

      You ARE an asshole for suggesting that something you get for free isn't exactly the way you want it. FFS - it's free! If you don't like it, don't use it.

    111. Re:If you'll pardon my French by happymedium · · Score: 1

      Hate to nitpick (well, OK, I love nitpicking), but I belive GCC is LGPL'd. Also, before you go mouthing off about the GPL, consider many open-source developers' REASON for GPL-ing their code. If they didn't, and licensed it under BSD or some such, their code could be used for purposes they completely disagree with. To make this less abstract, what if you write something brilliant and patent/litigation-loving Microsoft sporks it? They have done this before...with trivial pieces of code, so far, but that could change. Conversely, if code is GPL'd, it stays open, its uses are transparent, and the author can rest easy.

    112. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you cannot use Sun code in GPL project ... is that really the only complaint you got? Is this *the* reason for abandoning Java in OOo? Really?

      Now, I am not claiming Java, or JRL, are perfect for everybody in the universe (of course they cannot be), but Java plugins for OOo clearly make a lot of sense.

    113. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      as AKAImBatman seems to have suggested

      Speak of the Devil...

      I propose that Java n'est pas libre. Please explain how your argument that Java est gratuit contradicts that.

      1. I have the liberty to download Java at no cost.
      2. I have the liberty to redistribute Java with any program I make.
      3. I have the liberty to download and view the source code.
      4. I have the liberty to retain the ideas I learn from the source code.
      5. I have the liberty to reimplement the Java Virtual Machine as I see fit.
      6. I have the liberty to share anything I learn from the Java Virtual Machine with others.
      7. I have the liberty to use the Java Virtual Machine for any purpose I see fit.
      8. I have the liberty to compile my own, custom, JVM based on Sun's source code.
      9. I have the liberty to redistribute my custom JVM to research associates.
      10. I have the liberty to redistribute the custom JVM inside my company.

      So on and so forth. What I DON'T have the liberty of doing is:

      1. I don't have the liberty of forking Sun's codebase.
      2. I don't have the liberty of redistributing custom binaries to the world.
      3. I don't have the liberty of giving the source code to someone who has not entered in a license agreement with Sun.
      4. I don't have the liberty of calling my Virtual Machine "Java" without Sun's permission.

      Doesn't sound so bad to me. Go get some freedom, man.

    114. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      Whatever is stable in gentoo...

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    115. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Decaff · · Score: 1

      I have had a look at this in more detail, and I think that the problems are being wildly exaggerated. Firstly, a lot of the 'sun' code is 'com.sun.star' - within the Open Office libraries available for any Java implementation to use. There are some 'sun.*' packages referred to, but not that often.

      My impression is that many of these problems are to do with compiling OO, and not running it. However, it does look like someone has indeed been silly in using a few Sun-specific classes, so I now agree with it does limit to Sun JREs (not JVMs, by the way). I would imagine that it should be easily fixed.

    116. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Shimbo · · Score: 1


      There is code in OOo which uses com.sun classes. Quite a lot of it.


      There is a big difference between sun.* classes and com.sun classes. sun.* classes are undocumented Java internals, and highly non-portable. com.sun.* classes is the standard way to specify vendor routines.

      If OpenOffice has some com.sun classes, it just means that it contains some Sun code (well, knock me down with a kipper!). As you note though, there are some sun.* classes used, so there is a genuine problem. It might not be as large as you imply though.

    117. Re:If you'll pardon my French by m50d · · Score: 1

      Why do I owe sun an apology? Going with your numbers for the sake of argument, you've said yourself there are 29 files that depend on sun.*, and only some of them are documented - implying some of them aren't. That's 29 files too many, and one undocumented API is definately one too many.

      --
      I am trolling
    118. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are not most of the key developers of OpenOffice.org employed by Sun? I think that may just have something to do with the current situation...

    119. Re:If you'll pardon my French by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Troll
      Yeah, it's just like those darn abolitionists saying that slaves should be free! My slave is free! I didn't pay a penny for him! John Brown doesn't consider him free, but you know what? He doesn't own the word "free".

      Oh man, has this "information wants to be free" mentality deteriorated to such a point that people are actually drawing analogies between a piece of software and a HUMAN BEING?!?

      What's next, a PETA-type movement aimed at freeing programs from their computer cages and chiding us for using the software instead of letting it roam free?

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    120. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      What? Are you praticing to be thick or something?!

      We're talking about the bridge between native windows (MFC/X11/Carbon) and Java AWT here. This bridge has no standard and has traditionally been handled by providing browser specific plugins. In this case, OpenOffice has abstracted away their own Java Plugin design using the EmbeddedWindow class in the JVM. However, other JVM are free to provide their own plugins. There are no fucking hidden APIs in use that are preventing an OSS JVM from being used. Are we clear now?

    121. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you don't like it, don't use it.

      And they're not using it. They're just asking to make the gift more usable under their standards. They're not demanding a damn thing, so how are they assholes? The guy was just suggesting and that makes him an asshole?

    122. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      But what none of them can do is redistribute it.

      BUT, you can redistribute the existing Linux binaries.

      They can't examine it

      Can too.

      they can't learn from it,

      Can too.

      they can't change it.

      Can too.

      The only Linux distros who include it are commercial ones because a free distro is forbidden from it even if they aren't opposed to including un-free binaries.

      Bullshit. The Linux distros have been free to include the JRE and JDK for a very long time. They usually give some BS about it "not being Free as in Libre" or somesuch. Are you one of those distro maintainers who's spouting this bullshit?

      Once OOo depends on Java it can no longer be freely distributed.

      1. It already does, always has.
      2. Can too.

      You sir, are either amazingly clueless or brainwashed by the OSS fanatics. Allow me to present Sun's open Java development model which allows people to download and develop Java under the Java Research License. Also allow me to introduce you to Sun's position on redistributing the JRE and the rules for JDK redistribution. The long and short of it is, "Feel free to redistribute it with your software. Here is a list of files you can leave out. Here is a list of JDK files that can be bundled with the JRE instead."

      OOo is clearly intended to be a Trojan Horse designed to force JAVA dependence.

      The only trojan horse around here are the assholes of the Open Source community (apparently like yourself) who would rather spread diseased lies than try to work through the issues to find what's really true.

      And in case you're wondering, YES. I'm hopping mad at you people!

    123. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      The analogy is about valid uses of the word "free", not about software vs. human beings, so stuff your fake indignancy.

    124. Re:If you'll pardon my French by m50d · · Score: 1

      It's not a public API, it's an API that only works with sun JVM. If it should be done via plugins, then why isn't sun doing it as a plugin? They're giving themselves an unfair advantage, since I don't think OOo even has a plugin system. If this interface is something that doesn't have a standard and needs one, then why not add it to the standard?

      --
      I am trolling
    125. Re:If you'll pardon my French by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Troll
      Human freedom and free software are two completely different concepts and are not analogous in any way. So stuff your ridiculous analogy.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    126. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      If it should be done via plugins, then why isn't sun doing it as a plugin?

      It IS being done as a plugin. An OpenOffice plugin architecture. That's what those files are, and there's no one stopping other JVMs from doing their plugins.

      If this interface is something that doesn't have a standard and needs one, then why not add it to the standard?

      This is a trickier question. Sun/Netscape/Mozilla publish a specification for web browsers entitled "Open JVM Integration (OJI)". Sun also publishes the JAWT standard for Java/JNI/Native integration. What you see here is the issue that a new type of plugin exists: an OpenOffice plugin.

      Now Sun provides the code to make the Java Plugin work in IE and Netscape, so they're also providing the code to make the JVM Plugin work in OpenOffice. And just as it's the responsbility of the Kaffe or GCJ project to produce a plugin for IE and Netscape, it's also their responsiblity to provide a plugin to OpenOffice. If anything should be done about the situation, it's to move those files out of OpenOffice and put them in the JVM. The only difference would be that having them in OpenOffice allows any version of the JVM to be plugged in as is.

      To be specific, we're referring to files like WEmbeddedFrame which takes a hWindow from a Windows program and wraps it. You'll see the same code in other Sun and non-Sun projects such as JOGL and GL4Java.

      Allow me to reiterate until it sinks in: There's no "secret" APIs being used here! This is just JVM plugin code that has nothing to do with OpenOffice! Kaffe and GCJ are free to provide their own plugin code! Are we clear yet?

    127. Re:If you'll pardon my French by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Bullshit. The Linux distros have been free to include the JRE and JDK
      > for a very long time. They usually give some BS about it "not being Free
      >as in Libre" or somesuch. Are you one of those distro maintainers who's
      > spouting this bullshit?

      No, I am a distro maintainer who actually read the license before attempting to include it. You should try it sometime, reading that is.

      By my reading, as a non-laywer but someone who does manage to follow the unfolding SCO story on Groklaw for example, I am forbidden to redistribute both the JRE and the JDK. The JDK is right out, tis verbotten, and the wording on the conditions for the JRE is pretty damned shaky since White Box Enterprise Linux does not include any apps that REQUIRE Java support. Whether including it to provide the Java plugin for Mozilla/Firefox qualifies is a question that would probably require a court decision to clarify absent clear direction from Sun.

      Jpackage doesn't even try packaging the JRE/JDK and it is much more obvious they are including dependent Java applications in their distribution efforts. So tell ya what, since you are so darned sure about this, how about YOU host Java rpms for both WBEL and Jpackage? A lack of easy to obtain (read via Up2Date/Yum/Apt) is really holding back Java adoption in the Linux world so you would be doing everyone a big favor, especially if you packaged it as both rpm and .deb since they also suffer from easy access to Java. I'd be willing to risk linking to your repo, I just won't host it on a server under my control. Otherwise, shut your Java zealot piehole and leave discussion of these serious issues to the adults who have taken the time to actually understand them.

      > Also allow me to introduce you to Sun's position on redistributing
      > the JRE and the rules for JDK redistribution..

      That isn't a license agreement, that is misleading propaganda. Try reading the license you click through to download the JRE and is probably included in the download somewhere. Every distribution plus Jpackage isn't wrong. Lets examine the Sun license a bit, shall we?

      C.License to Distribute Redistributables. ...

      (i) you distribute the Redistributables
      complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in
      the applicable README file), and only bundled as part
      of Programs,

      This is the first clause that is troublesome, is Moz a bundle? If it is, why doesn't Mozilla.org do the bundling as Netscape used to?

      (ii) you do not distribute additional
      software intended to supersede any component(s) of the
      Redistributables (unless otherwise specified in the
      applicable README file),

      Danger Will Robinson! GCJ + GNU Classpath is intended to replace ALL of Java and is included in White Box Enterprise Linux.

      (iii) you do not remove or
      alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in
      or on the Redistributables,

      No issue with this one.

      (iv) you only distribute
      the Redistributables pursuant to a license agreement
      that protects Sun's interests consistent with the
      terms contained in the Agreement,

      Or this one.

      (v) you agree to
      defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and
      against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement
      amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees)
      incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or
      action by any third party that arises or results from
      the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or
      Software.

      So me, an IT grunt working at a Public Library deep in flyover country, must agree to pay any legal expenses arising from bundling Java? BULLSHIT!

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    128. Re:If you'll pardon my French by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      And, once again, I never said human freedom was analogous to software freedom! My analogy (as I said before) was about different meanings of the word "free"! Yes, I introduced a third meaning of the word "free". That's very true and it's completely irrelevant to the point I was making!

      Price is a silly thing to bring up when we're talking about other meanings of the word "free". That's true no matter which of the many other meanings of the word "free" we're talking about. Here's another example: "after the accident, my mechanic said he'd have to bang out the fender to free the wheel. That wheel was a gift, it's completely free! I didn't pay a penny for it. The mechanic doesn't consider it free, but you know what? He doesn't own the word 'free'".

      Is my point clear yet? Or are you going to waste our time complaining that wheels aren't the same as software (or humans) either?

    129. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Oh, for crying out loud! You're reading far too much into that license. Yes, Mozilla with Java is an acceptable "bundle." As for "supercede", Sun is referring to components replacing their own components. i.e. As long as GCJ and Classpath are separate programs on the system, there's no concern. If they overwrite any files in the JDK/JRE, THEN there's a concern.

      Tell you what, I'll help you out here. On this webpage is a phone number you can call to resolve licensing issues with Sun. You'll want to record the data/time of the phone call, as well as the representative's name. Ask them about any licensing concerns. Note that since you're speaking with an authorized representative, anything they say is legally binding. (see: Verbal Contract)

      *If* you are too chicken to take this step, I'll happily help you out. Give me the authority to contact Sun on the behalf of the White Box Linux Project, and I'll see if I can clarify the issue for you. How about it?

    130. Re:If you'll pardon my French by julesh · · Score: 1

      The license may well say that, however the last time I checked the open source Java implementations would not accept code contributions from developers who did not assert that they had never viewed Sun's code.

      If you want to fork one of these projects and not follow this rule, be my guest. But it's a *very* big project to undertake without assistance.

    131. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      The license may well say that, however the last time I checked the open source Java implementations would not accept code contributions from developers who did not assert that they had never viewed Sun's code.

      Time to reevaluate. The old license (SCSL) had some confusing wording in that respect. Sun actually *gasp* listened to people (including the whining OSS fanatics who think Sun should turn over everything to them) and made an explicit exclusion to the license to prevent the "tainting" issue.

      Welcome to the modern world. Enjoy your stay.

    132. Re:If you'll pardon my French by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Ask them about any licensing concerns. Note that since you're speaking
      > with an authorized representative, anything they say is legally binding.

      Not in any reading of the laws I am aware of. Even IF Sun forgot to include the standard license weasel wording voiding verbal alterations to the EULA, good luck getting a court to keep a straight face. Get em to put it in writing and I'd be happy to add it. So would Jpackage and they did ask. From the Jpackage FAQ:

      What is with the non-free section?

      The non-free section contains some vital/interesting applications that can not be redistributed as binaries due to licensing restrictions. The JPackage Project has made every reasonable effort to contact the various vendors and see if an agreement could be made to distribute binaries, but at least for now, the no source RPMs (.nosrc.rpm) has been determined to be the only legal method available.

      There's something YOU can do about this: go vote for bug id 4680244 at Sun's bug parade.

      I'd call that case closed, but I know you won't.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    133. Re:If you'll pardon my French by hritcu · · Score: 1

      See what Kaffe, GCJ or Harmony is missing and implement that instead of wasting time bashing Sun.

      Harmony has not relesed any code yet. Their initial announcement is dated 06 May 2005. It is a too early to say whether they ever will.

      --
      If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
    134. Re:If you'll pardon my French by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      Not in any reading of the laws I am aware of.

      Basic contract law:

      "Contrary to common wisdom, an informal exchange of promises can still be binding and legally as valid as a written contract. A spoken contract is often called an "oral contract", not a "verbal contract." A verbal contract is simply a contract that uses words. All oral contracts and written contracts are verbal contracts. Contracts that are created without the use of words are called "non-verbal, non-oral contracts" or "a contract implied by the acts of the parties."


      As a licensing representative for Sun, that person is acting with the company's knowledge and permission to assist customers in resolving licensing questions. Even if Sun later decides that a mistake was made, their only course of action is to politely ask you to cease your activities. (Judges often won't even hear contract cases until after the parties have attempted to come to a resolution on their own.)

      Of course, this is only an explanation as passed to me from lawyers, I am not a licensed lawyer and this is not legal advice. Blah, blah, blah. (Sorry, by law I have to say that. Giving unlicensed legal advice can be grounds for a suit in of itself.)

      Get em to put it in writing and I'd be happy to add it.

      Don't mind if I do. Be back in a jif!
    135. Re:If you'll pardon my French by m50d · · Score: 1
      An OpenOffice plugin architecture. That's what those files are, and there's no one stopping other JVMs from doing their plugins.

      Except I can't find a doc on how to do it. Are other JVMs supposed to contribute their code to OOo? Is there a standard interface available for them to code their plugin to?

      --
      I am trolling
  3. Covered before by Quixote · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As I pointed out to the editors (OK, laugh at that), this has been covered before. Though, I don't understand the need to throw in Linus's name. Maybe that's to rile up the crowd? :-)

    1. Re:Covered before by southpolesammy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need the ability to moderate the articles themselves. Myself, I'd give the article a -1, Redundant (covered before, as you mention), -1, Troll (for trying to get people unnecessarily spun up), and -1, Flamebait (for name dropping Linus in a conversation that has nothing to do with him).

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    2. Re:Covered before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OO.org using Java is similar to Linux using Bitkeeper.

      Both are important Free software peices of software and both depended on closed source software. Linux used it for revision control and OO.org uses it to get all the functions out of it.

      Nobody cares that much about Java. The thing is cool, but Sun fucked up on the restrictive licenses.

      What OO.org should do is work with Redhat to get GCJ working with it. That way it will work on systems that can't run Sun's java.

      For instance I have a powerPC laptop that I run Linux on. It can't run Java software writen for Sun's java runtime enviroment because Sun never released a PPC vm. IBM has one, but it doesn't realy work that well.

    3. Re:Covered before by ignorant_coward · · Score: 1

      Though, I don't understand the need to throw in Linus's name. That would be called a "rider"

    4. Re:Covered before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, your comment has also been said thousands of time. And no, it's not going to change. There are better sites working that way, if you're willing to look around.

  4. Use of Java by Zardus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its a programming language... As long as the code is open source, then why not use it?

    At a future point in time, there could very well be complete open source java implementations. But even if there aren't, the code is still open source.

    --
    You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
    1. Re:Use of Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apache Java, the spec is still proprietry, what if somebody doesnt like what sun includes and Apache doesnt support a feature, we have fragmented the Java runtimes.

    2. Re:Use of Java by m50d · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it depends on undocumented "features" that are only available in the sun JRE, which is THE PROBLEM THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT. Wasn't this exactly what sun (quite rightly) criticised MS for doing with java?

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:Use of Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Use of Java by rgmoore · · Score: 4, Informative
      Its a programming language... As long as the code is open source, then why not use it?

      It doesn't do any good to have open source software if it requires a closed source VM to run. You're still at the mercy of whoever controls the VM. If they decide to pull your license (as Sun did to FreeBSD) then you're no longer allowed to use your own software. You can't build Free Software on a non-Free foundation.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    5. Re:Use of Java by natrius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it depends on undocumented "features" that are only available in the sun JRE

      That's not true. The features are documented, but the free Java implementations haven't caught up yet. Everyone is so quick to prove some sort of malicious intent that they're ignoring the facts. The article doesn't say anything about undocumented features, it talks about unimplemented features.

    6. Re:Use of Java by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the poeple that are so concerned with complaining about this could instead use their energy to help the free implementations of Java to implement those missing features.

      Then it will no longer be a problem!

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    7. Re:Use of Java by LarsWestergren · · Score: 2

      *What* undocumented features? Can we see any proof please?

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    8. Re:Use of Java by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      With ODT format being standardized across the board and with other open source office suites accepting this standard, OpenOffice's use of java only becomes an issue for those who see it as one.

      I've been using OpenOffice since 2001, and I'm not a big fan of it (though the recent betas have been making huge improvements). Personally, I'm looking forward to when Koffice is ported to windows. Once that happens, I won't be looking back.

    9. Re:Use of Java by bay43270 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it depends on undocumented "features" that are only available in the sun JRE, which is THE PROBLEM THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT. Wasn't this exactly what sun (quite rightly) criticised MS for doing with java?

      Read RMS's The Java Trap. He isn't complaining about undocumented features, he was complaining about using features that haven't been implemented in a 'free' version of Java yet. In essence, he's complaining that GNU Classpath isn't developing fast enough (although he would never word it that way). Once GNU Classpath catches up to Sun (if it happens), then Open Office will work just fine with it.

      And this wasn't what Sun was criticizing MS for. MS was adding very well documented (and thoughtful) features to Java. New features like delegates. Sun just didn't want to loose control of Java. They didn't say no one should advance Java past version 1.1. They said only Sun should make changes to the language.

    10. Re:Use of Java by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yes, and no. Using that sort of logic, Sun could never add a new feature to their JRE until they'd added to to everyone elses.

      The problem Sun had with Microsoft's Java was that Microsoft was giving access to Win32-only API's, so that the source that used them would run only on a platform that supported Win32. Sun accused them of attempting to take a language they had worked hard to make platform independent, and tie it directly to Win32.

      If Microsoft was making extensions that were useful and didn't need Win32 to implement, my guess is that Sun wouldn't have been so upset about it.

      The analogous problem would be if Sun implemented stuff that would only work under Solaris. The JRE works on all of the platforms it's released on (at least it's supposed to).

      Nothing I've read about the Sun Only extenions are inheriently unimplementable by anyone else on a standard Java platform. When they refer to them as Sun only. I'm guessing it's an API that Sun is working on standardizing, but wants to make it available for use to shake out defects in the API. That, and/or its so new that no one else has had time to implement it.

      Kirby

    11. Re:Use of Java by m50d · · Score: 1
      The only time I encountered an MS-only java feature, it was a signing thing that was entirely reimplementable, just different from the sun equivalent. That doesn't mean there weren't extensions that were tied to windows, but none of the ones I saw were.

      Yes, the JRE works on the platforms it exists for, but there are platforms sun hasn't ported to, where it needs to work on alternative javas.

      The sun only extensions are sun propriety. You can reimplement the API without the source, but sun could have done the same for any wrapped win32 calls. It's not easy.

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:Use of Java by murdocj · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You can't build Free Software on a non-Free foundation

      Of course you can. Stallman himself points out that that's how free software was developed. If the first free software had had to wait for the first free user to toggle the first free monitor and free assembler into memory one byte at a time, there wouldn't be any free software. Free software was built on back of unliberated software.

    13. Re:Use of Java by k98sven · · Score: 1

      Read RMS's The Java Trap. He isn't complaining about undocumented features, he was complaining about using features that haven't been implemented in a 'free' version of Java yet. In essence, he's complaining that GNU Classpath isn't developing fast enough (although he would never word it that way). Once GNU Classpath catches up to Sun (if it happens), then Open Office will work just fine with it.

      TFA in question isn't Stallman's "The Java Trap". The article in question is about OOo using undocumented, Sun-VM-specific classes in Java.

      Those features will never be implemented by GNU Classpath. Many of them are already not implemented by other proprietary JVMs, such as those from Apple and IBM. These classes (those under com.sun.*) simply are not part of Java. Sun themselves admit that and advise against using them.

      Yes, this is exactly what Sun was criticizing MS for. MS was breaking compatibility by adding features to the standard library. If Sun programs are using parts of Java which are not officially part of the standard library, then they are doing so too.

      (And BTW, GNU Classpath seems to be progressing quite well actually.)

    14. Re:Use of Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sun just didn't want to loose control of Java.

      Sun just didn't want to lose control of Java.

    15. Re:Use of Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all open source software written for the Windows platform isn't really free then? They all require Windows to run.

      This brings up the question: Is "free" software running on top of proprietary hardware or firmware really "free"?

    16. Re:Use of Java by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      You can't build Free Software on a non-Free foundation.

      And people wonder why OSS advocates get dismissed as zealots...

      Freedom is Freedom. OO.org's developers are Free to choose a non-Free foundation to build on. That's Freedom.

      Because you are Free, you are Free to fork the Freely-available code for OO.org and do whatever the hell you like with it. Hell, make it only work on GNU/Hurd if you like.

    17. Re:Use of Java by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      No. Sun's beef with MS was that they broke the terms of their licence by adding their own stuff into the java.* package hierarchy. Any vendor (indeed, anyone in the world) is at liberty to create classes in their own package - eg Sun has (largely undocumented) stuff in sun.* (which you're not supposed to use, as it could disappear with the next release), and MS should have put theirs in com.microsoft.* or even ms.*

      They didn't, they put them in java.*, thus breaking their licence, and it's that that Sun successfully sued them over.

    18. Re:Use of Java by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      you can and they did because that was the only practical choice

      thier stated goal however was to make a totally free system (unfortunately they fucked up on the kernel somewhat and linus stole thier thunder with a quick hack that worked ;) )

      is sun java the only practical choice for development nowadays? NO! does making the system depend on sun java make the system less free? YES!

      if the OOo devs had made working properly on a free jvm a requirement to commit anything then we wouldn't have this problem.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    19. Re:Use of Java by bay43270 · · Score: 1

      TFA in question isn't Stallman's "The Java Trap". The article in question is about OOo using undocumented, Sun-VM-specific classes in Java.

      The article is based on Stallman's "The Java Trap" and quotes it directly when making arguments against these 'undocumented, Sun-VM-specific features'. It's a little pointless to argue about a summary article without looking at the paper it summarizes.

      Yes, this is exactly what Sun was criticizing MS for. MS was breaking compatibility by adding features to the standard library. If Sun programs are using parts of Java which are not officially part of the standard library, then they are doing so too.

      The Sun v Microsoft lawsuits were not about API changes. They were about language changes. There's a big difference. Anyone who wants to, can extend the Java APIs. Go ahead, make a org.slashdot.MyList that extends ArrayList... it's fine with Sun. Apple has added all kinds of extentions (many of which fly directly in the face of Sun's philosophies)

      (And BTW, GNU Classpath seems to be progressing quite well actually.)

      I didn't say GNU Classpath is behind. RMS did: "We do have free implementations of Java, such as the GNU Compiler for Java (GCJ) and GNU Classpath, but they don't support all the features yet. We are still catching up."

    20. Re:Use of Java by m50d · · Score: 1

      Those are the current stoppers, but there are also undocumented packages in the sun.* hierarchy that OOo uses.

      --
      I am trolling
  5. Please ignore that last sentence by frankie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's try and keep this discussion focused on Sun, Java, and OO.org, but not the Bitkeeper flamewar, mmmkay?

    1. Re:Please ignore that last sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Uh, why. One could equally well say "please keep this discussion focused on the Bitkeeper replacement, not the Sun/Java flamewar".

      Both are part of the article, and both have been beated to death on slashdot before.

    2. Re:Please ignore that last sentence by Kenard · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that last sentence seemed tacked on. Like the someone wanted a flamewar on BitKeeper and found a submission that he new was going to be aproved, and appended at the last minute.

      --
      (appended to the end of comments you post)
  6. Umm... by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Really, what the heck does the kernel development move have to do with this? Linus didn't move off of BK because it was non-free, it's because the no-charge use license was revoked by BM.

    If someone could explain how this relates to OO.o's use of Java, I'd appreciate it :P Otherwise I'll just assume the submitter is trying to be a little more sensational about things.

    1. Re:Umm... by codepunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well it is pretty damn simple really, Sun can do the same and pull free java any time it wants. Depending on non free sofware places you in a vulnerable position that is totally unecessary.

      --


      Got Code?
    2. Re:Umm... by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 1
      The difference of course, is that if Sun pulls Java you still have access to your code :P

      Anyway, Sun has a vested interest in keeping the Java runtime at least totally free for anyone who wants to grab it, and they know that as soon as the dev kit becomes pay for use that 3rd party apps will start dropping support like flies as people switch to other languages they don't need to pay to use.

      There's a distinct difference between a programming language and a (glorified and extended) file manager.

    3. Re:Umm... by glens · · Score: 1

      The bit about Linus has nothing at all to do with the main theme of the original submission. It's merely a rider like the RealID bit was to the spending bill.

    4. Re:Umm... by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Yeah, people would never use language they had to pay for. That whole Visual Studio thing MS thunk up a while back- pure insanity! [1]

      [1] though now you can get the CLI C# compiler free in the .NET SDK... But older versions of VS, with C++ and VB were far from free and very, very popular dev tools and languages.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  7. I agree...sort of. by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Java works, and works well. However, I can see the point about OpenOffice being totally *free.* However, Since OpenOffice is essentially StarOffice, which, if I am not mistaken, comes from SUN, why not use it?

    --
    I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
    1. Re:I agree...sort of. by j0e_average · · Score: 1

      Totally agree...in fact, if it weren't for SUN releasing so much of the Star Office code, would Open Office be anywhere near where it is today.

      "Don't bite the hand that feeds"... or is it "No good deed ever goes unpunished"?

    2. Re:I agree...sort of. by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      I recon a better reason to complain is the slow as shit load times and the clunky non responsive ui... I mean, that's already a gripe about OOo - the sloppy load times.

      I know Java has come a long way since Swing, but I still find stuff like Netbeans and Zend PHP Studio still kinda sluggish and resource intensive. That's JMO of course...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:I agree...sort of. by Soko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a matter of control.

      Sun still ultimately controls Java, and how Java is licensed. They also have a history of viewing colleagues _solely_ as competitors - something to be destroyed, not a person to share ideas with. This makes some in the OSS community nervous, since we can't guarantee that any Java components will remain Free Software in perpetuity.

      Sun may actually want to play nice with the OSS community (I'm beginning to think that they do, but I'm still not sure), but I think they have a problem with the fact that they are joining the community, it's no longer the community joining them. Ergo, they need to play by the communities rules until such a time as they've earned a respected place in that community, and can set directions and agendas.

      It isn't 1999 any more.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  8. Don't like it? Fork it! by winkydink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The objections seem to be emanating from rms.

    While some OO.o supporters claim that the opposition is primarily the result of misinformed free-software zealots, Microsoft, or astroturfing (the use of paid shills to create the impression of a popular movement) by OO.o opponents, there does seem to be some concrete opposition to OO.o by the free software community.

    The most visible evidence of that is that the FSF (Free Software Foundation) is "is looking for volunteers to maintain a version of OpenOffice that doesn't require a non-free Java platform."

    Volunteers to lead this project are requested to contact the FSF's founder, Richard M. Stallman

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  9. Who are these people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still others have suggested that instead of using an open-source Java, these components be rewritten in an entirely different language such as Ruby or Python.

    Did they just look at every Java story on Slashdot as a source?

  10. Critics need to get a life by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Having Open Office not contain Java is like buying a car without tires.

    Sure, people could buy cars without tires and then hunt around for the tires, and then put them on and load balance them.

    But not including tires - inflated and properly fitted ones - in the basic car package - is insane.

    It's like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. MJ tried that and now he's on trial down in SoCal ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Critics need to get a life by Gaewyn+L+Knight · · Score: 1

      But that is just the point... They can't distribute java WITH the installer... so hence people do have to hunt around and find the tires. If they happen to already have a set (a prior JVM) it just better be new enough... or you start the hunt again.

      If Sun would allow distribution of the JVM with OOo I think most of the complaints would disappear...

      --
      Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
    2. Re:Critics need to get a life by m50d · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Because it's completely impossible to write an office suite that isn't in java, and completely impossible to have an office suite work without java. MS Office must just be a figment of our collective imagination, ditto for every other office suite ever. Of course

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:Critics need to get a life by vladmihaisima · · Score: 1

      Although I know this is not exactly a good comparision as the jdk has somekind of restrictive distribution policy, you can say that because Oo dosesn't come bundled with X you must find it and install it. And so on. Java is on many windows system, and for those with broadband it's just 1,2 clicks away. Is that hard to click a link and install from there ?

  11. SHUT UP by Jailbrekr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wah, it uses Java. Its portable and its available in source form. Would you rather they use .net?

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    1. Re:SHUT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, its ISO standard and totally open unlike Sun Java which is like VB, proprietry and closed. VB6 is dead, what happens if Java dies, its not open, nobody can legally take it over. Standards are maintained independantly like .Net, feel free to submit proposals to the ISO commitee for changes, you can, un cant for Java.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Code is still open, though, right? by Stibidor · · Score: 2, Informative

    I admittedly don't know much about OpenOffice, but it seems to me that the Java source code would at least be open, right? As long as the source code is still available (whether it's written in Java or Pascal), what's the big deal? If you don't like Java just because the implementation is proprietary, you could always find the offensive Java code and port it to something you like more. Am I way off here?

    1. Re:Code is still open, though, right? by cahiha · · Score: 1

      it seems to me that the Java source code would at least be open, right?

      There are a lot of VB and MFC source code floating around; you still have to use a proprietary piece of software from Microsoft to do anything with them. Basically, that VB and MFC source code is just a marketing thing for Microsoft's proprietary products. Well, the same is true for any open source Java code that requires Sun Java to run.

      If you don't like Java just because the implementation is proprietary, you could always find the offensive Java code and port it to something you like more. Am I way off here?

      Yes, you are, because the offensive Java code relies on features of com.sun.* classes, which are even more proprietary and even more poorly specified than the classes in java.*. In different words, there is no such thing as "Java" or "porting"--there is Sun's implementation and its derivatives and that's it.

  14. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is forking an implementation of Java going to make Java the Language less proprietary?

  15. How open it is doesn't matter to me... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...but that abysmal load time makes me willing to pay $130 for MS office. OO loads up like...well...a big fat Java app.

    1. Re:How open it is doesn't matter to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that it matters much, but on a 3.6 GHz Hyperthreading processor with 512 Mb of RAM, it only takes a minute or so to load up. On my old computer with a P3 500 MHz and 128 Mb of RAM, it took about 15 minutes to load and usually locked up the machine during the load process.

      Just thought I'd mention if you spend enough, it can be fast.

    2. Re:How open it is doesn't matter to me... by Skater · · Score: 1

      Where are you getting Office for $130? Educational discount, maybe? Those of us outside education without access to bulk discounts have to pay $400-$500 (depending on version). For that price difference, I'll deal with a slow load time. Which brings me to my second point:

      Have you removed the Office Startup feature from your start menu? That program preloads parts of Office so the full apps start more quickly. I think OO.org still loads more slowly than Office, but comparing apples to apples is only fair.

    3. Re:How open it is doesn't matter to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A minute or so is not fast. An MS Office app on my laptop loads and is ready to use in 1 or 2 seconds.

      Netbeans (java IDE) on the same machine takes about 45 seconds to be ready to use while Visual Studio 2003 takes about 5.

    4. Re:How open it is doesn't matter to me... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      It takes about 30 seconds to load on my 3gz pentium...but that just annoys the heck out of me. Office apps (with the preloader disabled) take about 5 seconds. In the grand scheme, 25 seconds isn't a big deal, but it is a major annoyance to most folks. Users are SUCH a pain in the ass. As for the $130 price, thats about what it costs to have office standard pre-installed on a new computer.

    5. Re:How open it is doesn't matter to me... by arose · · Score: 1

      OOwriter (1.1.3) loads in 12 seconds without QuickStarter and 1 second with. This is on an Athlon XP 2500+ with 512MB RAM running Ubuntu Hoary.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  16. Stupid... by jwthompson2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stupid, stupid, stupid...Free Software people will keep grumbling as long as we aren't building everything from a completely "Free as in Free-as-long-as-you-play-by-OUR-rules" standpoint. And what the hell is that about Linus, he rolled his own solution because he needed to do more than any of the available FOSS solutions could, but what bearing that has on OOo is beyond me....


    This is nonsense, there are some reasons, most highly contentious, not to rely heavily on Java but this argument isn't one of them...


    Idiots!

    --
    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
    1. Re:Stupid... by Universal+Indicator · · Score: 1

      I'm out of mod points -- mod this +Insightful please :-)

    2. Re:Stupid... by cahiha · · Score: 1

      Free Software people will keep grumbling as long as we aren't building everything from a completely "Free as in Free-as-long-as-you-play-by-OUR-rules" standpoint.

      Exactly.

      Idiots!

      Many of those idiots came to open source after first investing years in some platform only to have it yanked out from under them. And the same can happen to you if you use Java because there is no substitute for Sun Java (or its proprietary derivatives).

  17. Sun is dogfooding by SpiffyMarc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sun buys StarOffice, and spins up a free version of it for the "community." They decide to use some of their own technology (Java) in this program. So what?

    Sun controls OpenOffice/StarOffice, and Sun controls Java. Both have been opened more than your typical commercial holding. What's the problem?

    1. Re:Sun is dogfooding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sun doesnt Own OpenOffice but they do contribute ALOT but they dont OWN it.

      Cant OO stick OpenOffice on Sourceforge or would Sun not allow that?

    2. Re:Sun is dogfooding by Cyno · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no problem. The whiners just need to fork OpenOffice if they think its worth it. OOo is a stupid name. And a fork can be nicely integrated with KDE, GNOME and OSX/Cocoa.

      Anyway, I'm going to use Gnumeric, Abiword and Koffice in my distro until something better comes along.

    3. Re:Sun is dogfooding by DanAnderson26 · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      The problem is that half the people on here don't realise three important things:
      1. Sun has given ALOT of free stuff to the community since the beginning.
      2. The community is a hell of a lot more then Linux/Linus or Stallman(the designated socialist)/FSF or Debian or RedHat. It is an idea of sharing that transcends famous names and pundits.
      3. The existance of a community, and a vast shared pool of open source code "Free as in beer" software is a hugely great thing.

      So while Stallman can whine about the existance of intellectual property all he wants, sane (well non-socialist) people should not be dragged down to his level.

      Hell, when I was a kid learning to program I would have killed for someone to give away a language and sdk like Sun does Java or a decent office suite like OO. The way it was I had to stick with BASIC until I had saved enough money and good grace with my dad for him to fork a couple of hundred dollars out for a C compiler.

      And open source code? You jest! I trolled half the fidonet nodes in the country trying to find the few scraps of public domain source code that were available to learn from.

      I guess the point here is that Sun gives you like $700 worth of "free as in beer" software and they get MFed for it.

      If I had a friend who gave me $700 worth of free beer, I'd thank them instead of bitching because it was their favorite brand.

      Dan

  18. Reviewer wants quality software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm amazed that the reviewer wants quality software (Open Office) but does not want to base it on quality software development tools/languages.

    The solution is for IBM and others to create a BSD licensed java or C# tools + vm so that there are no licensing issues.

  19. please! where is the beef? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh please, as much as i loathe java,
    for an open source project it doesn't matter, surely?
    for free software, on the other hand i see quote the fuss.

    and if it bothers people FIX IT!!!!!!!!
    its open source
    stick your oar in.
    if the y dont like that
    fork!
    stop moaning!

    i dont care so i wont work on it!
    [it uses java cause sun donated code from taheir star office surley there will ahve been in house java glue and code as theat is what they like to use.]

    actually i will have a look!
    and see what needs doing..

    FYI i am one of those gpl free 'zealots'

    when it comes to the gpl and free software i have unpopular views according to you nutty 'libertarians' on slashdot.
    but when it comes to open source projects that are quite popular
    i dont care what they do as long as it doesn't
    A/ damage the community on a wider scale
    and
    B/the developers involved are happy.

    so i dont see the beef

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Java = write once, run everywhere = good for OOo by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    well, assuming that Java _does_ run everywhere, which of course, we know it doesn't. Or doesn't run _well_... like on HP-UX.
    But anyway...
    What better language should they pick? VB? csh? Perl? Python? Mono? Java has relatively point-n-click installers for many popular OSes, has a remarkable amount of functionality, and will smooth their development wrinkles because of its universality. Remember, this is a desktop app, it needs to largely 'just work' from an installation perspective, you don't want Joe Windows User going to ActiveState and getting some Perl package, or needing some cygwin-esque environment to run Python or something else.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  22. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
    Volunteers to lead this project are requested to contact the FSF's founder, Richard M. Stallman

    Does this mean I'd have to, like... TALK to him?

    Nevermind then.

  23. Linus Trovalds by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

    Linus Trovalds

    Is that Linus's evil twin? Does he code closed source for Microsoft? ;)

    Or, is he related to Linus Trollvalds....

    (Watch, that nick will be a slashdot ID in less than an hour...)

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    1. Re:Linus Trovalds by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      The whole article submission is a troll. Note the misspelling of Linus' name. Note the unnecessary, but flame-fest inducing, mention of BK....

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    2. Re:Linus Trovalds by MrWim · · Score: 1
  24. Boycott open source windows software!! (same logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said.

  25. Straining at GNats by lheal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whether OO.o is built using a Free language or just a free language is not important to me. The source code of the suite (in the [Ff]ree language) is available.

    Having the source is all I really care about. Would it be better if Sun GPLd Java? Maybe. Would it be better if OO.o were developed using only Free tools? Maybe.

    Would any of that change my ability, in the real world, to use Open Office instead of MS Office? Probably not.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:Straining at GNats by cahiha · · Score: 1

      Would any of that change my ability, in the real world, to use Open Office instead of MS Office? Probably not.

      Yes. If it has a dependency on Sun Java, it won't run on many versions of Linux or BSD because Sun Java doesn't.

      Furthermore, anything that depends on Sun Java becomes orphaned and unmaintainable should Sun go out of business, get acquired by the wrong company, or change directions.

  26. Clearly the.... by KingBahamut · · Score: 1

    Trovalds comment doesnt validate the argument in anyway. Im really uncertain why it was put in there. Stupid Journalists, thats why.

    Open is open regardless of the code used to do it in my opinion.

    --
    "God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
    1. Re:Clearly the.... by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      Im really uncertain why it was put in there. Stupid Journalists, thats why.

      Journalists? What site are *you* reading?

    2. Re:Clearly the.... by KingBahamut · · Score: 1

      Journalism as defined by the Websters as......

      1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
      2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
      3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
      6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.

      Ergo a Journalist is a person that writes such material. Ergo, Stupid Journalists.

      What the fuck are you reading?

      --
      "God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Technical Merits of Java by JBrow · · Score: 3, Insightful
    According the article: "The problem, according to some free software voices..."
    Stop right there. Name names that carry some weight, please. This is almost as bad as "Unidentified sources within the White House..." After drilling down to the cited NewsForge article http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/03 /22/204244, we get to the the real reasons. Java is very powerful, albeit coming from Sun and not from the OSS community. Until the OSS community can deliver, can anyone provide an alternate to using Sun's Java?
    --
    --- You are in a little twisty maze of comments, all different.
    1. Re:Technical Merits of Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Unidentified sources within the White House..."

      I believe the proper one to use to achieve the highest amount of scorn is: "People say...."

      HTH

    2. Re:Technical Merits of Java by cahiha · · Score: 1

      Java is very powerful, albeit coming from Sun and not from the OSS community. Until the OSS community can deliver, can anyone provide an alternate to using Sun's Java?

      The OSS community already has numerous languages that are far better than Java.

      The reason Java is so hard to reimplement by the OSS community is the same reason Windows is: a big company keeps fiddling with it in order to maintain control.

    3. Re:Technical Merits of Java by vegaspctech · · Score: 1

      According the article: "The problem, according to some free software voices..."

      Stop right there. Name names that carry some weight, please.

      You had it with stop right there. Yes, vague references to a few unnamed, unhappy people don't cut it for me either. And I don't care if they've a name or two that carries weight. The reality is it's a small, albeit vocal, minority. Most of us don't have a problem with the way OpenOffice has or is being developed. To many of us it looks to be going swimmingly. The only thing I have to say to the OpenOffice developers is 'Great job! Keep up the good work.'

      --

      Making the world a better place, one psychotic episode at a time.

    4. Re:Technical Merits of Java by bckrispi · · Score: 1
      The reason Java is so hard to reimplement by the OSS community is the same reason Windows is: a big company keeps fiddling with it in order to maintain control.

      File that one under "Bullshit". Some of the most active contributors to the JCP (The governing body that guides Java technology) come from the Apache group and other OSS organizations. OSS advocates are there every step of the way when a new JDK is being designed.

      "Java is hard to reimplement" because Sun "keeps fiddling with it?" Puh-leeze. The cycle between major releases is running between two and three years, with legacy support running for about another two years.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    5. Re:Technical Merits of Java by cahiha · · Score: 1

      So, to summarize, you are saying that there is no good open source implementation of Java because nobody in the open source community is capable of producing such a beast.

      There are high-quality open source implementations of SMB, of UNIX, of X11, of C++, of CommonLisp, of HTTP, of OpenGL, of Eiffel. But you are saying that Java (a failed attempt at creating a language for set-top boxes by a bunch of part-time language designers) is so special and so advanced that no open source developer is capable of producing it.

      Yet you have us believe that Sun can? A company that failed with NeWS and SunView? A company with bug lists longer than the Bible? A company incapable of designing a decent network file system? A company whose success is based on BSD UNIX and GNU user mode tools?

      Give me a break. The only reason Sun still controls Java is because they rigged the process: they own the output from the JCP, and they control the so-called "compatibility testing process". Sun is scared stiff of allowing competition in the Java market because they know they'd lose control within a few months because they are doing such a piss-poor job.

    6. Re:Technical Merits of Java by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      No, what I'm saying is that the members of the Open Source community who want to guide the development of the Java platform do so by working with Sun and the JCP than just simply bitching, whining, and moaning about Sun having the extreme audacity to maintain some level of control of their own intellectual property. Big difference. If you take off your "if-it-isn't-open-source-it-sucks" blinders for a moment, you'd see it instantly. But I'm not gonna hold my breath...

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    7. Re:Technical Merits of Java by cahiha · · Score: 1

      No, what I'm saying is that the members of the Open Source community who want to guide the development of the Java platform do so by working with Sun and the JCP

      Sun owns the output of the JCP; why should people work for free to contribute to Sun's proprietary interests? Do you think open source developers are complete dopes? Sun should bloody well pay for the development of their own proprietary software themselves. Even Microsoft is at least that honest.

      just simply bitching, whining, and moaning about Sun having the extreme audacity to maintain some level of control of their own intellectual property

      The bitching and moaning isn't about Sun maintaining their intellectual property, it's about Sun lying about what they are doing. Java is proprietary through and through, yet Sun pretends it's some open alternative to Microsoft.

      If you take off your "if-it-isn't-open-source-it-sucks" blinders for a moment, you'd see it instantly. But I'm not gonna hold my breath...

      I used to be exclusively a Sun user: their software was the best and their machines were inexpensive and powerful. Then their software started deteriorating, their prices started skyrocketing, and alternatives got better and better. Porting software was painful, and it was one of the reasons why I don't want to get locked into a vendor anymore. And given Sun's recent behavior, I particularly don't want to have anything to do with that company anymore.

  29. Re:Couldn't have said it better myself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But "you're" English isn't, jackass! Repeat after me: "You're" stands for "you are", "your" means "belonging to you".

  30. java on a free distro CD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wouldnt it solve the problem if sun modified their current java licensing to allow distribution maintainers to package java on their free iso's? I think suse is doing this now, also OO.o2 (beta) in their 9.3 release. How is novell accomplishing this anyway? I think this would shut all up but rms and the 2 other debian users who wont add "non-free" sources to their repositories.

  31. Runs fine, right? by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm missing the point, but the software runs fine, right? And the basic idea of the code probably comes through. Essentially the only issue I see here is that some people won't be able to compile the code. *shrug* That's always the risk, particularly if you get people coding with modified compilers and the like.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Runs fine, right? by j0shwalk3r · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You are missing the point, slightly. The problem isn't that
      some people won't be able to compile the code. *shrug*
      The problem is that Java is compiled to bytecode and run on Java Virtual Machines (JVMs). OOo is using proprietary Sun APIs that only work in the Sun JVM. Many Linux users don't have the Sun version, but rather a compatible JVM. (Also, many windows machines used to use MS's own JVM. I don't keep up on that, but it was the cause of a major lawsuit)
      So, if I'm running RedHat, which started building its own JVM, OOo won't run properly.
    2. Re:Runs fine, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Let me clarify something here. OOo is not using proprietary Sun APIs that only work in the Sun JVM. OOo is using public APIs of the Java language. The Sun JVM implements these APIs, thus, OOo works properly with it. Alternative JVM's do not implement these APIs and therefore OOo does not work with them. It is up to the implementers of those JVM's to implement the entire API or obviously OOo won't work with them. There is no secret API being used here.

  32. OO by fishfish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All I know is that OO keeps getting better and faster, that it isn't costly like MS office, doesn't have a closed file format like MS office and that it has cross-platform versions. Sounds like the right stuff to me.

    1. Re:OO by m50d · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between believing that and carrying on using MS Office because it has more features?

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:OO by fishfish · · Score: 1
      Because, I guess that overall Sun has done more in the "Open Source" direction than MS has.

      Take Java - the basic tools have been around for years - some might say it is the main thing Sun has of value, yet I can still go and download them and use them without worrying about future ratcheting up of fees (my choice not to worry). The paranoid might say that Sun is just waiting to stick everyone, but it seems like they are playing very conservative (and probably correctly, since they are a for profit company).

      If Sun had the strength and depth of an IBM, then they might have open-sourced Java a long time ago.

      Compare that to VB or Front Page -- both of which were introduced at fairly low entry price points and then quickly increased (and made more bloated and complex) once people started to use them.

      I guess my point is that I trust Sun a bit more than MS.

      But, time will tell.

    3. Re:OO by m50d · · Score: 1

      They are conservative, but like any company they are entirely devoted to profit. The day they can make more money overall by charging for java licenses is the day they start doing just that, make no mistake. And to my eyes that point would come when they're quite entrenched, popular, with an industry around it, so it would be nontrivial to abandon java and cheaper for most customers to just cough up. It would cost them a lot of goodwill - but goodwill isn't worth that much in the long term, especially if you're going bankrupt.

      --
      I am trolling
  33. Re:Couldn't have said it better myself. by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1, Funny

    Meanwhile, your English is piss-poor.

    -Jesse

    --
    Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
  34. Correct me on Java please by bogaboga · · Score: 1
    This is how I understand the current issues surrounding Java:

    Java is a free language just like Adobe's PDF product is.

    The only non free issue surrounding Java is SUN's implementation...which is patented. Right?

    That's why we have projects like Kaffe, ClassPath, GCJ and the newly announced Harmony from the Apache group.

    If this is the case, then I do not see any problem. We have software like Flash that run on Linux and we've had no problems whatsoever.

    1. Re:Correct me on Java please by iccaros · · Score: 1

      its not free if you can not distibute it. its not leagal to put java, Adobe PDF reader or falsh player in alinux distrobution and give it out... that is whats wrong.. so we give you open office.. butit can't be used untill to go to sun and download Java.. right now distrobutions are putting java in the build but only untill Sun changes their mind and starts to sue people.

    2. Re:Correct me on Java please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzt. Try Again.
      From the jdk 1.5 license:
      B. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and restrictions and exceptions set forth in the Software README file, including, but not limited to the Java Technology Restrictions of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software, (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.

    3. Re:Correct me on Java please by zerblat · · Score: 1
      Wrong. Please:
      1. Read the comment you replied to
      2. Read the license fragment you pasted
      The license is meant for people distributing Java applications, not for Linux distributions. Most distributions will be disqualified because they distribute gcj/kaffe/GNU Classpath or (possibly) other languages like Python/Perl etc (it all depends on what Sun's lawyers mean by B(iii)).

      Also, B(vi) doesn't look very nice.

      --
      Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
  35. java == mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perls many shortcomings were once again exposed yesterday on Slashdot.
    Now it's time to review Java's shortcomings:
    1) It's slow
    2) It's a once overhyped relic of the 90s that's now considered outright violation of usability standards and it's use is deprecated outside of "back end" database work.
    3) Sun. ('nuff said)

    [ yeah, this a troll, but's it is the truth. try and handle it for once and respond critically without pounding on the mod button ]

  36. And what would be better? by ShatteredDream · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Python which is slow, has a much smaller user base and far less consistent and well-documented standard library?

    Perl whose readability for many coders is next to nothing?

    C++ because we all know that more buffer overflows and random craziness is what OpenOffice needs to compete with Microsoft Office?

    C# since 93-95% of the desktop users out there use Windows, why bother with the minority of others? (I actually quite like C# and am hopeful about Mono)

    Ruby because a language that most coders have never even seen before is clearly the best way for a fresh start?

    Objective-C because when Steve Jobs takes over the world, we'll need to be on his good side?

    C, since objects really are overrated for anything that normal developers might want to maintain?

    So seriously, of all of the major language choices, which would be better?

    1. Re:And what would be better? by m50d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd use Python. Java is slow too, slower in practice since it makes much less use of native code. Why is the user base a problem? I've always found the standard library very well documented and have yet to have a consistency problem, but if those problems are there it's probably because the library is a lot bigger than in most languages, you'd normally end up getting external libraries to do the same thing which would, in all probability, be inconsistent with the standard library and underdocumented.

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:And what would be better? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      why do people keep bagging on perl's readability? it's clear that they just want to say something bad about it. perl is eminently readable if you keep to good programming practice; in a lot of ways it ends up looking like C.

      Objective C would be a dandy way to go, actually. Is there any reason not to use it, as compared to Java, given modern implementations of both? Especially since the whole write once run everywhere thing seems to be complete and utter bullcrap?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:And what would be better? by kitty+tape · · Score: 1

      FORTRAN! Because it's... umm... FORTRAN!

      --
      ----- "Type theory is like pretzels on crack." -- random friend
    4. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C++ works great for KOffice, I don't see any "random craziness" about.

      Maybe you should consider all the pros and cons instead of throwing a few where appropriate to get your point through

    5. Re:And what would be better? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      perl is eminently readable if you keep to good programming practice; in a lot of ways it ends up looking like C.

      Note the 'if' statement.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    6. Re:And what would be better? by ignorant_coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So seriously, of all of the major language choices, which would be better?

      EMACS

    7. Re:And what would be better? by evilviper · · Score: 0, Troll
      C++ because we all know that more buffer overflows and random craziness is what OpenOffice needs to compete with Microsoft Office?

      Buffer overflows are a non-issue. What is this "random craziness" of which you speak?

      C, since objects really are overrated for anything that normal developers might want to maintain?

      Actually, yes, objects really are over-rated. Besides that, object-oriented programming is much more in how you use it, rather than the design of the language. C++ really only adds a few things on to C. C programmers today make everything into functions. Just look at any large C projects, and you'll see that non-object-oriented languages are actually quite easily maintainable.

      Besides that, OOo is (was?? I haven't used 2.0) based-on GTK anyhow, so you could easily make use of glib/gtk's add-ons to C if you want object-oriented programming.

      So seriously, of all of the major language choices, which would be better?

      Umm, all of them, actually. Just by virtue of not being tied to Sun's restricted jre, any of the choices you listed (except perhaps C#) would be better. For all the nit-picking you've done with other languages, I'm certain you could find many, many more things wrong with Java. This has been discussed to death, so I won't bother.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:And what would be better? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "It's a poor workman who blames his tools"

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:And what would be better? by TravisWatkins · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, no one ever seems to complain about BrainFuck. Let's use that!

      --

      "But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
    10. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So seriously, of all of the major language choices, which would be better?"

      The one not completely controlled by a single company who can't be trusted to pick the right tool for the job. Sun is more interested in pushing Java then anything else.

      btw if your theories about each langauge are correct then 99% of OSS out there is unstable, unmanageable garbage. Somehow I think your full a hot air and we are just seeing your obvious Java bias showing through.

    11. Re:And what would be better? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > C++ because we all know that more buffer overflows and random craziness is what
      > OpenOffice needs to compete with Microsoft Office?

      In that case you'd better stop using those other high-level languages which are written in C++!

    12. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lisp

    13. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "It's a poor workman who blames his tools"

      Ah, but what about the one who blames his coworkers?

      And, ir I'm not mistaken, the quote is along the lines of:

      "It is a poor *craftsman* who blames his tools."

    14. Re:And what would be better? by coaxial · · Score: 1

      C, since objects really are overrated for anything that normal developers might want to maintain?

      C can too be object oriented! It's powerful and great, and can link with anything because you don't have to deal with marshalling, and everything supports linking with C, and you just don't appreciate it because you've been spoiled by syntatic sugar. That's why you don't appreciate creating two different structs and explicitily calling both allocators and constructors and implementing 'isa' with #defines.

      Now shut up and drink the kool-aid.

      @_@

    15. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There's three reasons I see why Perl is harder to read than Java and the other C descendants.

      First, Perl gives the programmer many different constructs for doing simple tasks instead of just one. If there is only one way to do it, that way will be used in all code that gets written, not just all code you write. This makes it easier to read.

      The second reason is how tightly Perl has integrated regular expressions. Without detailed comments, anything beyond a basic regular expression is write-only.

      The last reason just has to do with the context in which Perl is an appropriate language to use. Perl tends to be used for relatively simple text processing applications which tend to be developed quickly without much concern for code maintainability.

    16. Re:And what would be better? by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      So seriously, of all of the major language choices, which would be better?

      I just hope you won't have a word in deciding that. I for one really like almost all of which you listed above, ruby and python being an exception. With c# I only have the problem that I'm against its usage for FOSS development.

      Thing is, I don't really care in what language it's written while it's not yet another MS product and it has a Linux port.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    17. Re:And what would be better? by cahiha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      C++ because we all know that more buffer overflows and random craziness is what OpenOffice needs to compete with Microsoft Office?

      Given that such a huge page of OOo is already written in C++, adding a bit of Java into the mix doesn't make much of a difference in terms of reliability.

      It does make a difference in terms of introducing a dependency on a 50M install and a proprietary runtime that exists on only a limited range of platforms.

      So seriously, of all of the major language choices, which would be better?

      C++ plus a scripting language. C++ is and will always be primarily a C++-based implementation.

      I do agree that getting rid of C++ would be nice, but adding a few percent of Java code to OOo is not going to accomplish that.

    18. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Python which is slow, has a much smaller user base and far less consistent and well-documented standard library?

      Python's not that slow to begin with, and there are a number of things you can do to speed it up (e.g. Psyco).

      I also take issue with the smaller user base - firstly, why is that a big deal, and secondly, are you sure it's true? Python's been around longer and has big names using it like Google too.

      Lastly, have you ever actually used Python? Even if the rest of what you say is true, it is more than compensated for by the fact that you are way more productive in Python than Java. 50 line programs get cut down to 5 line programs. You don't have to bother writing things like getFoo() and setFoo() most of the time.

    19. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cobol

    20. Re:And what would be better? by revscat · · Score: 1

      But some tools are inherently crappier than others. Perl, while not crappy, does lend itself to crappy code. The "there's more than one way to do it" philosophy that is so prevalent in that language makes life more difficult over time. This is a fundamental problem with Perl, not the coders.

    21. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is the grandparent +4 intresting and the parent -1 Troll...
      It really boggles the mind

    22. Re:And what would be better? by 0x336699 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I appreciate this thorough analysis of the major (non-Java) programming languages. Based on your remarks I have decided that OpenOffice should not be written in any programming language at all. My basis for this decision is that every programming language has tradeoffs and drawbacks associated with it, which I find unacceptable. All OpenOffice development will cease until an acceptably perfect language has been authored.

      Also, I would like a chicken sandwich and a girlfriend.

    23. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      VB - cause it kicks ass!!

    24. Re:And what would be better? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Python which is slow, has a much smaller user base and far less consistent and well-documented standard library?

      Python which is not all that slow next to Java, is nowhere near as big a resource hog as Java, is completely Free, and is a standard part of most distros already.

      Besides, just haw fast does a document wizard or access like interface need to be? It'll spend most of it's time waiting for user input anyway.

      As it stands, I'd rather skip the wizards and access to avoid the dependancy on Java. Does anyone know if there's a proper config option for that or is it a hack and slash? If the latter, I* guess bI won't be upgrading for a good while.

    25. Re:And what would be better? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Hah! You don't fool me! You're subliminal message is quite clear:

      VB - cause it kicks ass!!

      I, for one, completely agree with you.

    26. Re:And what would be better? by puregen1us · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Congratulations on the well thought out, objective arguement put forth. A single reason why not to use each language. No positive points considered at all. None of Java's flaws mentioned either.

      I actually, have no qualms with using Java, I just prefer to see rational, complete arguements on Slashdot. Something seldom posted.

      However, I fail to see the issue with using a proprietary language. The project is open source and will remain that way, and Sun cannot change that. Sun could change Java to spite it, but why would they deliberately harm a free, almost acceptable alternative to a rival's application?

      I use Apple's OSX, I don't use BSD's, NeXT's, Apple's OSX, and I don't use GNU Linux, I use Linux. I dislike the standard open-source, free-software bigotry, on licences. I imagine the majority of coders are working to create a decent alternative because they want just that, not out of some need for a jihad against an evil enemy. Why create such a fight. If that effort went into coding the results would be considerably better free software.

      Bit of a rant, sorry.

    27. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pascal would be best.

    28. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Congratulations on the well thought out, objective arguement put forth.


      Forth! Why didn't I think of that? Hell, it even runs on a Vic-20 and can be used to control telescopes.

      All hail RPN!
    29. Re:And what would be better? by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough (at first blush), Python seems to be the preferred KDE scripting language to embed. Ruby appears to have the next best support. KParts is sweet. I'm currently being seduced to the KDark KSide :-)

    30. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a poor workman that chooses the wrong tools.

    31. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not too familiar with the implementation details of Python. Does it use a JIT, or is it purely interpreted? Because, if it doesn't use a JIT, it's probably slower than Java...

      In fact... Java is a compiled language. If I run "python" from the shell, I can start typing in Python. This feeds it through a parser and whatnot before actually doing any work. Which means that even if Python has a JIT, it's doing the work of two: compiler and runtime.

      With Java, I feed it the bytecodes (not source -- much faster to translate) and the JIT will quickly convert it to native machine code.

      It seems to me, not knowing much about the Python interpreter, that Java has the potential of being much faster than python...

    32. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emacs is not a language, elisp is.

    33. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "C programmers today make everything into functions"

      Yeah, not like in the old days when we used to put all the C code in one big file. They just added the #include directive a couple of years ago, right?

    34. Re:And what would be better? by addaon · · Score: 1

      you don't have to deal with marshalling

      I agree with everything you said, but to nitpick, I think you mean mangling.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    35. Re:And what would be better? by huge+colin · · Score: 0

      I think you forgot this one:

      Java, because even primitive data types need to be full-featured objects?

    36. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Python vs Java Python starts up faster and uses less memory. It is also more portable.

    37. Re:And what would be better? by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      I'd use Python. Java is slow too, slower in practice since it makes much less use of native code.

      In that case, click here to make your head explode...

      Seriously, that argument hasn't been true for years. In fact, Java makes more use of native code. The Java APIs mostly call native implementations (like zlib for instance), and bytecodes are turned into native code with JIT compilation.

      If you want a JIT compiler extension for Python, you can try Psycho.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    38. Re:And what would be better? by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      I'm not too familiar with the implementation details of Python. Does it use a JIT, or is it purely interpreted? Because, if it doesn't use a JIT, it's probably slower than Java...

      There is a JIT for Python but it is not as mature and integrated as Java's.

      In fact... Java is a compiled language. If I run "python" from the shell, I can start typing in Python. This feeds it through a parser and whatnot before actually doing any work. Which means that even if Python has a JIT, it's doing the work of two: compiler and runtime.

      That's right. It is helping you out by combining two steps into one rather than requiring you to do them yourself. Then it caches the result of the compilation step so that after the first run through it uses bytecodes just like Java. The only difference is that Java requires you to do that first compilation manually so you'll feel like you're using a more manly implementation rather than a helpful one.

      It seems to me, not knowing much about the Python interpreter, that Java has the potential of being much faster than python...

      Python makes it much easier to take bits of code and rewrite them in C, C++ (which is already the implementation language of OpenOffice) or compiled Pyrex. That means that in practice Python programs often run rings around Java programs where people are more reluctant to do that performance-oriented refactoring.

      Neither Python nor Java are fast enough to write heavy office-style desktop apps in. The high level language is presumably mostly wrapper around C/C++ which does the performance-oriented heavy lifting.

    39. Re:And what would be better? by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      perl is eminently readable if you keep to good programming practice;

      Most any language is eminently readable if you keep to good programming practice. Most code is not eminently readable, but this time it will be different.

    40. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it use a JIT, or is it purely interpreted?

      You have a choice. Python doesn't by default, but you can use Psyco if you want JIT.

      If I run "python" from the shell, I can start typing in Python. This feeds it through a parser and whatnot before actually doing any work. Which means that even if Python has a JIT, it's doing the work of two: compiler and runtime.

      Er, no. Just because you can type Python into a shell, it doesn't mean that it parses your programs fresh every time it runs. It gets compiled to bytecode the first time it is run (or you can do it as part of installation if you'd prefer; the standard library gives you control over this).

      With Java, I feed it the bytecodes (not source -- much faster to translate) and the JIT will quickly convert it to native machine code.

      I can't see any difference between this and Psyco.

    41. Re:And what would be better? by psetzer · · Score: 1

      The char, int, long, double, byte, etc. types are all primitives, and none of them are objects.

      --
      "Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
    42. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not create a completely new language, call it Object Oriented Open Office Organized Operations?

    43. Re:And what would be better? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Perl encourages individual programming style. People who like functional style programs can almost write in that style. People who like Objects can write object code. People who like module based languages can write in that style.

      At the functional level you see the same thing. People who like to escape their brackets can. People who just want to use non-standard brackets can. People who want everything to look like a normal function call can do that too.

      The result is that Perl is a wonderful language for expressing creativity and being highly productive. Its a horrible language for models of programming which require individual coders to have little imput in the final design. Where one worker is easily replaced by another and none of them matter very much.

      During the industrial revolution we abondend the idea that individual workers should be important at all. Rather than works being a product of the spirit and creativity of the individuals involved a very small group of individuals make all the important choices, while the majority simply very hard to implement the specification as exactly as possible. This carried over into programming and most books on organizing large projects assume a model of the programming workforce where the coders are cogs not individuals. See Ruskin's "The nature of the gothic" for more details on how our notion of workers has changed.

      Perl is a thoroughly gothic language. For Perl to be useful to corporations we have to go back to employees being important to corporations (or at least their IS departments) in a meaningful way. While we no longer have slaves, our work processes are not much different than those that could be performed by slaves. We have lost the ideal of a type of work that requires freemen and this has carried over into programming and naturally enough into our choice of tools. Perl's notion of individuals is far too radical for our corporations.

    44. Re:And what would be better? by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      In that case you'd better stop using those other high-level languages which are written in C++!

      That's like saying there aren't any security advantages to coding in C++ over machine code. Higher level languages provide fewer opportunities for people to create random craziness at the level at which most code is written.

    45. Re:And what would be better? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't have to bother writing things like getFoo() and setFoo() most of the time.

      How is total lack of data hiding in an OO language an advantage?

    46. Re:And what would be better? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Marshalling might be correct. I regularly marshal data between different types in my Managed C++ projects.

    47. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the risk of repeating myself: you don't have to bother writing things like getFoo() and setFoo() most of the time.

      In the instances where you need to change an implementation detail for an interface from a mere attribute access to something more complicated, then you write getFoo() and setFoo(), and you assign it to foo using property().

      The difference is that Java developers are forced to write getFoo() and setFoo() for all their interfaces, even though 99% of the time it's completely unnecessary, redundant code.

    48. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or Whitespace.

    49. Re:And what would be better? by coaxial · · Score: 1

      I think you mean mangling.

      No. I don't.

    50. Re:And what would be better? by LightningBolt! · · Score: 1

      In that case you'd better stop using those other high-level languages which are written in C++!

      For an interesting self-hosted implementation of a Java virtual machine, check out the Jikes RVM. Apart from a bit of assembly glue, the JVM itself is written in Java.
      --
      Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
    51. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well on top of being more complicated than C++, having absolutely shitty threading, and lacking anything more structured than hashes for specifying objects, Perl 5 is also slow. Slightly faster than Python (sans psyco) for intrinsic numeric types, but not sufficiently faster to placate the original poster.

      Perl's obvious benefit besides having an enormous library of pre-existing functionality is that it has a very nice means of writing extensions in C. One obvious deficiency though is that a lot of things in CPAN don't work precisely across platforms if at all.

      Objective-C doesn't have garbage collection, it's not a "safe" language, it basically has two type systems, its message dispatch is expensive due to the way selectors work, and I could go on but I have to call my girlfriend and this is starting to get boring.

    52. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jython isn't really Python. Its semantics are different, its development has trailed behind CPython, and its performance is lacking in many areas.

    53. Re:And what would be better? by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      I've never seen someone write such an ignorant comment. Have you ever coded in java? It is more then capable of running as fast as native code, some times faster then a c++ implementation because of the hotspot feature optimizing the most often used code paths in real time as the application runs (you can't do that in c++). It has excellent development tools and is one of the few enterprise ready languages. It is also literally a couple hundred thousand times faster then python. Run something as simple as a for loop with some simple operation in each loop. Run it 2 billion times, you'll be waiting all day for python to finish. Java will take under 10 seconds. And for such simple code that can easily be optimized, a c++ implementation should take a few milliseconds. The ease of coding in java, the cross platform capabilities, the speed (in a worst case it is 1000 times slower then c++, but it is rarely even a fraction of that, python is over a million times slower), the great utilities, and the ease of management is why it is the language used most by enterprise and why so many Apache projects are done in java. Java is an excellent language and designed for huge applications. Python is a great little scripting language but does not scale to the size of applications that real companies need. I use python all the time, but it is often a bad choice for large projects (just the sheer amount of libraries available for java is astounding)
      Regards,
      Steve

    54. Re:And what would be better? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The difference is that Java developers are forced to write getFoo() and setFoo() for all their interfaces

      I just don't buy into a architecture that tosses aside the concept of data hiding and encourages programmers to write classes with open access to attributes.

      Sure, you can use properties() to add behaviors, but that totally glosses over the issue that classes should not allow unfettered access to attributes in the first place. Properties() just encourages this bad programming practice by removing one of the sources of pain that making this mistake leads to.

    55. Re:And what would be better? by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention:

      Java 1.5, which isn't available on many platforms for which Python, Perl, C++, Ruby, Objective-C, and C are all available?

      For all that Sun talks about "Write once, run anywhere", Java (or at least the very latest, greatest version of Java, which is what the OO.o authors are being criticized for using) has poor cross-platform support. If you want to run on, say, Linux for PPC, FreeBSD, OpenVMS, or a whole host of other systems that have excellent support for many other languages, you're out of luck. Sun whould be more honest to say "Write once, run where we let you."

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    56. Re:And what would be better? by synthespian · · Score: 1

      I imagine the majority of coders are working to create a decent alternative because they want just that, not out of some need for a jihad against an evil enemy.

      No, no Jihad...but a minimal set of garantees that Sun has consistently failed to deliver.
      Don't you know anything about the history of computers and operating systems?

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
    57. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual Python code (as opposed to calling into C extensions) in terms of raw execution is much slower than the JVM. Its numeric types are implemented as objects, dispatching a method or function involves searching through one or more hashtables (every execution of a function in a loop requires a lookup for the function) even before you consider the expense of function invocation, exceptions are much more expensive, and so on.

      CPython has favorable memory characteristics in many cases because it trades performance (and space) for reference counting every object, which in practice means that heap space will be returned to the system more readily than with the JVM. In applications that perform a lot of short-lived allocations this can be a win performance-wise, but in general it's much worse performance-wise but releases potentially limited resources which may be needed by some other program(s).

      Of course it also wastes a lot of memory itself. Object overhead in Python is pretty high. If your JVM returned memory to the system as readily as CPython does, you'd notice that your Java programs would typically consume less memory at runtime.

      And of course I say all of this as a long-time Python programmer. I don't like Java.

    58. Re:And what would be better? by nihilogos · · Score: 1

      Look, we've all seen "the armchair coder's guide to programming languages" a thousand times now. It wasn't even that interesting the first time.

      --
      :wq
    59. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some times faster then a c++ implementation because of the hotspot feature optimizing the most often used code paths in real time as the application runs (you can't do that in c++).

      Sure you can. If you had studied computer science you would probably have learned about Dynamo and other similar research projects. Truthfully I stopped reading your retardedly unformated post after getting to that point. Given the quality of your analysis up to that point, I'm sure I missed some real gems.

    60. Re:And what would be better? by Nailer · · Score: 1

      Python which is slow

      What?

      You're saying Python, used in millions of Linux distro installers and desktop apps, is slower for end user applications than Java?

      Got any proof? Hell, got anyone else to agree with you?

      I've never heard anyone say "oh, those 25 GUI desktop config apps in Fedora are slow - that's cause they're Python" - have you?

      Ever heard anyone say a desktop Java app was slow?

    61. Re:And what would be better? by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      "I use Apple's OSX, I don't use BSD's, NeXT's, Apple's OSX, and I don't use GNU Linux, I use Linux."

      Um... You kinda contradicted yourself there... In one sentence... Or am I just confused???

    62. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C can too be object oriented! It's powerful and great

      I agree. However, developping stable and well-designed code takes a lot more time than in Python or Java.

    63. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have your logic backwards, probably because you are starting from the premise that "unfettered" access to attributes is bad, rather than the problems that causes in Java being the thing that is bad.

      What is the problem with foo.bar = baz? Exposes implementation details? It doesn't do that in Python. Allows clients to break things by writing invalid values? It doesn't do that in Python.

      Really, what is the difference between foo.bar = baz and foo->setBar(baz)?

      Properties() just encourages this bad programming practice by removing one of the sources of pain that making this mistake leads to.

      The only reason it is bad programming practice is because it causes pain. It causes pain in Java. It doesn't cause pain in Python. Therefore it's only bad programming practice in Java, not in Python.

    64. Re:And what would be better? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It's called context, you should pay attention to it sometime.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    65. Re:And what would be better? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      why is the grandparent +4 intresting and the parent -1 Troll...

      That's very simple... There were apparently 3 Java fanatics with mod-points, and they couldn't possibly let a comment reasonably criticizing java get modded up.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    66. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C++ is and will always be primarily a C++-based implementation.

      Amazing.

    67. Re:And what would be better? by m50d · · Score: 1
      It's JIT but not very (most of it doesn't take advantage of it yet). Yes, it is slower in terms of method calls, etc., and benchmarks show this. But it is faster in practice because most of the libraries are very thin wrappers around fast C implementations.

      Python can compile to bytecode too. The compilation isn't that optimised yet, but it works. But it can interpret as well, which is good because it makes debugging *much* easier.

      Python will compile when it runs the first time and then use the bytecode version if the timestamp is newer. Which means it performs just as well on subsequent runs as java.

      Java does have the potential of being much faster than python, if JNI were easier and used more. But in practice they aren't, and it isn't.

      --
      I am trolling
    68. Re:And what would be better? by m50d · · Score: 1

      The argument still is true, look at the BeOS port of java. It's very difficult because over 75% (IIRC) of java is implemented in java. Again IIRC, the only native of the networking code is the raw sockets, the rest is built upon it in java, wheras python wraps system APIs at several levels. This is certainly the way it works for graphics and in general seems to be the java way, swing draws every pixel in Java with all the buttons etc. implemented in straight java. Which will always be slower than C.

      --
      I am trolling
    69. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make that "OOo is and will always be primarily a C++-based implementation". C++ is actually often implemented in C...

    70. Re:And what would be better? by m50d · · Score: 1
      Yes, I have coded in Java. I know in benchmarks and pure method calls it is far faster than Python. However, in practice, Python programs are faster. Compare the official bittorrent client to azureus, that's a bit unfair because azureus is far more featureful, but the Python one is faster by an incredible margin. Or compare jEdit to eric3 (a whole IDE, jedit is getting there but is not there yet) - the startup times are similar and eric3 is more responsive in use.

      Python scales pretty well. For performance you want to do tight loops etc. in C, but python makes this easy. And the lower number of libraries is offset by the ease of wrapping C libraries, half the time you can literally just run swig or similar on the library and have working python bindings.

      --
      I am trolling
    71. Re:And what would be better? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      the premise that "unfettered" access to attributes

      No, unfettered access to the entire contents of a class is bad. And it causes problems in Python as has been noted by many critics. You have no way of enforcing basic design patterns including something as fundamental as Layers.

    72. Re:And what would be better? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actual Python code (as opposed to calling into C extensions) in terms of raw execution is much slower than the JVM.

      It can be in some cases, but I don't think that would likely come in to play for something like a document wizard or SQL front end. In those cases, much of the actual work tends to be performed by C libraries. In any case, since it's primarily user interface code, it will spend most of it's time waiting for the user.

      Startup time is another matter. I have found Java to take a while to start up on a slower machine (one which should be perfectly adequate for word processing). Given that the time would tend to happen while the user is sitting there with nothing better to do than think about how long that one little click is taking to process, that's very expensive time. That's actually the whole purpose of splash screens and startup windows. If the user can see it doing stuff, it "feels" faster.

    73. Re:And what would be better? by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1

      Really, what is the difference between foo.bar = baz and foo->setBar(baz)?

      It's basically the same difference as between "x=5" and "int x=5". In the Java version, you explicitly say 'this is NOT a direct data access' so you as the caller know, for instance, that retrieving that value may have side-effects or return a different value. For example, in Java code "obj.getRandom()" you would expect that the value would be different for each call whereas for "obj.random" that it would not change by reading that value.

      Java developers are used to the code telling you exactly what it does without any ambiguity -- that's why they generally frown on operator overloading and automatic type conversions. Smalltalk, Ruby, and Python developers are used to the code looking simple, but having to basically know the whole program to know anything about what is really going on -- that's why they are generally used for scripting and either small-scale or very tighly integrated programs. C++ developers are on crack, because they have to know the whole program to know what a piece of code does AND it looks like crap.

    74. Re:And what would be better? by Eric+S+Raymond · · Score: 1

      Go with Mono, babe.

      --
      Bypass Compulsory Web Registration -- http://bugmenot.com/
    75. Re:And what would be better? by Eric+S+Raymond · · Score: 1

      How about Synaptic line noise? Or maybe INTERCAL?

      That would be a cool name for an idm style electronic musician, eh?

      --
      Bypass Compulsory Web Registration -- http://bugmenot.com/
    76. Re:And what would be better? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's like saying that because a Corvette will do 160mph (or whatever) you can blame Chevrolet for your speeding tickets. It simply doesn't work that way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    77. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can be in some cases

      It is in all cases. JVM execution is faster than the interpreter inside of Python. This isn't even remotely difficult to comprehend if you know how CPython works. It is not architected for performance, it's designed for conceptual simplicity. On top of that the language semantics of Python are much more dynamic, making optimization quite difficult.

      but I don't think that would likely come in to play for something like a document wizard or SQL front end

      Well that all depends on what your document wizard or your SQL frontend actually does, doesn't it? Who would use Python for a document wizard, anyway? That's a prime place for a DSL.

      Startup time is another matter.

      A matter for which Office and OpenOffice both already fail at. Indeed, most KDE and GNOME programs already have obnoxious startup times despite being mostly written in C and C++.

      However JVM startup time is definitely expensive. The obvious solution to that problem is to not startup a new JVM for every conceptual program launch, but rather to retain JVM execution and dynamically load applications as plugins. This is basically why Microsoft is developing Monad, since CLR startup time is prohibitive. No one would use command-line utilities that had to launch a new virtual machine for each of them. This is also why Eclipse is basically just a plugin architecture that happens to come bundled with plugins for an IDE.

    78. Re:And what would be better? by cow-orker · · Score: 1

      Lisp, Smalltalk, Haskell, Scheme, Ocaml, Erlang, ..., combinations thereof. Oh, it has to be a "popular" or "major" programming language? Sorry, in this case, the project is doomed anyway.

    79. Re:And what would be better? by revscat · · Score: 1

      That's like saying that because a Corvette will do 160mph (or whatever) you can blame Chevrolet for your speeding tickets.

      That would be interesting except that it is completely misapplied. I would be willing to bet that the higher the top speed of the car, the higher number of speeding tickets the drivers of those cars get as a group.

      Similarly, as a group Perl coders produce code that is more difficult to maintain compared with coders of similar skill levels who use different languages. Given the same amount of time and skill given to a project, Perl code tends to be more obfuscated.

      Perl is useful, and powerful, but you can't wholly blame individuals for fundamental characteristics of the language.

    80. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Java version, you explicitly say 'this is NOT a direct data access' so you as the caller know, for instance, that retrieving that value may have side-effects or return a different value.

      To state it the other way around, Python doesn't allow for the possibility of seeing, at a glance, whether getting or setting an attribute might have side-effects.

      I don't see any real problem with that, for a number of reasons:

      • The same applies to Java - how do you know another thread isn't watching/changing those attributes? API-specific knowledge? The same as Python.
      • The number of plain attribute accesses in Java is very low because of the need for data encapsulation, which means that the actual advantage Java has occurs relatively infrequently.

      Basically, think of it this way: Java developers are often told to encapsulate their data - to hide everything away behind getters and setters and forbid direct attribute access.

      Python actually enforces this. Every attribute access is hidden behind a getter and setter. Python also provides a default getter and setter, which is to get and set without any side-effects, and it's exactly as efficient as a direct attribute access. Since there is no direct attribute access any more, Python uses that syntax to give a more readable way of calling the getters and setters.

      The tradeoff Python makes for all this is that the programmer can't tell at a glance whether or not he is causing side-effects when directly accessing attributes. But since Java developers avoid direct attribute access anyway, we're not giving anything up, are we?

      Smalltalk, Ruby, and Python developers are used to the code looking simple, but having to basically know the whole program to know anything about what is really going on

      Not the whole program, just the relevent information. If I'm coding the GUI for an application, I don't care whether foo.bar = baz means that baz gets sent over a network, stored in a flat file, or whatever. I care that foo's bar is now baz. Anything underneath that is simply none of my business.

      I think that it's funny that two Java developers are arguing in exactly opposite directions here. You are arguing that Java is superior because you have better direct attribute access, and the other guy is arguing that Java is superior because Python can't encapsulate data.

    81. Re:And what would be better? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It is in all cases. JVM execution is faster than the interpreter inside of Python.

      JVM is not faster than C, however. Python lends itself well to writing performance critical code in C and easily calling it from Python. It's not much harder to run python inside C programs (libpython).

      Who would use Python for a document wizard, anyway?

      Who in their right mind would use Java from inside a C program for that?

      I have yet to meet a java app that didn't feel positively ponderous.

    82. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the worst troll ever.

    83. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are totally misses the point, which again is that given a bit of Java code you know exactly what it does. Nothing in the rest of the system will change what you know about that code; it's a constant. In python, you know only that the code appears to do something, but have virtually no guarentees. For example, "x.setValue()" could be a completely different function on subsequent calls because another part of the system replaced it at runtime. Or your method may have been given a completely different type of object that also has that method... and this may be on purpose, you just don't know.

      So in Python code in other parts of the program can change the behavior of the code you thought you knew. That flexibility is great for a throw-away scripting language, but bad if the code will live for a long time or should be reliable.

      The tradeoff Python makes for all this is that the programmer can't tell at a glance whether or not he is causing side-effects when directly accessing attributes. But since Java developers avoid direct attribute access anyway, we're not giving anything up, are we?

      Java developers user direct access when necessary to increase performance, and within an implementation to avoid using the public interface and incidentally to increase performance. So Python is not losing anything except performance and exactness.

      Python also provides a default getter and setter, which is to get and set without any side-effects, and it's exactly as efficient as a direct attribute access.

      A 'direct access' in Python can not be as direct as a Java one because a) you don't necessarily even know the type ahead of time and b) they are stored in a dynamic dictionary, so the attribute must be looked up first. Dynamic compilers can do all sorts of fancy optimization to make this sometimes as fast as a direct access, but it is still much harder than in Java (which isn't entirely simple due to dynamic classloading) and often much slower.

      If I'm coding the GUI for an application, I don't care whether foo.bar = baz means that baz gets sent over a network, stored in a flat file, or whatever.

      If "foo.bar = baz" is called on a button click you don't want your application to freeze while it does some network communication, or if it's caused by a slider changing you don't want to DoS the system by writing to a file continuously.

    84. Re:And what would be better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are totally misses the point, which again is that given a bit of Java code you know exactly what it does.

      So what does foo.setBar(baz) do? You don't know exactly what it does. It tells you what it means, not how it does it. And in this respect, it's exactly the same as Python - except with Python you have to write less code.

      That's been my point from the beginning, which you seem unable to see.

      So in Python code in other parts of the program can change the behavior of the code you thought you knew.

      There are two possibilities.

      1. It changes the semantics of the interface - in this case, fire whoever wrote the code that changes the behaviour.
      2. It doesn't change the semantics of the interface - in this case, where's the problem?

      A 'direct access' in Python can not be as direct as a Java one

      That isn't what I meant. I meant that it would be exactly as efficient as a direct access in Python, if such a thing existed.

  37. Pronounciation by kjeldor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Hello, this is Linus Torvalds, and I pronounce Torvalds as Trovalds!"

    1. Re:Pronounciation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on get over it now. Enough ranting over spelling mistakes. As if Linus' whole world is shattered because of it. Rather provide some useful comment. Move on.

  38. An interesting fact by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    Sun IS Openoffice.
    All but 4 of the main openoffice developers are paid by them.
    Maybe paying some programmers would help much more for the direction of openoffice than complaining...

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:An interesting fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that exactly what RMS is aiming at, getting a branch of OOo development going that is completely paid for by sources other than Sun?

  39. KOffice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people find KOffice better/simpler then OOo or MS Office, still problem is import of .xls and .doc. Now, that both has same format (OASIS) there should be theoretically easy to moev MS-import component from OOo to KOffice. But it is only theory, in practice, people I talked to find even building OOo nightmare, let alone source-tree (dis)organisation. Moving this component to KOffice would make Linux part of OOo obsolete for 90% of people, including me.

  40. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by m50d · · Score: 1

    Or join KOffice. It works, it performs better, the codebase is smaller and arguably friendlier, it's (at least from the CVS version, and it will be in the next release) using the same open format, and it's been going longer than OOo. But it could always use more developers.

    --
    I am trolling
  41. Jesus people, get a grip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Believe it or not, but OO2 relying so heavily on Java is a problem, as Java is not free software.

    Now all the name calling that is currently going on here will not change this simple fact and all this "I don't give a f*** as long as it works" won't change the fact that java not being free software poses a problem.

    Look for example at Debian, or Fedora, or Ubuntu, they all ship without Java because of licensing problems. Having one of the most important apps for desktop linux rely heavily on Java sure poses a problem for these distributions and their users.

    That said, I get the feeling that something good will eventually come off this situation, as said distributions (and especiall RedHat) are now working even harder on providing a true free Java environment and make OO2 run with it.

    As someone who prefers free software and someone who runs linux on non-x86 (ppc, therefor no current Java + firefox plugin available) I can only welcome this development.

    1. Re:Jesus people, get a grip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the problem is what, exactly, other than Stallman's shorts are in a twist over it?

    2. Re:Jesus people, get a grip by duggy_92127 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Believe it or not, but OO2 relying so heavily on Java is a problem, as Java is not free software.

      From TFA:

      Scott Carr, OO.o's quality assurance project co-lead pointed out, "OO.o will run perfectly well without any JVM, but if there is a JVM then it has to do checks to make sure what features are supported in the JVM as well as run various functions. These are only run in the presence of a JVM."

      So, "relying so heavily on Java" isn't the case at all. Next point!

      Oh, they shouldn't use Sun stuff at all? From Caolán McNamara's blog:

      This gcj request asks for the addition of java.awt.Frame.createBufferStrategy which is all that is missing from gcj to build the java canvas stuff. (Though the canvas module contains a pile of spurious imports of sun.awt which are unnecessary and can be removed, not that there's much point right now, if a createBufferStrategy becomes available then removing the sun.awt from the canvas/java .javas is all that's outstanding)

      So, it doesn't use Sun-specific stuff, and the only gcj problem is something that gcj doesn't support... and it runs fine without a JVM in the first place...

      Why are we still talking about this?

      Doug

    3. Re:Jesus people, get a grip by squoozer · · Score: 1

      While it is true that Debian doesn't directly ship the Sun VM it does provide a package called java-package which will create and install debs from the Sun VM that you download. It needs a little more work to make it completely idiot proof, it would be nice if it started automatically after install for instance or instance, but it's so close as to make no difference. Try it out - it's a workable solution to the problem.

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    4. Re:Jesus people, get a grip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you must be really stupid by replying like this on the parents message...

    5. Re:Jesus people, get a grip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apart from not being able to use certain features on some platforms and not knowing if java is still freely available after Sun goes bankrupt.

      Quoting a sun employee to claim that heavily dependant is not so bad as it sounds does not really convince me. Actually, the point is that many new features suddenly require java. It is good some people make noise about this.

      you blog quote is incomplete. It is just one of the problems. If you look around a bit more you notice there are still some sun.* classes used. And they are undocumented.

    6. Re:Jesus people, get a grip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Look for example at Debian, or Fedora, or Ubuntu, they all ship without Java because of licensing problems. Having one of the most important apps for desktop linux rely heavily on Java sure poses a problem for these distributions and their users.

      Then the problem is not that OO2 requires a JVM for some functionality; the problem is that the Sun JVM has distribution terms that make it difficult for some platforms to ship with a standard JVM. (It is also worth noting that the most popular distributions, Red Hat, SUSE, Mandrake, &c, all manage to ship a JVM without being thrown into whatever mythical downward spiral of non-free software the mailing list zealots forsee.)

      I suspect that, with a little prodding and some solid arguments, Sun may be convinced to allow redistribution of the runtime environment under a more permissive licence that can address both the distributions; concerns and Sun's concern. Surely distribution developers will be happy if they can modify Sun's distribution to fit into their platforms' packaging policies while still allowing Sun the peace of mind that their billion dollar baby won't get caught in incompatibility trap that so many other (better) languages have suffered.

      And if one's only argument against OO2 is that one has chosen to use exclusively free software and OO2 depends on non-free software, then perhaps one should take the salt with the sugar and start submitting patches to free software until it is possible to use all of OO2's features without being tainted.

      Demanding that someone else do the hard work for you so you can hold your principles is simply not reasonable.
    7. Re:Jesus people, get a grip by synthespian · · Score: 1

      That's to build the canvas. How about the database?
      Get a grip.

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
    8. Re:Jesus people, get a grip by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Well most of these distros also ship without a dvd decoding software because of patent issues, the first thing ever user of those distros does is to locate a semi legal repository and add the needed libs to the mix. Why is java suddently that much different? Guess because there is the name java attached to it, which automatically draws the combined hatred of the Linux and Microsoft fanboys.

  42. OOo and java by Eternal_Flame · · Score: 1

    I personally am against the rising use of Java in OOo, but the 2.0 beta is just too good to argue with (you can still compile OOo without Java support anyway if it bugs you that much).
    The real dispute here is, "Should OOo push for faster development or to be completely FOSS?'. Sun, who basically paid for the whole project, should have the right to steer it in the direction of their own language if they please to do so. However, to maintain the project as FOSS, no essential parts of it should be JDK-specific.

    --
    ~You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because I'm insane~
  43. Maybe, they would prefer to wait by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe they think that OOo 2.0 will get released too soon and would prefer to wait a few years for the developers to port, and test the code.

    There's HypersonicSQL, that would have to be removed from its dev team, forked, and ported to a non java language. Then all of the code that uses it. I'm sure there's lots of other stuff.
    So, we could add a year or more to the release and get the exact same features with the same performance, the same license (OOo license), and more bugs.

    Yes, we could wait and get nothing except binaries that were made from source that was written in a language that has a different license.

    Or maybe the crybabies, who think this is such a big deal, could take the open source java source code and port it too some other language (C#?) of their choosing and thank the original developers for devoting their time. I notice that Richard Stallman is calling for volunteers instead of just doing it. Typical.

    Bill Gates has got to love this. The open source community builds a product to compete against his products. Then instead of unifying to make the project better, they split up to make a competing copy of the competing product. And this is over a language that there are open source tools to deal with.

    Or, we could all give a word of thanks to the developers who dedicated so much time so that we all may benefit. Even MSOffice users will benefit as MS improves their product and lowers their prices to cope with new competition.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    1. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I notice that Richard Stallman is calling for volunteers instead of just doing it. Typical.

      That's a pretty lame comment, given how much code RMS has actually written and given away over the years.

    2. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It seems its been quite some time since he has given away any code. He has been very busy in the last few years trying to convince others to give their code away.
      Maybe trying to convince others to write code for free has left him with little time to do the same.

      I still stand by my statement. Instead of criticizing others and calling for volunteers, he could start coding and say, "I've started this new project, here's my code, if anyone would like to help, I'm open."

      How about instead of looking the gift horse in the mouth, we just express a simple thank you to the developers for all of their hard work.

      --
      ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    3. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bill Gates has got to love this. The open source community builds a product to compete against his products. Then instead of unifying to make the project better, they split up to make a competing copy of the competing product.

      Actually it is Sun that is leveraging their commercial IP. Can you say, "bait and switch"? I knew you could ;-)
      This isn't surprising. Sun is squeezed by the market, and conflicted with respect to Free Software and Open Source. It takes time to "get it", and change is evolutionary. Sun is moving towards an openess, but can't let go because their property interests dictates their actions. (Which might not be bad for their stockholders, if Sun has the muscle to leverage their Java.) It's hard to compete with Free, though, and merely free isn't enough for the slashdot crowd.

      A Free implementation of Java would be an optimum solution, yes? IBM? Novell?

    4. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, because any time at all that he perceives a need for code he should just drop everything and start coding. Never mind that people are actually asking him to spend his time traveling and speaking and stuff.

    5. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

      If "he perceives a need for code", why should it be anybody's responsibility, except his, to write it?

      I perceive a need for my bills to be paid, any volunteers?

      --
      ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    6. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind that people are actually asking him to spend his time traveling and speaking and stuff.*

      *shower?

    7. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey retard have you heard of Abiword and gnumeric. OOO.o sucks.. load times alone are 3x better.

    8. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I notice that Richard Stallman is calling for volunteers instead of just doing it. Typical.

      That's because he's thought to be afflicted with RSI, most likely as a result of the sheer volume of free code he gave you. Basically, the man crippled himself by writing Free Software pursuant to his stated goals, but now you reject him as a slacker because his productivity's fallen off.

      Either you're ignorant of the subject at hand or you're a world-class jerk. Regardless, kindly dismiss yourself from the conversation until you have a clue of what you're talking about.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    9. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by Pentagram · · Score: 2, Informative

      RMS has given the world gcc, emacs, and a host of other advanced projects. I think he has earned the right to express his views.

      Looking at your website, you offer a script for "automating FTP opertions [sic]". I rest my case.

    10. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares what RMS views are. They have always been a little crazy, and most likely continue this way.

    11. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > So, we could add a year or more to the release and get the exact same
      > features with the same performance, the same license (OOo license), and
      > more bugs.

      No, we could get a version that was under the OOo license. JAVA isn't so any product that depends on it is under the worst clauses of either license, in this case the not even resembling Free JAVA license. Repeat after me, JAVA is not Free Software. JAVA is not Open Source. JAVA is not OOo licensed software. if OOo depends on JAVA it is useless except possibly as a way to haggle lower prices on Office site licenses. Which is pretty much all Sun wants it to be, a way to stick it to Bill without really inflicting enough damage to get a violent reaction in return.

      IF RedHat can get GCJ up to snuff, this problem goes away. Assuming Sun doesn't start throwing lawsuits to protect it's precious JVM. Sun has to consider Java a future cash cow, otherwise they would have stopped all/most of these arguments years ago by outright Open Sourcing it or at least allowing free distribution of the runtime.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    12. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I believe people are more upset with his sheer arrogance, than his productivity.

    13. Re:Maybe, they would prefer to wait by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me, JAVA is not Free Software. JAVA is not Open Source. JAVA is not OOo licensed software. if OOo depends on JAVA it is useless except possibly as a way to haggle lower prices on Office site licenses.

      Repeat after me, "This is called brainwashing." Especially when you're brainwashing people with lies, damn lies, and absolute untruths. (See my other response to you.)

      Stuff like this is why I called the entire lot of you assholes. You're foaming at the mouth, spreading lies like rabies, looking for the next victim to bite. Stop it!

  44. Yes it's true, OpenOffice.org has some Sun biases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OpenOffice.org is definately biased towards Sun. For example, there's good support for Solaris, but Mac support is... really horrible. Now there's Java being added. And it's not 100% pure Java either. When using Java, the only non-"pure" Java that could be acceptable are IBM's Java SWT widgets that make extensive use of JNI methods. It seems like Java is being tacked on because it's technology that Sun wants to promote rather than because it serves as an elegant solution to a particular problem.

    It would be nice if the Open Source community start to steer away from OOO right about now. It has too much influence by Sun, and the software is already a bloated mess anyway. (Although I've seen worse Office applications, believe it or not.)

  45. oh purlease... by VirtualUK · · Score: 1

    It might not be "free" but its free (as in beer) and its the only serious competitor to M$ Office. You do the math, free vs $$$....sure, you can write it in crayon as long as its performs and its free! ;)

  46. I'm glad it's using Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And here's why: Redhat is spending real money, paying a developer full-time to fix gcj enough so that OOo can use gcj instead of the Sun JRE. So OOo's Java commitment is resulting in real money being spent to improve gcj, a completely open-source GPLed JRE. That's great! The more committed OOo is to Java, the better! Java is easier for more developers to work with and it results in more stable applications. The more OOo transitions to Java the more stable and portable the end result is going to be, and also the better gcj will be.

    Just because Sun isn't doing the right thing doesn't mean we should avoid Java. Au contraire, we should embrace Java for the wonderful platform that it is, and fix our open-source implementations to be competitive (if possible).

  47. I predict... by LarsWestergren · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since all responses so far have been very reasonable ("if you think it is a problem, do your own version then and don't bash Sun"), I predict the trolls will try to change the discussion to "I hate Java and it sucks compared to my favourite language X", or "Java vs Mono", with inflammatory posts.

    Don't take the bait.

    --

    Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    1. Re:I predict... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      I predict the trolls will try to change the discussion to "I hate Java and it sucks compared to my favourite language X", or "Java vs Mono", with inflammatory posts.

      But if we included Python ... or was that Perl ... or was that SmallTalk ... or was that SlicedBread ... or was that IAmATechG33K ... it would work better.

      And then the number of people coding for it would explode exponentially from 50 percent of the population to a massive and overwhelming 0.2 percent! ... [grin] ....

      Java - it's here. It works in browsers. It works in MSFT Office (don't get me started about their incorrect implementation attempts). Just use it.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  48. I want I want I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Criticise away.

    Unless you're actually paying money for the product, or contributing to its development then I'm not quite sure why the developers should listen to anyone. It's theur project. they can do what they want.

    I gather they'll even let other people fork it and change it if they don't like it. Seems like this is good for everyone.

  49. OO is slow, why would they want to COUNT on JAVA? by dangermen · · Score: 1

    1. OO is slow, why would they want to COUNT on JAVA?
    2. Explain why I am going to use this when the current release does not require Java?

  50. BFD ... WTF do I care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their choice of language matters not. The product stinks. Its for people too cheap, or too stupid to get a good price on MSFT's Office.

    I've tried pen Office on Fedora and a 2.8GHz Dell. It sucks because:
    -- its slow
    -- the interfaces are different ---> WTF should I have to accomodate myself to the program. This is bassackwards. You can't create a spreadsheet and make a chart without digging into help files because the interface is different than the tool its trying to replace .... if you still think Open Office will displace Office .... then you've just taken a bite from Sun's turd in a creampuff.

    Scott & his boy toy Jonathan can crow about how great it is .... but they haven't done their homework. Like Gates or hate Gates, they own the office application market. Its a really a pity noone else is trying, in ways that count, to displace Gates. Shame on SUNW for not working smarter.

  51. If it makes it more portable... by mr_zorg · · Score: 1

    If it makes it more portable, I say go for it. As long as there's a JVM available for my platform, I don't care...

    1. Re:If it makes it more portable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as there's a JVM available for my platform, I don't care...

      That may not be very long for some platforms. For BSD and many Linux distributions, compatible Java implementations have ceased to be available.

  52. This doesn't sound like a problem. by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    But the article doesn't cite a specific example.

    -- from the article --

    Still others have suggested that instead of using an open-source Java, these components be rewritten in an entirely different language such as Ruby or Python.

    However, some programmers have just gone ahead and found fixes for OO.o, which enables it to run with GCJ.

    Caolán McNamara, a programmer with Red Hat who specializes in word processing, has created one such set of fixes.

    A source at Sun said, "OO.o 2 works OK with GCJ" and that "Red Hat has been tremendously helpful in the effort to make that so, filing bug reports etc."

    In addition, while OO.o will run without a JVM (Java Virtual Machine), it will use one if it's available, and its performance has been found to be much better if Sun's 5.0 JVM is used.

    But, as Scott Carr, OO.o's quality assurance project co-lead pointed out, "OO.o will run perfectly well without any JVM, but if there is a JVM then it has to do checks to make sure what features are supported in the JVM as well as run various functions. These are only run in the presence of a JVM."

    -- end FTA --

    So... if there is a JVM, [something] runs better/faster than if there wasn't. For starters, the app works without Java. Secondly, it's been fixed to compile with an open-source Java compiler. Thirdly, what kind of code runs this way? The article didn't specify.

    How odd.

    Regardless, this is still a big deal about nothing, as per usual.

  53. Umm what about Ibm's JVM? by big-giant-head · · Score: 1

    which is compatable with SUN's jvm? Sun is not the only source for java.

    Granted it's not GPL'd but thats RMS problem not mine.

    --

    So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
  54. The poster's masking of his email against SPAM by ICECommander · · Score: 1

    is the most creative one I have seen yet.

    --
    All your Sybase are belong to us.
  55. A good reasons to use Java - OSX !! by CdBee · · Score: 1

    One thing that comes to mind is that Mac OSX has a pretty good Java implementation. The OSX port of OpenOffice 1.x was always buggy (and is split between an official X11 port and the native NeoOffice under the GPL)

    OSX HIG-compliance is probably a lot easier to achieve in Java than the current X11/Win32 codebase

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  56. java stinks... by super_ogg · · Score: 0

    slow, crappy... why would they not critizize it?
    ogg

    --
    Black cat, searing pain, flames...? I must be in Heaven! - Homer Simpson
  57. This STIMULATES OSS Java development! by motown · · Score: 1

    Hear, hear!

    OO's Java dependency is actually having a positive overall effect on FOSS development. Because of both Eclipse and OpenOffice.org, the development of much-needed and long overdue open-source mature Java implementations has made great strides recently.

    Already Red Hat's OSS Java implementation is sufficiently mature to run Eclipse without any proprietary Sun software. Similar efforts by Debian and others are currently underway to get OpenOffice.org's Java-dependent features to work with exclusively open-source software.

    Why do so many people fail to understand this?

    I assume that the animosity by many of these "assholes" is actually due to irrational loathing of the Java language and platform in general, thinly veiled behind the "there are currently no mature OSS implementations" excuse. Bah.

    --
    "Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
    1. Re:This STIMULATES OSS Java development! by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      Yes, Sun's boneheaded moves have motivated some people to work on Free Software. However, this is almost certainly not what Sun had in mind. In fact, Sun's stated reason for not Freeing their JVM and Java libraries is that they are afraid that people will create an incompatible fork. It's ironic that Sun's actions are basically guaranteeing that the Free Software community focus on their incompatible gcj and SWT.

      As long as OpenOffice.org runs on a Free Software JVM I don't think that any of the Free Software hackers are likely to complain. They may wish that Sun used some other language as that would make their jobs easier, but if OO.org works with gcj then that's likely to be "good enough."

  58. Dupe... by Idaho · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It's a dupe!

    Java Fallout: OO.o 2.0 and the FOSS Community

    Well, at least not a dupe posted on the same day this time...the editorial standards of slashdot must have improved then! ;)

    --
    Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
  59. Re:Si vous pardon mon Français by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hé des ABRUTIS, le code source courant de Java peuvent être téléchargés ici [ sun.com ], et la dernière version de développement peut être téléchargée ici [ java.net ]. Et si ce n'est pas assez pour vous, votre Kaffe précieux [ kaffe.org ], gcj [ gnu.org ], GNU Classpath [ gnu.org ], et d'autres projets "de source ouverte" travaillent à reimplementing le JVM. Je ne m'inquiète pas en particulier si vous aimez Java ou pas, mais j'ai eu assez de cette connerie au sujet de Java étant ouvert ou pas. C'est un rien language/platform de Dieu avec des milliers de projets ouverts réussis de source sous lui, et a été ouvert six manières au dimanche. Comparer l'issue à la situation fâcheuse de Linus est insincère au mieux, n'est pas malhonnête pure! Pour ne pas mentionner qu'OpenOffice est le bébé du soleil. Ils ONT PAYÉ L'CArgent LUI. (je sais qui est un concept étranger ici, puisque le monde fraking entier est censé être LIBRE pour la prise fraking.) Si vous n'aimez pas la direction OpenOffice a pris, alors va jeu avec KOffice. Attente d'Oh, vous alreay pissé leur au loin aussi. Y a-t-il n'importe qui que vous peuplez ne ferez pas un ennemi de à vos recherches de Quixotic de stupidité? Les excuses pour l'abrasif de ce poteau, mais le crap comme ceci le méritent. Vous avez été donnés un cadeau et tout que vous pouvez faire doit le regarder dans la bouche.

  60. I don't get it... by flibuste · · Score: 1

    The most visible evidence of that is that the FSF (Free Software Foundation) is "is looking for volunteers to maintain a version of OpenOffice that doesn't require a non-free Java platform."

    Isn't the JDK code from SUN supposedly made available as an Open-Source project, if not already done?

    If it's not done, it's on the way. And the whole whinning is just one more attempt at FUD from people who don't know anything about the Java language. Could that be?

  61. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not Java. Fork Open Office. Write the whole thing in Lisp if you wish. If yours is the better deal, the world will beat a path to your door.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  62. So make a better one.. by Mean_Nishka · · Score: 1
    The beauty of the open source movement is that if some folks are unhappy with the software as developed, they're more than welcome to do an effort of their own.

    Fork it, or create something from scratch. We the users benefit.

  63. How OO.o and BK connect by sjvn · · Score: 3, Informative

    >If someone could explain how this relates to OO.o's use of Java, I'd appreciate it.

    As I say in the story--in a one sentence remark--it's because in both cases, some people are objecting to the use of proprietary software in an open source project.

    It's not like this is a new battle between free software advocates and open-source supporters. The one most people probably know best is the use of TrollTech's QT in KDE. For more on that, see:

    http://developer.kde.org/documentation/books/kde-2 .0-development/ch19lev1sec2.html

    For the original version of the OO.o story see:

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1813986,00.as p

    Steven

    1. Re:How OO.o and BK connect by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Is Mozilla.org still building Firefox for Windows using MSVC++ when there are free alternatives? Perhaps they should be shamed on /. too.

    2. Re:How OO.o and BK connect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I don't really understand why they don't use intel compiler instead, which is way better, if it is ok to use a commercial compiler.

    3. Re:How OO.o and BK connect by strider44 · · Score: 1

      QT is open source however, so it's a different situation. They just use the same method of dual-licensing as MySQL.

  64. OpenOffice just works by cybrthng · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I dunno about you, but ease of use and functionality is what matters to me.

    OpenOffice just works.

    I use it for my busiess, at home and for my campaign staff.

    I'm not even sure how your points are relevant to the use of StarOffice and the purpose sun is trying to fill with this application.

    1. Re:OpenOffice just works by BarryNorton · · Score: 1, Troll
      I dunno about you, but ease of use and functionality is what matters to me
      If that were true you'd surely be using MS Office...
    2. Re:OpenOffice just works by Metzli · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes and no. To me, functionality includes the ability to run it on multiple platforms. Being able to access the same files on Windows, Linux, and Solaris is a great boon. It's one thing I miss from the old FrameMaker days and it's something I really like now with OO.

      --
      "It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
    3. Re:OpenOffice just works by emarkp · · Score: 1

      No actually, MS Office doesn't "just work". After using OOo1 & 2beta for a while now, I can create better documents than in MSOffice and do it in less time as well.

    4. Re:OpenOffice just works by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Get back to me when they have a native version that runs on Linux.

    5. Re:OpenOffice just works by m50d · · Score: 1

      The point is that it isn't really open source, and those who care about their freedom should use something else. There are plenty who only care about the functionality, but if you're one of those why not just use MS Office?

      --
      I am trolling
    6. Re:OpenOffice just works by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you come across as a zealot: what unique properties does Linux have that facilitates the preparation of better Office-type documents?

      Is there something special about Linux that makes it a better platform for creating letters, spreadsheets and presentations on?

      This thread segment that you responded to is about the "ease of use and functionality" of Open Office vs Microsoft Office, not about OSS vs CSS, so your insertion of OSS vs CSS OS ideology is not relevant to a debate over which is the easier to use and more functional tool.

      Or, put another way, when talking about the tool is best for a job, strictly speaking, who made it has no bearing on how good it is at doing what it needs to do.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    7. Re:OpenOffice just works by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      I'm a zealot because I don't want to use MS Windows, or are YOU a zealot because you think everyone else should? Did I say that Windows was bad or that MS Office was horrible? I think you are just trolling....

    8. Re:OpenOffice just works by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Creating "office" documents is rarely the sole thing you do in a job.

      For example I create a lot of them to document what I've done on various machines on various networks so that my customers know what has been going on. However all my logs, all my tools, everything lives on my linux partition, not on the smallish Windows one that only has a couple games on it (SWAT4 and Brothers in Arms currently).

      Rebooting every 15 minutes while writing a document just to check something isn't practical. Having a dedicated machine just for office work when it really is a subset of what I do would be silly (although other machines here serve various other purposes).

      So even when MS Office was better than what was available in Unix, I *still* used Unix based office suites (ApplixWare at the time, LaTeX and whatever that 123 curses based clone was, before that).

      However I don't mind rebooting in XP every now and then to spend a couple hour in a game.

      No ideology involved. Just don't think everyone works the same way you do.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    9. Re:OpenOffice just works by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      LMAO.

      I challenge you to find any of my posts where I say Windows is better than Linux or praise any Microsoft product without giving solid, valid reasons to back up what I've said.

      I use whatever tool is most suitable to the task at hand. If I need a hammer then I'll use a hammer. If I need a screwdriver then I'll use a screwdriver. Pretending that one is patently better than the other for everything is not on my agenda and, frankly, I find it pointless to even start to suggest it is because most people aren't so stupid as to think that you're best off trying to screw something in with a hammer or hammer something in with a screwdriver.

      Anyone who shouts out that a hammer is better than a screwdriver without recognising that the hammer isn't always the best tool for the job in hand is a hammer zealot in my book. And, honestly speaking, in a thread where "ease of use and functionality" was the topic being discussed, you pretty much have come out and done exactly that.

      The fact that you can't qualify your original remarks when questioned - that you can't come up with a single answer to any of my questions - and have to resort to suggestions that I'm trolling for the hell of it doesn't help your position. It's like I'm asking you why a hammer is automatically better than a screwdriver and you're getting defensive and accusing me of being a screwdriver-lover because I fail to appreciate the "obvious" superiority of your tool of choice.

      Perhaps you don't see this. Perhaps you don't care. But until you recognise that OSS vs CSS zealotry for zealotry's sake is counterproductive then you'll be the one that's loses out in the long run, not me.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    10. Re:OpenOffice just works by BarryNorton · · Score: 1
      I can create better documents than in MSOffice
      Better documents? By what measure? I can name definite differences, making for better looking documents, between LaTeX and MS Office but OOo?
      and do it in less time as well
      Oh yes, because it's absolutely full of UI innovations... (Imho it's just a derivative piece of crap. I support OSS, but an OSS turd is still a turd...)
    11. Re:OpenOffice just works by emarkp · · Score: 1

      In particular, styles are a breeze in OO.o. And the equation editor is a dream compared to the clunky mess MS has. (Granted, OO Math not as powerful or quite as predictable as LaTeX, but it beats the crap out of MS equation editor.)

    12. Re:OpenOffice just works by BarryNorton · · Score: 1

      I'll have to bow to your experience. Myself, anything short of LaTeX (not that it's good enough itself) is not worth my time for 95% of what I write. My own short experience with OOo was putting together a document with tables and it was every bit as scizophrenic as MS Word in deciding (without any possibility to predict) what font, size and alignments it would use for pasted cells. Then when I had to correct such things I learned it speaks (on context menus) a more Germanic language than English (SOV order, not SVO - i.e. from Table to Row to Insert, not Table->Insert->Row). Two steps forward, one step back... along the same road (to nowhere)!

  65. Why should we car? by theskullboy · · Score: 0

    Aren't they using the right too for the right job? So what if the language itself is closed source. Are we going to hosetly have end users care about the java source code?

    --
    "Holy rusted metal, Batman!"
  66. OSS by 0311 · · Score: 1

    So...I can download it (and its source) and use it for free? What's to complain about?

  67. Re:Java = write once, run everywhere = good for OO by m50d · · Score: 1

    Getting activestate perl is *easier* than getting java, you simply download the installer and run it, rather than having to work out whether you need a JRE or a JDK or a J2EE or JME or whatever. Ditto for python. I'd use python myself, but perl would work equally well, and so I think would C# considering it will be bundled with the next windows and used for new MS apps (so they'll make very sure it's easy to install) and non-windows users can probably handle installing mono.

    --
    I am trolling
  68. FireOffice by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 2, Insightful

    my issue with java is not so much java/opensource/gpl..., but rather speed/memory/footprint.

    Open office is already huge and somewhat slow. Java will only make this worse.

    I remember when Mozilla was feature rich (kitchen sink), slow and huge. I stuck with old Netscape4 until Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox came fixed the Mozilla problems.

    After OO2 is released, probably someone will fork it, replacing all the java, and call it FireOffice, then OpenOffice will adopt the changes.

    1. Re:FireOffice by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      After OO2 is released, probably someone will fork it, replacing all the java, and call it FireOffice, then OpenOffice will adopt the changes.

      I think, more importantly, any fork will instead be a word processor project. Oh, and a spreadsheet project. Possibly another project focussed on presentations. They might even bother to have a project for drawing and another for databases.

      Firefox and Thunderbird are good - and more popular than the mozilla suite - because they are focussed on a specific task rather than bein a monolithic project trying to be everything at once. I would dearly love to see OpenOffice.org similarly broken up into more focussed projects.

      Jedidiah.

  69. I've found... by Marthisdil · · Score: 1

    That most Open Source advocates, when faced with nothing to bitch at (Microsoft) will bitch at anything (OpenOffice).

    Wait, I know. If they don't like it, they can write their own or use something else! Imagine that!

  70. Cry me a river. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Whoop De doo. A Popular Open Source project is developed in a language that is not Stallman approved. What do you guys want. C/C++ where porting it to a different platform is a huge hassle. Python/Perl/Ruby/PHP where the user will need to install an other virual machine on there system. Almost all companies know of or at least heard of Java and not afraid of installing JavaVM but having to go to python.org that might make them a little iffy. Besideds Sun is paying for to keep the project going. Why not use there technology that in my opinion is OPEN ENOUGH. Not everything needs to be open, for God sake let the developer choose what tools they want to make the program in. And if the program does what you want should be your consern. If it doesn't dont use it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  71. So? Implement the "proprietary" stuff! by motown · · Score: 2, Insightful

    2. RTFA, the major problem is that they're using undocumented sun-only features, almost as if they're deliberately breaking it on Kaffe etc.

    Since everyone has access to the OO sources, nothing can stop Kaffe, Apache J2SE, GNU Classpath or any other project to implement these "proprietary" features, as they are called from the source code.

    It is most unlikely that sun would actually take legal action for the "unauthorised" use of these non-standard API extensions required for OO support, since they would then really be making dicks of themselves.

    --
    "Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
    1. Re:So? Implement the "proprietary" stuff! by m50d · · Score: 0
      Yes, just as nothing can stop us reimplimenting the win32 API. In practice it's a helluva lot of work and we don't consider something truly free if it depends on a non-free API, even if, having the source, we could in theory reimplement that API

      Yes, it's unlikely, but it's possible, and the point of licenses is to protect you from when people make dicks of themselves. The **AA are making dicks of themselves suing filesharers, it doesn't make you safe

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:So? Implement the "proprietary" stuff! by motown · · Score: 1

      But Sun would have too much to lose by frustrating API reimplementation by open source developers.

      If they would really have the audacity to do this, then not only would they lose a tremendous amount of goodwill among the community, OpenOffice.org would then also most likely be forked into a GPL/LGPL project with the proprietary Sun Java API calls removed. Following that, more and more developers would flock from OpenOffice.org to that new fork, just like what happened to XFree86 and X.org. Naturally, such a fork would only be GPL/LGPL licensed (not Sun-licensed), and Sun would then no longer be able to implement any improvements from the open source community in its StarOffice suite.

      Detriments abound for Sun. I say we try to persuade the Sun developers that they either replace any proprietary API calls from the code, or reasonably allow the community to add these extensions to any open source Java implementations.

      --
      "Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
    3. Re:So? Implement the "proprietary" stuff! by m50d · · Score: 1

      You can't fork it under GPL, because the license won't let you. Also, sun keeps all their trademarks and, more importantly, patents. They could quite possibly stop such a fork in most of the developed world. They have more than enough developers themselves to keep Star Office going (it was going fine before OOo existed) and it would probably leap far ahead of the open version. Sun has enormous name recognition, which seems to have attracted OOo developers over and above what would be expected - KOffice started before OOo and yet gets virtually no mention from people. I think they could pull off looking good even while going on a patent offensive against OSS. Their marketing is incredibly good - look at the success of Java.

      --
      I am trolling
  72. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lisp? Woohoo!

    M-x openoffice-mode

  73. Neat by kaiwai · · Score: 1

    Over 90% of the code in OO.o is contributed by SUN programmers, and now, at the last minute, we get non-contributing opensource fan boys doing their prunes because its not going in the direction of which they wanted it to.

    Question, where the hell were they for the last several months? why did it *suddenly* take them *just months* before the release for them to rattle their chains and start whining?

    I mean, from what it appears, like the article has pointed out; the only people complaining are a few whiners from the peanut gallery, and some roudy rent-a-crowd from the opensource 'programming' world (I used programming in such a manner as many call themselves one even though all they've ever done is submit a one line patch to a opensource project, correcting a problem that even GWB could fix).

    I mean, there has been soooo much work getting Abiword and Gnucalc up to speed with all those *massive* contributions by the anti-OO.o crowd

    1. Re:Neat by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      I think you mean gnumeric which is better than OOo or Kspread.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
  74. Sun Java has to go from OOo by cahiha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OOo cannot remain dependent on Sun Java: Sun Java just runs on too few systems and configurations. Either OOo gets hacked to remove dependencies on Java altogether, or it needs to be packages with a small, open source Java implementation that works well enough to let OOo function.

    Of course, none of this is particularly surprising: Sun is trying to introduce dependencies on their proprietary software in many pieces of software. It's an evil master plan, and it won't work, but that won't stop Schwartz and McNealy from trying until their company is bankrupt.

    1. Re:Sun Java has to go from OOo by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Oh why do I respond to trolls...

      Is there anything in the OO.o Java code that doesn't follow the published language standard? If there is, it's a bug. If there isn't and gcj doesn't compile it well, then it's a bug in the compiler.

      It's a language. The "source" of a language isn't the compiler, it's the code specification.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  75. Point of order... by g051051 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't see anywhere in the article that indicates they're using undocumented internal com.sun.* classes. The problem seems to be that some key functionality in OpenOffice is implemented with Java, and that Java itself is not free. Also, it adds a requirement that any platform that runs OpenOffice must have a compatible implementation on Java.

    That also means that, if OpenOffice is coded to the Java spec (which it should be), then they shouldn't feel responsible for making the code run with Kaffe, GCJ, Harmony, or any other non-spec Java environment.

    On the other hand, if they coded it to spec, then OO shouldn't preclude the use of a different Java environment. If Kaffe, etc. were up to spec, it wouldn't be an issue. (I have no problems with these implementation, they all admit to various places where they don't fully implement the Java spec).

    This is a purely political/religious/philosphical issue, not a technical one. The objection to Java is because Java itself isn't free, not that OpenOffice is tied to a particular implementation of Java.

    1. Re:Point of order... by Hobbex · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't see anywhere in the article that indicates they're using undocumented internal com.sun.* classes. The problem seems to be that some key functionality in OpenOffice is implemented with Java, and that Java itself is not free.

      Whether they say it in the article or not, it happens to be the case. Here is a post by the main Kaffe developer about it. I quote:


      >import sun.security.provider.*;
      >import sun.security.provider.SystemIdentity;
      >import sun.security.provider.SystemSigner;

      Not implemented and most probably won't be. These are
      the JDK 1.1 undocumented (actually sun mentions them
      in an example in the java security architecture paper,
      but explicitely recommends staying away from it) key
      management apis. Sun has deprecated the corresponding
      classes in java.security with java 1.2, and uses
      different key management facilities. Open office
      developers should know better, as they are supposed to
      be using java 1.3, right? ;)

      [lots of other imports of sun.* and sunw.* classes]

      Anyone using sun.* classes doesn't _want_ to be
      portable accross VM releases/implementations. Someone
      (either the open office developers, or the debian
      developers wanting to build open office using free
      software) should clean up the sun.* mess. I wouldn't
      want to implement sun.* classes just to suit someone
      else's bad programming style, and I don't know anyone
      who does ;)

    2. Re:Point of order... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      So get off your rear end and fix it! No one is stopping you from submitting a patch to update to the 1.2 versions. Someone screwed up. It probably happened while StarOffice owned the software and was trying to keep 1.1 compatibility. This stuff happens.

      It's just not cool to make a mountain out of a molehill.

    3. Re:Point of order... by g051051 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The message you quote is from 1 Jul 2002, nearly 3 years ago. Do you have any current indication that com.sun.* classes are still in use?

  76. Just a personal opinion... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    C++/Qt4

    Invalid pointers? Nope

    connect( foo , SIGNAL( sigDoThis() ) , bar , SLOT( slotDoThis() ) );

    Will leave a nice friendly message if they can't be connected. No more null pointer exceptions.

    Buffer overflows? Use QByteArrays instead of raw pointers. Will give you nice friendly "Index out of range" debug message.

    Personally (and I have used Java), I've found it excellent to avoid hard crashes. I feel I have to handle less of those than Java exceptions, really. No JVM (memory hog), no Java GUI (speed hog) and all the power of raw C++ at your fingertips if you want to.

    Of course, OO would do okay. Unless you caught the news, Qt4 will be GPL'd on all platforms (Win,Mac and Linux). But Sun would have to purchase Qt licenses for all the StarOffice employees. See you at the ice-skating party in hell.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  77. Re:Fi8?st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aieee!! My eyes! Don't click!

  78. MOD UP by boomgopher · · Score: 1

    kthxbye

    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
  79. Umm, it's been fixed to compile under GCJ... by delirium28 · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you RTFA, you'll notice a link to Caolán McNamara's blog, which indicates how to get OO.o to build under GCJ. It also points out (as many have mentioned here) that no proprietary Sun classes are really being called here, it's just that the FOSS equivalents aren't quite up to speed yet.

    It seems that people are getting upset at looking at the imports in the code without realizing that THEY ARE NEVER USED!!! Again, I refer you to the blog entry, but for those of you too lazy:

    This gcj request asks for the addition of java.awt.Frame.createBufferStrategy which is all that is missing from gcj to build the java canvas stuff. (Though the canvas module contains a pile of spurious imports of sun.awt which are unnecessary and can be removed, not that there's much point right now, if a createBufferStrategy becomes available then removing the sun.awt from the canvas/java .javas is all that's outstanding)

    Nothing to see here, just move along. More jumping the gun rather than investigating things to completion.

    --
    Who is John Galt?
    1. Re:Umm, it's been fixed to compile under GCJ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you - the most informative post in the whole discussion.

    2. Re:Umm, it's been fixed to compile under GCJ... by delirium28 · · Score: 1

      Now if only someone would just mod it up... ;-)

      --
      Who is John Galt?
  80. Waaaa! Waaaaa! by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Here's your solution, instead of crying about it.

    Take Open Office 1.0 codebase, and Spork! Implement those features that you have to have. Don't jab Sun for implementing new features with one of their flagship products. They still sell StarOffice right?

    --
    "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
  81. Good point. Limits portability by Animats · · Score: 1
    A serious problem with dumping Sun's Java into OpenOffice is that it limits portability. If you want to port OpenOffice to a platform that Sun doesn't support, you have a major problem.

    GCC supports far more CPU and OS targets than Java does. Worse, with proprietary software, targets can be suddenly dropped. Windows NT once supported PowerPC, DEC Alpha, MIPS, and x86. If you bought an Itanium, you're out in the cold now, too.

  82. parent is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes your worst enemy is yourself. Jews are pretty bad, too.

  83. Seems like they are just a bunch of.... by Edward+Teach · · Score: 0, Troll

    WHINERS!

    --

    Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

  84. WTF is the Linus reference about? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2

    It's like saying:

    "The US invaded Iraq today. In other news, Tom Cruise was seen using a porta-potty."

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  85. Besides the fact it tries to emulate a POS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It also tries to emulate a POS word processor. which is so crappy that you have to hit enter enter enter tab tab tab to go to right hand corner of page. WHY???.

    Why are they trying to copy a POS word processor, because that is what people are used to?, that is even worse, give them detox, not the same drug made by another company.

  86. Beggers can't be choosers by kfg · · Score: 1

    You've been given a gift and all you can do is look it in the mouth.

    But if you aren't begging, you retain your ability to choose. The Trojans might well have been advised not only to examine the teeth, but have a very careful look all the way down the throat of their gift horse.

    In fact, that's why we call an entire class of "gift" programs "Trojan Horse."

    KFG

  87. Just Stallman being Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The term "zealot" comes to mind.

  88. BRAVO! by Edward+Teach · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Someone needs to keep moding the parent up, man. Damned open source fanatics need to take a damned Valium.

    --

    Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

    1. Re:BRAVO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone DID, stupid.

  89. GCJ Anyone? by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Informative

    GCJ can already compile and run Eclipse, which is one of the most complex Java apps out there. I doubt compiling OPenOffice 2.0's Java code into .so format would be a huge hurdle.

    1. Re:GCJ Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Hahahahahahaha.....

      Have you tried to run Eclipse with GCJ? Talking out your ass like that must make it difficult to sit properly.

    2. Re:GCJ Anyone? by greenrd · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm using OpenOffice 2.0-beta on Fedora Core 4 test 2 here with no problems. The Java code uses GCJ.

  90. Sounds like you have a new... by Edward+Teach · · Score: 1

    project to tackle then. Break open the OpenOffice.org source code and fix it if you don't like it.

    --

    Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

  91. Non-Free = Less Portable by accidentalGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you think that the Java license is not a problem, try running Java apps on a non-Intel Linux platform such as linux/ppc. Sun does not make a JRE for linux/ppc so the choices come down to IBM Java (which is also non-free, crashes frequently and does not support the 1.5 spec), Blackdown (which is non-free and seems to be stalled at 1.3), and the free JREs such as Jikes which will always be behind the curve as RMS points out.

    These problems are not incidental. They're a necessary consequence of the non-free license. Fewer developers are allowed to work with the code. This lack of resources directly translates to less portability. It also lengthens the bug fix cycle, slows the adoption of new features, and places supreme power in the hands of the copyright holder. If you require big changes to a free software product, you have the power to make those changes or hire someone else to make them for you. If you require big changes to a non-free product, you're at the mercy of the copyright holder.

    In the case of Java, the source is not as open as Sun would like you to believe. Parts of it are open. Other parts are locked away in binary files. You need an existing Sun bytecode compiler (on a platform supported by Sun) to build Java from source. This necessarily precludes porting it to other platforms without assistance from Sun. This is why the folks at blackdown needed to sign special agreements with Sun before they were granted access.

    I love Java. It's quickly becoming my favorite programming language, but I also have to agree with RMS that the license is problematic. Great language. Dangerous platform.

  92. Wait a sec ... by krygny · · Score: 1

    If/when GNU Java and/or Classpath allow me to run the Java features of OO.o, is that OK with the FSF?

    Now, say I prefer to use Sun's JVM. Am I FREE to do that?

    My point is, ... is my use a proprietary implementation only in keeping with the philosophy of the FSF if there is an free/libre alternative that I simply choose not to use?

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
  93. Re:Si vous pardon mon Français by gatkinso · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Shutup and surrender... oh wait: you already did.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  94. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by GrassMunk · · Score: 1

    Look its easy. Anytime anyone bitches about a linux project such as ' it doesnt do A' 'or B is shitty, i wish it did X and Y' the response is usually 'dont like it? Then why dont you code it'. This is EXACTLY what most OSS people say. Now they should eat their words. Its not that its written in java, its that it references undocumented Java functions. I say RMS should shut it and Fork the project if he's not happy.

  95. Re:Si vous pardon mon Français by Red+Alastor · · Score: 1

    Stuff translated with babelfish might be funny on Slashdot but don't use it in any serious project. This post is even more hilarious if you actually speak french.

    P.S.: Why is that modded insightful instead of funny ? It's barely understandable with that translation.

    --
    Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
  96. Militant Bullshit by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you don't like OO, don't use it. As many have pointed out here, Sun basically bought it, and then gave it away for free. Apparently, that's not good enough for the revolutionary crowd here. It's a wonder any of these companies will work with us at all. With friends like these...

    I got into Linux because I wanted Unix at home. Not to rape and pillage the unbelievers. If we're getting to a point where I have to live by the Purer Faith, so to speak, just to use software, I'll head to BSD land. Because while I think the open source method is very, very cool, and will revolutionize software (in truth, it already has), I'm getting tired of the militants lecturing me about what I choose to put on my computer. I didn't sign up for that.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Militant Bullshit by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
      Not to rape and pillage the unbelievers.

      Not even a little bit?

    2. Re:Militant Bullshit by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Welcome! Welcome to a new level of maturity. Soon you will be able to roll your eyes and remain silent when the zealots go off on a rant about your personal sins.

      The primary purpose of computing in any form should be to get computing tasks done. Zealotry of any sort damages that.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  97. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by lubricated · · Score: 1

    yeah, but kword sucks.
    Abiword and gnumeric are cool. Most of koffice is cool. KDE could merge to gtkmm and then we could all have one happy desktop.

    --
    It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
  98. Stallman's Inconsistent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stallman's viewpoint makes absolutely no sense to me; he's being inconsistent.

    On one hand, he's arguing that you shouldn't write Java programs because while your code may be Free, Sun's platform is not. On the other, he wants you to use GNU/Linux despite the fact that it depends on a (usually) non-Free BIOS.

    Can someone please explain how these two situations are different?

    1. Re:Stallman's Inconsistent by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are free bios's (linuxbios for instance) that can boot linux, linux can also boot on systems with other firmware such as sun openfirmware or digital srm..
      On the other hand, linux requires HARDWARE to run on, which is also non-free.
      The bios is FIRMWARE.. perhaps it has some justification for being non-free seeing as it's integrated into the hardware which will always be non-free. The hardware business is not a scam like the software business, there is ALWAYS a cost for producing hardware, raw materials etc, and hardware usually becomes cheaper once the initial development costs are covered, unlike software.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Stallman's Inconsistent by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can someone please explain how these two situations are different?

      Before there was a demi-god called Stallman, there was the BIOS. Even Stallman had to bow down to a higher authority.

      After the BIOS, came a demi-god called Sun, who spoke in the language called Java. But Stallman was jealous of all the attention that Sun got for making Java.

      Since Stallman was the creator of GNU/Linux, and didn't drink deeply of Java, he's been pissing on Sun's parade ever since then.

    3. Re:Stallman's Inconsistent by some_random_person · · Score: 1

      Actually he doesn't seem to like the idea of a non-fre BIOS. fsf article

      Linux BIOS Project (unfortunately can't find a link to the linux bios project itself, the site linuxbios.org had a blank page up)

      Intel Open BIOS site doesn't seem to want to resolve either.

    4. Re:Stallman's Inconsistent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Stallman's Inconsistent by ignorant_coward · · Score: 1

      Since Stallman was the creator of GNU/Linux, and didn't drink deeply of Java, he's been pissing on Sun's parade ever since then.

      It seems several FOSS icons do this. Sun could give them the goose that lays all the OSS code in the world, and they would still bitch about Sun. It's amazing, really.

  99. Don't like it? by codergeek42 · · Score: 0

    ..Then don't use it! Is it really that hard? Besides, now with the release of GCC4 and it's much improved GCJ/Classpath support, people at RedHat (such as Caolan McNamara) are trying to get OO.o to work nicely with GCJ

  100. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already did this, it was called emacs.

  101. I don't get it... by Devil · · Score: 1

    I don't understand. Is an entire office suite made available free of charge not enough? I can also understand some people's hatred of Java (I'm not wild about it, either...Java was slow in 1996, but why is it still slow today?), but isn't the source code for Java available online, too? Does OOo rely on some sort of Java class that isn't publicly available or that is completely closed-source?

    In short, can't companies be allowed to take little steps towards total openness? As long as OOo is still free, and I am still free to view and modify the source code, why should I worry about this?

  102. Two months ago called by DeepCerulean · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    it wants its article back

  103. Pardon me, but.... by ZosX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does slashdot insist on posting such obvious trolls? This whole article and slashdot story should be modded -99 TROLL! The submitter obviously was hoping to start a flame war with the OSS free-software *coughstallmancough* zealots and the people who know better currently have the highest modded posts on this forum. There is no Java trap. As long as Java's source lays out in the open people will implement their own JVMs and compilers and the world will move on. If Sun goes down the drain then well, I guess by gosh those OSS zealots that are whining need to get their act together to implement all of those open sourced "hidden features."

    With the world all going to hell, you'd think that people could find better things to argue about. Java is obviously a well used toolbox in the open source and to say that it will have negative consequences is truly sad. Why do people use Java even though people bitch and moan about how slow and slow it is and how it lacks certain primitives (and it does), it is because it just works on nearly any operating system. When you only want to devote the time to develop for one platform, but at the same time allow just about anyone with a computer to run your code, what are you going to use?

    Azureus, Slimserver's MP3 player, a bunch of emulators, and a whole slew of other projects that can be found on Sourceforge, amongst other places, were all built on Java.

    Who knows, Java may live up to its promises as a platform for embedded devices one day. Given how many Universities teach Java right from the start and how many teachers are right now telling people that Java is likely to be the next big language, I wouldn't exactly say that Java is going anywhere anytime soon. Microsoft is now wishing they had come up with a similar idea and .Net has a long ways to catch up. Can't we find better things to argue over? That Java is even open sourced says multitudes about the effect of Free Software.

    Next troll/story please!

    1. Re:Pardon me, but.... by synthespian · · Score: 1

      the people who know better currently have the highest modded posts on this forum

      Yeah, it called bias, and demonstrates the statistical phenomenom that happens when /. is flooded with Java fanboys ready to defend Sun and attack Free Software philosophy.

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
  104. you're welcome by cahiha · · Score: 1

    Java is a free language just like Adobe's PDF product is.

    According to Sun, Java is not a "free" language--you can't just implement it any way you like, they control it.

    The only non free issue surrounding Java is SUN's implementation...

    In roughly the same sense that "the only non free issue surrounding Windows is Microsoft's implementation".

    If you don't mind Sun owning Java, why don't you just become an all Microsoft shop? Their technology these days is at least as good as Sun's, and you end up having fewer hassles.

  105. Sun Java code is slooooow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sun's Java code is excruciatingly slow so its a good idea to move to something better that's faster and doesn't come with potential IP problems.

  106. Problem the First by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 0, Troll

    Java does not run on all platforms. It can't run on platforms that Sun does not approve, with appropriate licensing fees. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to have Java on my home computer, because Sun is being dicks about it.

    We're not asking Sun to do the porting, or anything, we're just asking them to let us distribute the JVM binaries. Or at least bootstrap it w/o having Java already installed.

    1. Re:Problem the First by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 1

      how is this a troll? Java does not exist for OpenBSD/macppc. It does not because Sun will not grant redistribution.

  107. Re:Java = write once, run everywhere = good for OO by RangerElf · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...or needing some cygwin-esque environment to run Python or something else.

    What cygwin-esque environment is needed to run python apps? Links and resources, please...

    Normally, I just install python's win32 installer, and run my apps. If I need some third-party extension, I just install it, and go. No need for any cygwin-esque environment.

    -gus

  108. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Jason+Earl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Which is precisely what the Free Software Foundation is doing. The FSF people are hoping that the folks at Sun will want to prevent a fork bad enough that they will work at little harder at making OO.org work with gcj. If Sun doesn't play ball then the FSF will fork OO.org and their gcj version will undoubtedly become the version that gets shipped with at least the Debian and Red Hat (and Fedora) distributions (and very probably others as well). And don't think these organizations are bluffing either. Gnome got its start in almost exactly the same way. The FSF, Red Hat, and Debian didn't like the licensing for KDE and so they did something about it.

    The real question is whether or not Sun wants a large chunk of its current OO.org's user base to use someone else's fork of OO.org because that's what is currently shaping up to happen. If Sun's execs think that these organizations (especially the FSF) are likely to be "reasonable" about the use of non-free software then they are clearly delusional. Sun has been dealing with GNU software and the FSF forever, and they have never seen them back down once.

    The worst part is that Sun really needs the Free Software faction of the Open Source community. After all, it really does take a zealot to propose replacing MS Office with some other piece of software. The pragmatists in the crowd are more than happy to wait and see if MS Office can really be replaced. The people that are currently considering replacing MS Office with OO.org are doing so because they believe in Free Software. Without enough zealots to take that first step OO.org is never going to have serious market penetration.

  109. Huh? Isnt this all mitigated by Apache's Java by doormat · · Score: 1

    Once Apache finishes and gets their clean room java runtime engine up and going, I could give two shits less what happens to Sun. They can go under for all I care. Once there is an open source JRE out there, using java wont matter one bit from a I-hate-proprietary-stuff standpoint. In fact, I'd expect to see java usage go up if there is an open source JRE.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    1. Re:Huh? Isnt this all mitigated by Apache's Java by lee1026 · · Score: 1

      My beef is that Java is slower then C/C++, at least that is what I noticed. and open office is currently too slow for me. maybe switching to another language will help?

  110. Freedom? by Decameron81 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "OpenOffice 2.0 Faces Opposition over Its Use of Java."


    As long as whoever is complaining takes the necessary steps to provide a different solution I guess they have a right to speak up their minds. Of course they should understand that the Open Office developers are still FREE to do as they wish.
    --
    diegoT
  111. Don't you guys get it? Fight MS not Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft will always be in the lead if this is how people are going to attack them. Sun is throwing a lot of resources into a alternative to office that is "FREE" to the user. This is an improvement over the lock-in of today's office options which include Microsoft Office, and well, the next version of Office. Welcome to the real world, companies exist because it is the most efficient way to do things. When you are attempting to compete with a software package that makes a company BILLIONS of dollars a year, you can't do it with a bunch of guys writing it at home on the weekends. Sun is a company large enough to make this work and you all whine and complain about how it's not free enough. I know this is slashdot and most people here have such a jaded view of how the actual world works but please stop arguing with yourselves about bitkeeper, java, php, python and all this other stuff and just do things the way you think is best. You think java sucks for an office suite? Go write one in your language of choice but complaining because Sun hasn't made java into the perfect language does no good.

  112. Parts? What parts? by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    I think part of the issue here is to know precisely what parts of OOo use Java and go from there. Are they necessary to the functioning of OOo or just frilly extras?

    In all the posts here, I haven't read anything about how this affects the Mac version or vice-versa. Since OOo is not directly supported on the Mac, NeoOffice has stepped up... With increased use of Java again!

    There was a large chunk of code donated to OOo from the NeoOffice/J project. Anyone want to take bets on how much of it was Java-based?

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  113. What has Torvalds to do with OO? by b4rtm4n · · Score: 1

    What have OO using Java and Linus' change from bitkeeper got in common?

    NOTHING AT ALL!

    Why add the rider editor? The article was valid enough without stirring things.

    The FP was accurate - it's free so why no use it??

    A poll on who uses which version of Java is required!!

    --
    "goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?" - AC
  114. Mostly open is better than mostly closed by objectwizard42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Framing java as "not open sourced" misses some significant shades of gray in the software development community. The useful tools for java development have been constructed by a community, and are available for download from sourceforge, apache, sun and other 'vendors'/bazaars.

    The useful tools for competing languages are highly proprietary, and the availability of mature, useful communities and code for extending those languages is far more limited than with java.

    Criticizing OpenOffice for being built with Java, which isn't "open", is kind of silly, in this broader context. It amounts to cutting off our nose to spite our face.

    --
    objectWizard42
  115. There is no controversy by tromey · · Score: 2, Informative
    The press always likes to talk about controversies and conflicts, but in this case there really isn't one.

    OO.o helped out getting rid of non-portable java constructs in their code.

    Red Hat hackers and other fixed some gcj and classpath bugs revealed by OO.o.

    Now it all works.

  116. Linus moved because he had to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he could have kept on using BitKeeper, he would have.

  117. So, DON'T FEED THE TROLLS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Stallman is also a maniac who refused to give a speech on his views to the SIGLinux (LUG at the University of Texas) because we were using the name "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux."


    He has enough people supporting that attitude that he cannot be considered a maniac. You are not a maniac as long as a large enough group of people share your point of view. Try asking a question about Linux in a Debian forum. No one will answer before you "correct" your question by appending a "GNU/" before Linux. Sheesh, if only RMS were the only maniac...

    1. Re:So, DON'T FEED THE TROLLS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He has enough people supporting that attitude that he cannot be considered a maniac. You are not a maniac as long as a large enough group of people share your point of view."

      Right, look at Hitler.

  118. Sun NO LONGER controls Java by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you and many others fail to understand is that Java the trademark might be owned by Sun, but Java the language LONG AGO went into the hands of the community - namly the Java Community Process. Java is really controlled by a LOT of companies now including IBM. Do you think IBM is really going to care if Sun withdraws into a shell? They would move forward with Java regardless, and they have a whole VM to back up such an action.

    Java already has a community. It's up to Sun to try and mesh the two communities but if you just pretend Java = Sun then you will never understand the results of anything that happens, as the reality is far more complex.

    Personally I'd like to see the focus be on catching up GCJ with the standards, and having a first-class Open Source Free VM. Then this whole debate is moot.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Sun NO LONGER controls Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sun still has a disproportionate amount of control over the JCP. Sun also controls the J2SE TCK and trademark, so if they don't like you they can drag their feet about licensing it to you.

    2. Re:Sun NO LONGER controls Java by jbolden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      AFAIKT the JCP is legally a fully non profit subsidiary of Sun. The money collected goes to Sun. Sun's Process Management Office selects the experts and the specification lead for the Expert Group. That means your comment is essentially like saying, "General Moters doesn't control the engine specification Buick does". This may be true but ultimately Buick doesn't exist in any legal sense.

      Regardless of this however , of the 14 Expert Groups that have been formed, eight are led by Sun employees. Which means Sun controls Java in practice. Now of course the same can be send for Open Office (which is basically a Sun product) so I'm not sure what to say about the original complaint.

  119. Too late... Java is way too popular now by debiansid · · Score: 1

    There's tons of GPL'd projects that are completely coded in Java. If Sun at all does an about face in future it will change the way the industry functions in many ways, because of the extremely widespread use of the language.

    It is pointless delving so deeply into the minute details of the licensing of Java as it is much too deep rooted into the IT industry and the open source community for Sun to take any such step without facing major opposition and not to mention, a huge dent on its goodwill. Remember, its not Microsoft that it could simply *buy* support for itself.

  120. More than that, by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    I can no longer use Kprint.
    I've lost a MASSIVE amount of features, options and control over my printers.

    I just (2 days ago) installed Suse 9.3 and it comes standard with OO.o 2.0
    I am NOT pleased with this at all. I had the same problem with Suse 9.2.

    I ended up removing the default OO program and installing 1.1.1
    I then had FULL control over all the features and options of my printers and was happy. Not to mention, it was free and clear of all the current complaints.

    I don't need all the bling-bling crap the 2.0 comes with anyway not to mention, I don't like Java..

    So do what I did (am about to do again) and install an older version and STFU....
    Newer is not always better........

  121. Real focus should be improving GCJ by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If GCJ could be improved to the point that it supports the newer Java specs well, and OO can use it as a base - then this whole issue goes away.

    So you can try to convince a company to change policy, a group of developers to take a whole different approach to the project that would delay things by a year, or simply FIX THE PROBLEM. It used to be that people actually wanted to fix problems instead of bitching for the sake of it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  122. As SpongeBob might say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, good luck with that philosophy thing. The rest of us will write code.

  123. I just want to say thank you. by SomethingGeneric · · Score: 1

    Thank you to the developers of OO for creating a good alternative to MS Office. Thank you for your hard work and dedication. I will use OO 2 because it works well and is compatible with MS Office formats. Oh, wait. It requires a free JVM available for 99.9% of the OSs available. Guess what, that is OK with me. If you don't like it, change it! Isn't that what free software is all about. Show us, oh holy coders, how you can make it better without using Java. If you don't like it and can't make it better, buy Windows and MS Office. Maybe that will make you feel better.

  124. Redhat had OO.org 2.0 RUNNING using gcj... by grantma · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just pointing this out. Sun OO.org have been quite helpful on this accepting patches to make sure this can be done.

    Article is not well researched, and sounds like scaremongering.

  125. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! (So What) by thelen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The JVM is a specification that may be implemented on different platforms as people are so inclined.

    "Opening Java" will do nothing to address the problem of missing JVMs directly because the fundamental issue is one of demand. If you really need a JVM for your favorite toy OS, then start a project to build one.

  126. If the license weren't so strict, Java'd be dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the license Java is under weren't strict, Microsoft would have been free to embrace, extend, and finally extinguish it.

    Heck, they tried anyway.

    And the GPL is, in it's own way, just as strict. And once again, it's that strictness that keeps Microsoft from killing Linux.

    When there's a rapacious madman in the neighborhood, everyone has to lock their doors.

  127. quest by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

    all great human endeavours begin with a quest.

    "Is there anyone you people won't make an enemy of in your Quixotic quests of stupidity?"

    If Stallman had not, long ago, began his lone quest for software freedom, and had not invited others to do the same, you wouldn't have yours most precious Hybernate, Tomcat, Eclipse and others.

    no, you'd most likely be paying to M$ for VB even to this day.

    "You've been given a gift and all you can do is look it in the mouth."

    It's not a gift. Just like M$ distributing their software for free in educational centers is not a gift.

    --
    I don't feel like it...
  128. Motive by CarrionBird · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What is Stallman's motive? Despite much FUD (that FSF comes in peace), he has made it quite clear. In the recent bitkeeper blowout he pointed out his view that making and using closed software was "immoral". (his word) What's the logical means to an end where there was no closed source software being sold? Non pure-play FOSS software companies have to be put out business or converted.

    So anyone who does not go 100% his way has to be undermined, even if thier motives are not hostile. So sun decides that being nicer with thier code will be profitable in the long run. What do they get? The RMS torch and pitchfork gang telling them what functions they can use or else!

    Ok, so the idea that people should be free to deal with software in the manner in which they choose is a cool idea. What about the idea that someone should be free to deal with the product of thier labor (be it, widgets or prose or code) in the way that they choose? In the RMS "all or nothing model" the two are incompatible, anything I create belongs to the world and not to me. My mind must be the source of free labor, to keep any ideas to myself would violate what RMS claims as his rights.

    Who gets to decide how I distribute what I work to create, me or Stallman? The two claimed "rights" are in conflict.

    It seems a lot of progress has been made in getting commericial interests to consider and sometimes even participate in open source. But it doesn't help when supposed leaders of the community insist on ralling behind a worldview that is incompatible with commercial software existing at all.

    --
    Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    1. Re:Motive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a bit paranoid?

      RMS is a visionary and an idealist. You do not have to agree with his ideas. But listen to them. Learn from them. In order to exist as a community or subculture, you need free thinkers. People who sprout ideas. There's nothing wrong with this.

      Remember that there are no "leaders of the community". There are individuals who have ideas, which may guide and influence others. And there is the community who as a whole is moving in some direction. Anyone who blames "leaders" for something is not getting it at all...

    2. Re:Motive by jbolden · · Score: 1

      What about the idea that someone should be free to deal with the product of thier labor (be it, widgets or prose or code) in the way that they choose?

      What constitutes the "product of your labor" is a matter of social definition. Its not at all inconsistent to argue that these definitions are incorrect. Sure and what Stallman is arguing is that the product of his and people who share his ideal's labor (the GNU/Linux platform) should start to perhaps reconsider moving towards seeing OpenOffice as their standard Office suite.

      Using your analogy what's wrong with that?

    3. Re:Motive by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      That's just it. Stallman wants EVERYTHING to be "free" no matter WHO wrote it or what THEY want to do with it.

      I've ranted on this topic (and the toad himself) often enough. I'll stop there.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    4. Re:Motive by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      The problem comes in where Stallman asserts that those who do not share his view are morally wrong for not doing so.

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    5. Re:Motive by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      Really, he's not a leader? Someone tell the FSF. And slashdot.

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
  129. Re:Jesus people, get a grip - call to arms by danskal · · Score: 1

    No my friend, it is you who needs to get a grip.

    Why is it that Nerds have no vision... they are happy to just wallow in their own nerdiness and build solutions that no real people can use/want to use because only nerds can join the club. And don't tell me that Gates is a nerd too - because he isn't - he doesn't give a crap about technology, he only cares about big business.

    And the only thing that matters at the moment is getting a real alternative to Microsoft products, because Microsoft is like a huge, doubly bloated, beached whale, rolling around and crushing the software market, squeezing the life out of all other products around it.

    The only way out of this situation is to become credible competition to Microsoft, and you can't do that with a "no can do" attitude.

    No one in the real world cares whether Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu or Oogabooga ship with or without Java, all they need to know is where to download their software from, or where they can get it on a CD. ("And by the way will it work the same as Word?")

    Just today I tried to get a friend to use OpenOffice instead of Word, but they needed a swedish thesaurus and spell checker, which I couldn't rustle up. There is still work to be done, guys..... it's fantastic that you are doing it....

    now get out there and do it....

  130. Unhappy??! by memborg81 · · Score: 1

    If you are unhappy with OO.o then don't use it. There are other opportunities out there. But it seems to me, that all this is about hypocrisy. STOP IT.

    --
    /memborg Insert lame qoute here: []
  131. Then get a life Mr. Critic by arose · · Score: 1

    Open Office beeing dependant on the Sun JVM is like a car that only runs on rails.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    1. Re:Then get a life Mr. Critic by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Open Office beeing dependant on the Sun JVM is like a car that only runs on rails.

      Good thing we don't depend on you for the speelczecher in Open Office. We might bee hurt.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Then get a life Mr. Critic by arose · · Score: 1

      Zo bed spallign hoords U? i, huv mach dus its tacke 2 quill U?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  132. Somewhere in the Sun Vault... by itomato · · Score: 1

    Someplace deep within Sun, probably under Jonathan Schwartz' desk, lies the code for:

    AirMail
    Concurrence
    Diagram
    EquationBuilder
    OpenWrite (MAJOR)
    ParaSheet (MAJOR)
    Quantrix (MAJOR)
    TaskMaster
    VarioBuilder
    VarioData
    WetP aint

    exists. All Obj C, mostly better than Microsoft's offerings of the same era. Definately better (IMO) than StarOffice (by any name) (Google for screenshots if you doubt that)

    No apparent hope of resurrecting it, though. The "Dude" at Lighthouse is now "The Dude" at Sun.

    Aside from that, I wouldn't say ObjC is/is not a way to go on its own, but you'd have to start looking beyond Obj C alone, to GNUSTEP/Cocoa. Would anyone want to do that? Probably, just not now.

    OO.o is there, KOffice is there, MS Office is there, iWork is there.. Plus a plethora of single-purpose apps to fill in the gaps or satisfy the peculiar taste.

    Access? Who needs that in a world of PHP/MySQL and increasing simplicity in mounting the task?

    Excel? Beyond cells and '=sum(A3+B17)' what more do you need 99% of the time?

    What would be the show stopper is if all these interfaces supported the same XML-formated, tied together (a'la OpenDoc/meta info), backend data. Then the program is just your chosen means to a sharable end.

  133. classpath by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 4, Informative

    Indeed, the problem is big. Some BSDs don't have java, linux ppc users either. Right now Java's "portability" is a joke with Sun's VM, even if it was free as in speech.

    That's why GNU classpath & GCJ is important. It will provide us with a free (as in speech & beer) java VM for those who doesn't want to use Sun's VM (linux users, basically). Redhat is putting lots programmers & money behind of GCJ and collaborating with tons of community-based projects - they really want a free java. In fact, Redhat has some people hacking on GCJ to support openoffice's java features.

    Actually, GCJ 4 is one of the GCC 4.0 greatest features, here is an article about why it's so great. They've achieved almost all Java 1.4 important features and there's work ongoing to support 1.5.

    And GCJ does support, in fact, MORE architectures and operative systems than Sun's propietary offerings - yes, more. It's what will make java truly palataform-independent. GCJ is part of GCC, so it supports the platforms that gcc supports - much more than Sun's VM or other propietary VMs

  134. What is that supposed to mean? by boomka · · Score: 1

    Java itself is just a language, like English, and it isn't a problem itself.

    What you probably mean is that Sun's virtual machine for running Java is not free, but that still isn't automatically a problem of any program written in Java, it's only problem of Sun's JDK.

    It has been mentioned already that OO compiles fine in GCJ which _is_ free software, so there is certainly no problem here.

    --
    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
    H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"
    1. Re:What is that supposed to mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It has been mentioned already that OO compiles fine in GCJ which _is_ free software, so there is certainly no problem here."

      Well if it does allready (and it didn't initially), it does so because of the efforts of mainly RedHat, which I specifically mentioned in my post as something positive comming out of this mess.

      So what exactly was your point again?

  135. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure Sun is shaking in their boots over the idea of the FSF making their own Java. If RMS and company are such programming Gods why didn't they just write a better office suite instead of whining about OpenOffice?

    If the FSF actually does what you suggest the most likely outcome is a gain in market share for C# at Java's expense and a fragmentation in OpenOffice that will slow its adoption.

    The FSF may actually have more to lose than Sun.

  136. Why I'm glad, Sun's license is restrictive by mi · · Score: 1

    Without it, OOo would've started shipping its own version of Java -- just as they ship just about everything else -- dmake, expat, BerkeleyDB, you name it...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  137. GCJ!! by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 4, Informative

    GCJ can compile java code for the platforms supported by GCC - way more than Sun's offerings or other propietary VMs.
    Red Hat is paying people to support OOo 2.0 with GCJ. And GCJ 4.0 is already quite good...

  138. Linus Trollvalds by Seoulstriker · · Score: 1

    Also, who is Linus Trolvalds?

    He's the guy who always asks if the toaster can run Linux, or screams that SCO is eating children. He is the Trollvalds. :-)

    --
    I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
  139. Re:Java = write once, run everywhere = good for OO by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1
    What better language should they pick?

    I just installed KDevelop and was reading through their online documentation. Points of interest relevant to your query:
    • Most KDE applications do not provide their own scripting facilities, which leads many to believe that KDE is not easily scriptable. However, every KDE application is scriptable due to the pervasive use of the DCOP techonology.
    • Whilst KDE and most KDE applications are implemented using the C++ programming language, that doesn't mean you don't have a choice. A number of bindings to other languages are available, these include scripting languages like Perl, Python and Ruby, and systems programming languages like Java and C#. The level of functionality provided by the bindings vary, from those that only allow you to access a small subset of KDE to bindings that almost rival C++ native code in scope.
    • In (apparent) order of level of functionality:
      • Python: PyQt/PyKDE provide powerful python bindings to the Qt and KDE libraries.
      • Ruby: bindings for Qt and kdelibs.
      • Perl: object-oriented bindings for Qt-3. Qt-2 and KDE-2 bindings can be found on CPAN.
      • Java Information about KDE support for Java applets, the QtAWT project, the Java Qt/kdelibs bindings and other ongoing KDE-Java development efforts.
      • JavaScript (ECMAScript)
      • KDE interaction tools: There are a few utilities provided as part of the KDE distribution that allow scripts etc. to access some of the functionality of KDE.
      • C#: Qt# binds the Qt toolkit with Mono, an open source implementation of the .NET Development Framework.
      • Smoke: interface library designed to ease the development of new language bindings.


    Especially interesting is Kommander: "..a simplified and modified version of Qt Designer which lets you add scripting abilities to the dialogues it makes. It saves the result as a designer UI file which can be run with Kommander Executer. It is the easiest way to make simple programmes, I like to think of it as graphical shell scripting."
  140. When did OOo become a GNU-fascist showpiece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rather than a non-MS Office suite for people who know nothing (and care less) about RMS's free software mania?

    If everything that used Java switched today, all the GNU Java projects (GCJ, ClassPath) would be gone tomorrow (what use would they be?) IF the free software guys had an adequate Java alternative, I'd say use it; until they do, OOo's priority should be making the best product they can. How many of the GNU SS even want an office suite for their own use?

    Torvalds switched to a (less desirable) free program because the free software guys were trying to reverse engineer the commercial product that they were being allowed to use for free. Some thanks BitKeeper gets: their company faces destruction because they aren't "free" enough to suit those clowns (who I suspect were violating the software license.)

    I like the idea of free software, I really do, my problem is with its advocates. If MS had been behind eugenics, we'd all be happy supermen by now; if RMS had been behind electricity, we'd all be cranking our own little generators to watch TV. If I could support myself with donations and speaking engagements... nah, I have too much integrity for that.

    1. Re:When did OOo become a GNU-fascist showpiece by Epsillon · · Score: 1

      If MS had been behind eugenics, we'd all be happy supermen by now

      Aye. Picking up girls would be a bit of a bore though. It goes something like this:

      "Can I get you a fatal exception error has occured. Please remain at the bar whilst this man-unit dumps core right in front of you, leaves, reboots to yesterday and returns to try again."

      --
      Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
  141. Re:Java = write once, run everywhere = good for OO by arose · · Score: 1

    Point and click installers are bad. Good package managers do not ask redundant questions.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  142. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    If the FSF actually does what you suggest the most likely outcome is a gain in market share for C# at Java's expense and a fragmentation in OpenOffice that will slow its adoption.

    The FSF may actually have more to lose than Sun.


    Uh, how is any of this a loss for the FSF? If OO gets forked they'll be happy, and if the fork delays things they'll be able to say "I told you so." If C# kills Java they will probably care less - neither is free software.

    The FSF doesn't exist to oppose Microsoft. They exist to promote free software, and oppose all proprietary solutions. Which isn't to say they oppose all commercial solutions - just proprietary commercial solutions.

    Now, if all of this slows down the adoption of Gnome, KDE, Linux, GNU OS, or whatever else, then that might be a partial loss for the FSF. However, the FSF does not promote Java, and their interest in OO is to steer it away from Java.

  143. Uh Oh! It uses windows API too! by BigBossNerd · · Score: 0

    Better hassle them for making it work on Windows too, because that isn't open source either. I'm sick of all this open source nonsense. Most people don't fix OSS bugs anyway, or even read the code, they just send in a request and wait for the next version. Java is open enough for me. I'm not going to fix the JVM myself anyway. Besides, all the Java API source code has always been available, since JDK 1. Sun has always been happy to receive code fixes to incorporate into the next release.

  144. py2exe by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 1
    First, you don't need any cygwin stuff to run python. The normal version is a native win32 executable.

    Secondly, you can use py2exe to generate a win32 executable out of your python code, including all required packages. It's all self-contained. The end user will have no idea that it's python code.

  145. KOffice is great and all, but... by gotr00t · · Score: 1

    Does it run under Windows? I don't really use Windows myself, but considering how a majority of the desktop users do, KOffice won't get widely adopted if it depends on the presence of KDE libs, QT, and X, all of which are very *NIX-esque.

    1. Re:KOffice is great and all, but... by m50d · · Score: 1

      Not natively, yet. It will with Qt 4 (which will have native windows support in the free version). In the meantime there are packaged versions with cygwin, which are easy to install and work fine. I appreciate that's not ideal though.

      --
      I am trolling
  146. JAVA is a good high level language by lord_rob+the+only+on · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As it's been already stated in those comments, gcj can run openoffice almost completely. Now, the Apache foundation started a free (as in speech) implementation of j2se 1.5, so sooner or later, I'm sure the integration of JAVA won't be a problem anymore, and people will stop whining Java is not free (I'm one of those whiners, becoming more and more confident).

  147. Stallman - what a nut job by d_jedi · · Score: 3, Informative

    See: The Java Trap, by Richard Stallman

    Sun's implementation of Java is non-free. Blackdown is also non-free; it is an adaptation of Sun's proprietary code. The standard Java libraries are non-free also. We do have free implementations of Java, such as the GNU Java Compiler and GNU Classpath, but they don't support all the features yet. We are still catching up.
    So the "free" version of Java is incomplete.

    The reliable way to avoid the Java Trap is to have only a free implementation of Java on your system. Then if you use a Java feature or library that free software does not yet support, you will find out straightaway, and you can rewrite that code immediately.
    And he wants developers to write Java targetting this crippled "free" version instead of the official Sun compiler.

    Here's an idea FIX THE DAMN "FREE" COMPILER. There's nothing wrong with the Java code people are writing - it's the incomplete "free" compiler that's the problem.

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
    1. Re:Stallman - what a nut job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Start coding, buddy. Talk to the relevent FSF people on how you can improve the free Java compiler so that it fully supports Java.

      If you don't want to do that, make a contribution to the FSF so that they can hire more programmers to address this issue.

      There are a lot of ways you can make a positive difference.

    2. Re:Stallman - what a nut job by d_jedi · · Score: 1

      Nah, the sun compiler works perfectly fine for me.. I'm not some "free software" zealot like Stallman..

      if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
  148. Why? by mark-t · · Score: 1
    I mean, if someone writes some open-source software _in_ Java... and it happens to depend on functionality that GJC and GNU Classpath do not yet support, would they be criticized for their efforts as well?

    These so-called "open source advocates" need to get off their friggen high horses... if they are so upset about OpenOffice, I'm sure Microsoft would love to have them as customers using MS's Office suite.

  149. So it uses Java, so what? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    At least it isn't Microsoft Office. I don't see many other F/OSS projects trying to compete with Microsoft Office.

    To the typical user that installs it in Windows, they won't notice the dependance on Java. To those more technically savvy, they will notice the Java dependency.

    Besides being Java based makes it easier to port to different platforms.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  150. Java is fastest language of its kind by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 3, Informative
    I'd use Python. Java is slow too, slower in practice since it makes much less use of native code.

    What's scary is that you are freakin' serious. First off, there's nothing similar to Java that runs faster at raw performance numbers (method calls/second, numerical speed, GC). Python is much slower in that respect. Even the leading Smalltalk implementations are 1/4 the performance of Java at object-oriented benchmarks like method call overhead. Smalltalks are similar to Python in being dynamic object-oriented languages, but have had a LOT more optimization work done. Microsoft does everything they can to prevent non-funded C# benchmarks from being released, but even their C# is significantly slower performance-wise in running "managed code" (mono is a non-contender).

    You're right that Python can be faster, mostly at scripting, because of using native code in more direct ways, but for something like OO.o where there is a LOT of code and quite a bit of math (laying out all that data, updating spreadsheets) realistically a pure-python implementation would probably be around 1/20th the speed of a Java one. FYI, Python runs significantly faster than Jython/JPython because the Java virtual machine is not designed for dynamic ("message passing") form of OO... but running the quivalent code in Java and Python, and Java will be the clear winner.

    And oh yeah you think Mono is faster because the Language shootout says so? Or Java is slow? Take for example the word-counting benchmark for C, C#, and Java. Notice that the Java version uses the system locale's definition of whitespace where as the C# version hard-codes checks against space, \n, and \t? Or that the C version uses freaking table of sums to avoid branching? Under the hood Java is doing three method calls, an &, and a compare is almost as fast as Mono doing just 3 simple integer comparisons. Not that the language shootout is even fair... for instance it should compare throughput by increasing the number of iterations until it takes more than a certain time (so if C is 5x faster on a benchmark it does 5x more iterations). When even this minor scripting is too difficult to do it doesn't inspire much confidence in the results. Without this change they have lots of granularity errors and measuring of startup time on the fast end.

    So yeah mod me down because this is a rant... but I'm just tired of the ignorant repeating over and over that Java is slow, when it's really the fastest of its kind.
    1. Re:Java is fastest language of its kind by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone was suggesting rewriting OOo in Python. Or Java for that matter. It's just for bits and pieces of glue. The language used is irrelevant for a few wizards and some database glue since that's not where most cycles will be spent anyway.

      So Python, being more portable probably would be a better choice than Java. Even though it certainly is slower (assuming the person writing Java does it properly, which is another problem entirely).

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    2. Re:Java is fastest language of its kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, I've done extensive benchmarking of the CLR and Java. There are a few places areas in which the JVM is faster, but in most areas the CLR is faster and uses less memory.

      Mono is definitely not comparable to the MS CLR. It's lacking numerous optimizations in its JIT engine and it uses the Boehm GC.

      I'm not even sure what you mean when you say 'similar to Java.' Do you mean a language that runs on a virtual machine, or a language that provides some set of functionality? Any commercial Common Lisp implementation will smack the Sun JVM all over the place in terms of performance numbers.

      Python without a JIT compiler is definitely incomparable to the JVM in execution performance, but can outperform Java solutions not simply because of its C infrastructure but also because its heap usage is far more reasonable in nontrivial applications.

      Your reference to "GC" in your claims of unparalleled performance for Java makes no sense. Which garbage collector are you referring to? Of the garbage collection schemes provided in the Sun JVM, there aren't any that are the top of the field.

      Your last babble about some random microbenchmarks just makes me think you're a deranged Java zealot. Good work.

    3. Re:Java is fastest language of its kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, I've done extensive benchmarking of the CLR and Java. There are a few places areas in which the JVM is faster, but in most areas the CLR is faster and uses less memory.

      In fact, it would really surprise me if this were not the case. Microsoft has extensive experience writing very good compilers, many years of hindsight courtesy of the JVM, and intimate knowledge of the underlying platform.

    4. Re:Java is fastest language of its kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LISP can be very fast if you declare types and write in an optimized manner, and tell the runtime to turn off safety and debugging checks, optimize for speed, and pre-compile into a runtime-specific format (ie NOT bytecode).

      And then if you do all those things it's slightly faster than Java written in a fairly normal manner, with bounds checks and other safety checks, and without doing anything special to the runtime. So LISP can be faster when it's unsafe and pre-compiled and hardly even looks like LISP anymore. Still, LISP is nice since you can sometimes get excellent performance for parts you know are bottlenecks.

      But "smack the Sun JVM all over the place" is just wrong. What you are missing from the picture is that Sun bought all the really awesome IP for optimizing these things (they also developed some of it in-house). They've just got the best kung-fu at the runtime level.

      But nice FUD... if any of it is true then prove it.

    5. Re:Java is fastest language of its kind by m50d · · Score: 1

      I'm not claiming that Java isn't much faster for pure maths, method calls etc. Writing a whole office suite in Python would, yes, be insane. However, you wouldn't do that in Java either. A pure python implementation would be slower, but a 90% python with 10% C would probably be faster than pure java - and a lot easier to implement than 90% java with 10% C. That's python's real advantage.

      --
      I am trolling
  151. Who gives a shart? by capn_buzzcut · · Score: 1

    All I wanna know is when do I get version 2 final.

    --
    "And now, Frank N. Furter, your time has come. Say 'goodbye' to all of this, and 'hello'... to oblivion!"
  152. A member is not control by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The example I like of how Sun does not really control Java anymore is generics. If Sun could do what it liked we would have had generics in 1.4, but there was wrangling and so it was delayed.

    Does Sun get members on all the major comittes? Yes. They have a certain degree of guranteed participation. But that does not equal control, as one member cannot overrule a whole panel.

    Basically there are a lot of big, powerful players around Java now and all of them have a say. Java hs the most "real" standards body I've seen because I as an individual can see a lot more of what is going on and even have some influence if I care deeply about a JSR.

    For better or for worse Java really is steered by a lot of people now, whcih means it's not as nimble but also means better stability for the platform.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:A member is not control by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I don't think you are really addressing the debate at all. Consider my analogy of how people in the Buick division are the ones who control and spec for the Buick engine, and not "corporate" (GM). On a day to day, month to month and year to year basis all these choices are made by Buick where corporate only sets broad direction. Further it is probably often the case where Buick has to make choices between various corporate directives and so some of them aren't implemented as quickly as various corporate officers would like.

      But there is no question Buick is controlled by GM.

  153. Freedom to Halt by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Pentiums OO.o runs on is also patented, and obscured by trade secrets - not to mention circuitry too tiny to examine without sophisticated equipment. Until Pentium microcode is OSS, we must not use it.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  154. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's been done... it's called abiword and gnumeric. And they don't use that slow ass java

  155. Apache to the Rescue Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although there are other options besides Sun's JVM (kaffe, classpath), Apache may be the best bet to contribute an open source JVM.

    Finally, this would stop all the bitching about linux distributions unable to package Sun's JVM!

  156. Boo Hoo!!! by maloi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    *wipes tears from eyes*

  157. It's not the non-freeness that worries me by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who worries about OOo2 becoming even slower and more resource-wasting than the original?? Don't get me wrong, I love Java as a programming language, but let's be honest for a sec: Java on the desktop SUCKS. It's slow, it burns up memory like mad, etc. And people who say otherwise are clearly deranged.

    1. Re:It's not the non-freeness that worries me by Cinquero · · Score: 1

      It all depends...

  158. Mod parent down -1, Fuckwittery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There is no Java trap. As long as Java's source lays out in the open people will implement their own JVMs and compilers and the world will move on.

    Java is closed source and comes with a restrictive license, fuckwit.

  159. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by winkydink · · Score: 1

    Both of which load in what seems like an order of magnitude faster than Open Office, I might add.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  160. Prick. by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

    Also, who is Linus Trolvalds?

    GEE, I DON'T KNOW! It doesn't even look remarkably similar to anyone whose name would be posted daily on slashdot. Go huff some more spray paint you ass-clown.

  161. Re:Jesus people, get a grip - call to arms by linguae · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, you're the one who needs to get a grip.

    Free Software isn't about taking down Microsoft and other big corporations. I don't use FreeBSD because I want to "stick it to the man." Free software is about being able to use software unencumbered by licensing restrictions. And what do you mean that nerds have no vision? Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, the BSD developers, and hundreds of other nerds have the vision of creating completely free software for everyone. Yes, we still have some things to work on (like that Swedish thesaurus and spell checker that you mentioned), but it's getting there.

    Nobody in the "real world" (boy I hate that phrase; I'll change it to "non-geek world") cares about Debian and Fedora shipping Java because the non-geek world uses Mac OS X and Windows. The last thing on the average Mac user's or Windows user's mind is the licensing of Java; it either comes with their computer or it is a quick download away. But Linux and BSD users are in a different realm, the "surreal world" as you probably call it, and they aren't generally going to put up with the licensing. Besides, Sun Java isn't available for many platforms. What if I'm using NetBSD on an Alpha machine? Too bad, I can't use Sun Java even if I wanted to.

    The point is, free software isn't about "sticking it to the man." It is about using unencumbered software. If you have a problem with this, you can always return to your Mac or Windows box, along with your Java. Nobody's stopping you from using that, and nobody's stopping geeks like myself from forking OpenOffice.

  162. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice sentiment, but hardly true. A products superiority does not guarenteee it the lions share of the market. This holds true in the computer world (BeOS anybody) in the home entertainment (Beta) and in general hollywood claptrap (countless TV shows that rocked, but were canceled.)

  163. Are you for real? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
    "The BitKeeper issue is different entirely; it was a commercial product being offered for free, with the possibility that it could be yanked out from under them at any time."

    Just what makes you think Sun won't start charging for JAVA at some point? It's exactly the same thing except there isn't currently a commercial version - they'll just drop the free one and make it commercial only.

    "Java VMs exist for pretty much every known architecture"

    There is no 64bit JVM for my AMD processor. This means I can't run OOo on a pure 64bit OS. Abiword and Gnumeric don't have this problem.

    And yes, Stallman is a bit obsessive about all this, but that doesn't invalidate his central point. Bitkeeper is irrelevant, but if/when the same thing happens with Java the rest of you will finally understand what RMS point is exactly.

    1. Re:Are you for real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no 64bit JVM for my AMD processor. This means I can't run OOo on a pure 64bit OS. Abiword and Gnumeric don't have this problem.

      Hi mr troll.
      You really had me, so I had to go and check. It seems there's java for Linux AMD64, for Solaris AMD64 and a release candidate for windows AMD64.
      So it does run on a pure 64bit OS.

  164. Re:OO is slow, why would they want to COUNT on JAV by Symbiot · · Score: 1
    Explain why I am going to use this when the current release does not require Java?

    Because it will be more reliable and quite possibly faster under Java? From a utilitarian perspective the use of Java is a benefit, not a drawback.

  165. You should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    start the first GLUG.

  166. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

    I'm sure Sun is shaking in their boots over the idea of the FSF making their own Java. If RMS and company are such programming Gods why didn't they just write a better office suite instead of whining about OpenOffice?

    Sun had *better* be concerned about a Free Software Java replacement. The various Free Software Java Application servers are basically sucking the life out of the proprietary middleware scene, and one of the few real advantages over Red Hat that Sun has is the fact that they control Java.

    If the FSF actually does what you suggest the most likely outcome is a gain in market share for C# at Java's expense and a fragmentation in OpenOffice that will slow its adoption.

    Actually, the FSF probably wouldn't mind if C# won out over Java. After all, Mono is already a useable replacment for .NET. The FSF is opposed to proprietary software no matter who makes it. Their stance is not a dogmatic against Microsoft.

    The FSF may actually have more to lose than Sun.

    I doubt it. The Free Software Foundation is run on a shoestring budget, and has almost nothing to lose. It also has a long history of sticking with its principles. Not only that, but the FSF has a long history of actually winning these sorts of battles. QT, MySQL AB, Python, Mozilla, and many other projects have all changed their licensing stance due to pressure from the FSF. After a while the FSF just wears people down. Sun has never really played along with the FSF, but that doesn't stop most Sun admins from installing the GNU tools for Solaris first thing after booting their new Sun boxen.

    Sun, on the other hand, is a publicly traded company that is performing poorly. Sun needs the Free Software Foundation to help drive sales of its hardware. If it weren't for the Free Software that has sprung up around Java then Sun wouldn't have a chance in Hades of competing with even the competing Free Software toolkits, much less against Microsoft. And that doesn't even include Sun's nascent desktop projects that all rely almost entirely on Free Software.

    If Sun is going to thrive once again then they have to keep the Free Software crowd happy, and Sun's Java stance is simply not getting that done.

  167. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

    RMS being a programming God is laughable. He's a bum first and formost. Before he started the GCC project he first tried to bum a compiler off someone else for NOTHING then tried to take someone else's source code and create an improved version to undoubtedly name RMS-CC or something equally stupid then started GCC with *supposedly* no code from the compiler he was going to use previously. This pattern lives on to this day. 1) Try to get something for free with no strings attached from someone else 2) Base your product on someone else's work 3) Give up and write a new one from "scratch"

  168. Re:Jesus people, get a grip - call to arms by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    Getting more switchers to OOo has a number of effects. Mainly, it helps to raise the number of users, and therefore gives more credibility to the OASIS document standards. That's a good thing for freedom.

    A lot of people don't use OOo for one reason - it doesn't have 100% compatibility with Word. I have met one person who uses Word because of more advanced features. Most people don't touch the advanced features.

    I find it ludicrous that there's a debate about using Java which a) Isn't going away soon b) Is implemented on a lot of platforms and c) Is a documented spec whilst the major document formats for business are secret.

    If people want to help OOo, they can send them a few bucks, or maybe find a local business and rewrite some macros so they can convert, or maybe help some users on a forum.

  169. Open source means... by xquark · · Score: 1

    I write an application in "ANY" language "I" choose, and then I distribute the
    source code of the application which "I" had written in the language "I" chose
    and people who want it download it, build it and run it.

    That said open source has got nothing to do with the language I use but rather
    the way I distribute my code and the accompanying usage terms.

    I think some of these so-called hackers that are complaining about the use of Java
    in OO, are doing so because they lack the necessary skills in Java to contribute,
    and hence feel left out of the so called open-source "fame game".

    Arash Partow
    __________________________________________ ________
    Be one who knows what they don't know,
    Instead of being one who knows not what they don't know,
    Thinking they know everything about all things.
    http://www.partow.net/

    --
    Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
    1. Re:Open source means... by Cinquero · · Score: 1

      Many open sourcers want to be free and independent of non-free code. The use of Java contradicts that.

      First try to understand others -- then argue with them, and not the other way round.

    2. Re:Open source means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'm coming to the realisation that open source means never having to admit that anything is your own fault.

    3. Re:Open source means... by xquark · · Score: 1

      When code is distributed freely, its free and thats the end of it.
      It can't be called non-free, because at the simplest level, every
      instruction needed is openly available and its usage terms are
      set with the accompanying license.

      Now what people are complaining about here is that because gcj
      can't properly compile the code being placed into OO (mainly due
      to protected and public scoping in classes) that all the code
      should be removed from OO.

      That doesn't make sense to me, and i don't think it makes sense
      to many people. its illogical

      IMHO if for example the GNU Java initiative had fully implemented
      everything in Java land including the very vast libraries
      there wont be any complaints coming from the open source
      community with regards to Java code being OO.

      And thats pretty much the crouch of the problem.

      Arash Partow
      __________________________________________ ________
      Be one who knows what they don't know,
      Instead of being one who knows not what they don't know,
      Thinking they know everything about all things.
      http://www.partow.net/

      --
      Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
  170. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! (So What) by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

    Correct me if this is wrong, but doesen't one need to deal with the libraries as well? How well do THEY work with other JVM's?

    This MASSIVLY raises the bar for not-as-popular platforms, or new up-and-comming platforms. Now to get an office suite, they not only have to recompile / port an office suite, they have to write their own JVM! If this was easy, we would have dozens of alternatives to Sun's java and associated libraries that were 100% interoperable. The fact that there are ZERO right now that meet that criteria says something about how difficult this is.

    I can run 64bit linux on the AMD64 platform and can't run native java. Linux is not a toy. Neither is the AMD64 platform.

  171. Sorry by Deternal · · Score: 1

    You are right - I just had to vent a little after having seen this discussion several times over here and other places.

    I can also appreciate that using SUN Java can pose problems for some people. Personally I use Gentoo and SuSE so it's not really a problem for me, but I can still appreciate it.

    However my subtle point is this, SUN needs to develop features in OOo in order for StarOffice to be competitive with other office packages.

    Novell/Ximian also wants the most competitive package they can get.

    The most argued point with OOo 2 is the fact that Base will only work with java - where before most of the java reliance did not directly affect usage here it actually degrades the "total experience[tm]".

    I'm sure SUN and OOo coders like all the usage feedback - however StarOffice uses it's own dictionaries and translations, and they are completely seperate from the OOo ones (atleast that was the case when SO 6 and 7 was released).

    So much for that part - then for the general stuff:
    The OOo project faces some difficulties. Firstly, the codebase is apparently a mess (I don't know how to code, but even the OOo developers have stated this so I'll take their word for it).
    Secondly the codebase has always relied on java (version 5 did, which was the version SUN purchased).

    Now what I've been ranting about is, that since this seems to be a big issue for a lot of people with the OOo java dependency, why not help the OOo developers in 2 ways - help convert the java dependent code, and help clean up the code so it is more modular and less messy.

    This will obviously take a long time (just think how long it took to make XUL :P) - but I'm sure the end result will be a better, leaner package that even the FOSS movement will like.

    Regarding novell: I don't know if any of the coders they have are java coders - generally that is the problem, if the coder who can take on the project codes in java then what? Tell him to bugger off? With the limited ressources OOo has it's no surprise they are not going to say that.

    1. Re:Sorry by kosmosik · · Score: 1

      > I can also appreciate that using SUN Java
      > can pose problems for some people.

      It mostly creates (let aside purists like Stallman) distribution issues - Fedora cannot ship Sun Java it will be against its policy (only free software) also it would require special agreements with Sun.

      IMHO Sun is doing big mistake here - I know project Harmony is launched - but they have serious competition from .Net and the only right path is to open Java and benefit from opensource to gain dominance (but it wont be dominance like MS dominance in f.e. Office area) - a true open/free one. They can do it assuming that they want to focus (they should) their business around services - not software licenses (like MS does).

      (...)

      > However my subtle point is this, SUN
      > needs to develop features in OOo in order
      > for StarOffice to be competitive with other
      > office packages.

      I don't know here - it is really so difficult to develop such features in open variant (that runs on something else than Sun Java also)? IMHO no - if Red Hat can do it - it is not difficult.

      > Novell/Ximian also wants the most
      > competitive package they can get.

      But Novell intrest is also aside Sun Java - they have own Mono. .Net implementation - in the end I think it is good thing to have such variety - as it remains open I am cool with it. It is like Novell plays nice with their Mono - it is open. Red Hat does not use *any* closed software - trully free/open. Only Sun offers its closed (unfree) Java - and I really don't know if it is practical reason or just political/naughty business play...

      > The most argued point with OOo 2 is the
      > fact that Base will only work with java -
      > where before most of the java reliance did
      > not directly affect usage here it actually
      > degrades the "total experience[tm]".

      It is not about Java in general it is about specific (Sun) implementation of Java. Of course they eat their own (closed) food - but this may produce issues because also (not only Sun) other firms base their business in OOo, contribute to it (and have done so in past) not to make it closed (by realiyng on closed Java implementation) product since it is against their (f.e. Red Hat *and* Novell) intrest.

      > however StarOffice uses it's own
      >dictionaries and translations

      I think the dictionaries is a matter of intellectual property. There are paid dictionaries (licensed with Sun Star Office) and free ones (that you can use freely with OOo) - here it is good point to have differencies - some people wish to have nonfree dictionary so why not let them to have one? But dictionary is not main feature of Office suite - you can (I can with EN and PL) go with free ones as well...

      (...)

      > The OOo project faces some difficulties.
      > Firstly, the codebase is apparently a mess
      > (I don't know how to code, but even the
      > OOo developers have stated this so I'll
      > take their word for it).

      It is - but for credit - they have admitted it and started working on this issue - this is nice.

      > Secondly the codebase has always relied
      > on java (version 5 did, which was the
      > version SUN purchased).

      Not in such degree. With OOo 1.x it was distributed with RedHat/Fedora and it has all features implemented with GCJ Java version. Now it is dependant solely on Sun Java implementation - that is the difference between past and current version. Read the article please. :P

      > Now what I've been ranting about is, that
      > since this seems to be a big issue for a lot
      > of people with the OOo java dependency,
      > why not help the OOo developers in 2
      > ways - help convert the java dependent
      > code, and help clean up the code so it is
      > more modular and less messy.

      And that is proper question. :) We (opensource community) are working on that, but we woul

  172. Different relationship by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Yes in the relationship you describe GM controls buick.

    However if you play the "follow the money" game with Java you'll find that really a lot of other compnaies have as much (or more, as in the case of IBM) tied up in Java as Sun does. That is why Java has evolved into more of a consortium than anything directed mostly by Sun.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Different relationship by jbolden · · Score: 1

      You still aren't following its not how much they spend but the non profit agency is a fully owned and controlled by Sun the same way Buick is fully owned and controlled by GM. If Hertz buys lots of Buick cars they don't have say in the same sense as GM does.

  173. Re:Java = write once, run everywhere = good for OO by thinkliberty · · Score: 1

    You mean write once, run really slow everywhere = bad for OO.

    How about standard C or C++. Using Wx, GTK or QT.

    Abiword and Gnumeric is a good existing cross-platform replacement for the crap that open office has put out.

  174. D! by jensend · · Score: 1

    D is the answer. It's meant to take the good ideas from C++, Java, and C# and make a modernized C-type language which is suitable for systems programming and (relatively) easy to implement.

    There's a a GCC frontend) in the works as well. In general, it seems like once this language gets a bit more mindshare it will really take off.

    (D is currently #1 on the Great Computer Language Shootout- and while it does help a little that it's the only one with all the tests implemented, its ranking is due to very impressive performance.)

  175. From the FSF site: by eraserewind · · Score: 1

    Volunteers needed to build, test and package free OpenOffice 2.0.
    Seems the FSF plan to do something about it. I wonder is it a complete fork, or more a (dis)integration project.

  176. How is GCJ and Classpath not Free? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The FACT is that there is a free Java which is very close to working with OO2.0.

    How is that not Free? If there is any version of Java that is Free, how can you claim that Java is not Free? Even in the Java trap Stalman notes that if you write in Java at least make sure it works in the Free version - OO2.0 is a bit ahead but not that far. It can be addressed in that way much simpler than listening to the childish tantrums to drop Java just because they don't understand what the hell Java is but know a lot of Slashdot posters seem to not like it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  177. Stallman vs Java by owlstead · · Score: 1

    Here's a guy that wants every piece of software written using his GNU libraries to adhere to HIS license. And he has the guts to attack Sun for using Java?

    There are lots of implementations of Java out there, and at least when using Java you can be pretty sure some madman is not putting any restrictions on your code.

    One thing is certain: my code will *never* be GPL'ed. That's not to say that it won't be compatible with it of course. And LGPL is another matter. But GPL is a PITA.

    1. Re:Stallman vs Java by planetoid · · Score: 1

      Are the glibc libraries under the GPL as well? I've always known about the GPL, that it existed, but only recently looked into what it means and says, that if you use one tiny snippet of GPL code in your program, you MUST make your entire program GPL'd -- not just the code you used. Even if you dynamically link to a GPL library, your program must be GPL'd.

      I always thought, before I did actual research, that the GPL was a sort of public-domain-esque but copyright-enforced license that allowed you to use GPL code as-you-please as long as you provide sources to what you used. And I noticed that the C libraries on my Linux system appear to be by the GNU project. Now I'm paranoid -- are the GNU C libraries under the GPL? Or the LGPL? Or was RMS smart enough to make exceptions to those libraries to give Linux programmers actual choice?

      --
      Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
  178. Great, four examples oput of the whole base by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So what this whole story is about is FOUR examples across the whole codebase? That's how many su.* and com.sun.* refs I see in the build errors - from back in January, some have been fixed now.

    This story was nothing but giant flamebait aimed at griping about Java in general.

    And the one example you mention is actually in hsqldb. Is that part of OO? I thought it was a seperetae project. So really it is a problem that HSQLDB coders have some old code left that uses the Sun security classes (probably not needed anymore).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  179. Oh come on. by Jahf · · Score: 1

    The code is owned by Sun. Sun owns Java. Sun likes Java. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

    The people complaining about this are looking a gift horse in the mouth. If you don't like the teeth, raise a new horse.

    People create open source software in Java, .NET and other things all the time. What is next, there is going to be a geeksquad going out and attacking those projects as well?

    RMS ... if you don't like what Sun is doing and feel you could do it better, then start up the GNU Office project. Otherwise, forget it.

    NOTE: I believe that Java -should- be open sourced, but that doesn't detract from the value of the gift that Sun has provided in Open Office.

    Disclaimer: I work for Sun, but I have no control over software licensing and truthfully, don't want to.

    --
    It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
  180. He's human by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

    Because he's old and fat. And tired of being an one-man revolution, constantly working to assuage the needs of other people. And he knows there are people who agree with him, who can also percieve the need.

    1. Re:He's human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe he has realized that public speaking pays way more than writing Free Software. That's the trouble with making software Free-as-in-speech. It suddenly becomes hard to sell.

  181. Re:It's not GPL'ed either! (So What) by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

    Oh well, at least you can run Sun Java though, if not native Java.

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  182. Who cares anyway? Anybody but zealots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Java works quite nicely across *many* platforms and is freely usable thereon. Unless you use silly stuff like SWT that is not in the platform, your stuff is portable.

    Who cares that Java is not open source or GPL'ed? Seriously Sun's "open contribution" model for 1.6 suffices for all but zealotry? So what that no Linux distro will bundle Java? That's an issue with Linux as I see it -- not Java.

    The notion that everything has to be GPL'ed open source from its underpinnings on up is purely ivory tower zealotry that ought not be listened to in the real world!

  183. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

    Being a programming god doesn't mean being a complete retard and trying to re-invent the wheel. Appropiate solutions to appropiate problems. How many compilers have *YOU* written?

  184. Obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In soviet russia, asses kick you!

  185. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FSF has everything to lose. Their only real asset is their ability to influence developers. If they alienate Java developers as they have Windows developers, they'll very few developers left to influence.

  186. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Being a programming god doesn't mean being a complete retard .."

    So you agree RMS doesn't qualify as a programming god?

  187. This would be a nightmare. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    Someone should make up an office suite that uses every language in existance. C, C++, C#, Java, Perl, Python, Smalltalk, COBOL, Ruby, FORTRAN, Rexx, BASIC, Pascal, and bash are a few that come to mind.

    Also, instead of just using one widget library, I think this office suite should use QT, GTK+ (1 and 2), Motif, OLIT, Athena, CDK, Java Swing, XView, AWT, JFC, XTC, OpenStep, and Tk are a few that come to mind.

    Also, I think this office suite should use every open source shared library there is. In other words, in order to install and use this office suite, you would need to download about 100 gigs of dependency sources and compile them for about a year. When running, it would only require about two gigs of RAM. Every window and every part of the user interface would look and behave completely differently from the other parts. Some operations (like saving a file) would require opening a shell and invoking strange and obscure commands. It would take a lifetime to learn how to operate this office suite before a user could write a note to his grandma.

    And then, we can tell everyone that this office suite, call it FreeAwfis for professionalism, is better than anything else out there.

  188. That is not the biggest problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has basically gone down hill since StarOffice 5.2. There serious usage problems in the GUI - the GUI structure changes for every new revision or silly idea from Christian Jansen and there is no logical handling of properties.

    OO 2.0 is SHIT SHIT SHIT!!!!!!!!! so this is supposed to be progress?? Get the basics straight before focusing on nothing else than MSOffice FILE compatibility. And when at it - make it USER COMPATIBLE as well!!!!

    How did MS take over the market from WordPerfect? Word had a neat little option to make the GUI WordPerfect compatible.

    So GO DIE!!!!! and let a capable company get into the Office4Linux arena (few are already trying).
    Or fix it. Maybe start using it to create REAL documention

  189. Since There's Now A Project To OSS Java by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    I predict within five years either this issue will go away or Sun will be forced to OSS Java themselves - in which case this issue will go away.

    I agree that Mono is treading risky ground trying to engineer something Microsoft won't sue them for, and I agree there is SOME slim risk that Sun, as it collapses over the next five or ten years, may try some stupid desperate move that screws up the Java licensing. When and IF that happens, we'll deal with it. Or the Chinese will.

    People just want to complain about stuff - even if it's free - so it makes them look "morally superior" to everybody else.

    In other words, STFU. If you don't like Java, .Net or Mono, write your own system. And when YOU decide to stick it to everybody by patenting it, I'll remember your lame ass.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  190. crimes against creativity by nous · · Score: 1

    this is the kind of thing foes of open-source want: more wasted energies of talented open-source engineers in replicating what already works, what is already free except in the minds of a few fanatics.

    instead of wasting time on rewrites and forks, fsf should look for people to do something that matters more to computing than rehashing stuff already done at great cost.

    [this is so pitifully predictible, i now expect stallman to call for programmers to start rewriting a free version of solaris after it is open-sourced in june. maybe he will want to rename it to to gnu/solaris to ease the spectacular failure of creativity and vision]

    nous

  191. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

    The FSF has everything to lose. Their only real asset is their ability to influence developers. If they alienate Java developers as they have Windows developers, they'll very few developers left to influence.

    The FSF has been alienating developers since the day it was started. Go back and read what the XEmacs folks have to say about RMS and the FSF, or study up on how gcc became egcs and then became gcc again. Read some of the emails between Guido van Rossum and the folks at the Free Software Foundation from the time period when Python was going through language contortions. Take a look at the Linux Kernel mailing list back when RMS was hacking GNU software so that identified the Linux kernel as "lignux" or the more recent GNU/Linux rants. Read some of the emails between the KDE folks and the FSF back when QT was licensed under the QPL. The list of people that the FSF has "upset" goes on and on and on. In fact, I think that RMS is addicted to conflict.

    RMS makes everyone upset at one time or another, because he absolutely positively refuses to bend on Free Software issues. Yet here we are in 2005 and the FSF has more influence than ever. What's more, every time you turn around RMS turns out to be right. The Bitkeeper Linux Kernel fiasco is only one such example.

    Sun needs the hard core Free Software hackers more than they need Sun. The Gnome desktop is a perfect example of how Sun's braindead treatment of Java is hurting their chances at a comeback. The Gnome hackers are pretty much unanimous in their desire to use a higher level language for further Gnome development. They would probably use Java if they could, but they can't because it's not Free Software. So instead a huge pile of Gnome hackers are now developing in C# because Mono is mostly finished. Another large whack of Gnome developers are working on getting GCJ to the point where it's useful too, but the stuff that they are working on isn't anything like Sun's Java platform. In a lot of cases these "java-ish" hackers are compiling Java to machine code, and they are invariably using non-pure Java extensions like SWT or Java-GTK for their GUI. So much for write once run anywhere with that kit. The Java Gnome hackers are likely to be more detrimental to the idea of Java as a platform than the Mono Gnome hackers. They are hard at work doing what Microsoft tried to do and failed. These Java hackers are creating Java code that is tied to gcj and the Gnome platform. At least Microsoft's JVM would run pure Java, gcj won't even do that. It only runs software specifically written to target gcj.

    The truly funny bit is that in a year from now there is likely to be more C# and gcj-specific Java in Sun's Java Desktop than there is pure Java, and Sun is relying on this new software to help the company make up the deficit of their slowing hardware sales.

    Sun isn't even good at influencing Java developers. Most professional Java developers pay more attention to IBM than Sun, and nearly all of them do all of their developing on Windows. With Free Software hackers Sun has a group of people that at least are interested in running some sort of UNIX. And when Java developers do write some Java Free Software they invariably borrow the FSF's GPL, and not one of Sun's myriad licenses.

    The FSF is doing just fine. It's Sun that's in trouble of disappearing.

  192. A language is NOT a program!!! by swordgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The source of a language isn't the compiler's code, it's the language specification.

    If a language's structure is openly defined, then anyone can build a compiler for it. That *IS* the definition of an open-source compiler!

    If OO.o doesn't work well with GCJ because the compiler fails to fully (and efficiently) implement the language standard, the it's the fault of the compiler, not the language.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  193. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like most things in the real world, influence doesn't necessarily scale. The fact the FSF won a lot of battles when it was below noise level doesn't mean it will in the future.

    Only time will tell.

  194. Who cares if they use Java by jbplou · · Score: 1

    If the source is open and anyone can get the Java complier for free who cares if Sun controls the way Java goes in the future. I imagine there are millions of developers who use Java so I don't see how this hurts the Open Source Community.

    1. Re:Who cares if they use Java by AndyMo · · Score: 1

      I'm finding this whole discussion quite amusing since most of OOo is written in a derivative of Basic, not Java. Perhaps if they did actually write it completely in Java it would be much less buggy.

  195. Re:Don't like it? Fork it! by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

    Sun had *better* be concerned about a Free Software Java replacement.

    Sun went to great expense to publish a Java Specificaiton under a licence that allows 3rd parties to reimplement it. Obviously, Sun not only wants, but expects people to implement their own versions of Java(tm, as in according to the spec). And that obviously includes the FSF, who's cloned everything else Sun's made.

    Plus the Sun JVM is a zero-revenue product that is shipped for OSes like Linux pretty much only for mindshare purposes. If a 3rd party would pick up platform responsibility for Linux Java, Sun would probably be glad to give it up. If Stallman can kick people in the ass and get a real free software JVM out there, everyone's for it.

    --
    Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  196. Not quite by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    Freely redistributable as in the freedom to reproduce it. I want my software to be able to be redistributed by the end user. The JRE does not allow this to be freely reproduceable except by the person who actually directly licenses this from Sun.

    The JRE EULA does not allow this (read it). Instead it gives a "non-transferrable" license to redistribute it. In other words, if I download it from Sun, I can distribute it, but I cannot pass this right on to my end user.

    Also under this license, I cannot distribute a choice of JVM's. I cannot even distribute the Sun JRE at the same time I distribute the GCJ if I understand the license correctly ("(iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to
    replace any component(s) of the Software...")

    Furthermore, what is this supposed to mean? "(v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement..." In other words, does this give Sun the right to simply unilaterally decide that this is not in their interest and revoke my license just because they decide that they don't like my software and that the license I use for my software is not in their best interests?

    Or am I the only one who ever reads these things?

    Still this is better than TK on Windows (since ActiveState wants license fees for redistribution).

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Not quite by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      The JRE EULA does not allow this (read it). Instead it gives a "non-transferrable" license to redistribute it. In other words, if I download it from Sun, I can distribute it, but I cannot pass this right on to my end user.


      That simply would mean: you license the right to distgribute a JRE with your software.

      You distribute the software to your End User. For that End User the EULA is preventing him to redistribute your software with the JRE you ahve bundled.

      But said End User can obtain its own license to redistribute the JRE and then he can distribute YOUR software together with HIS (well, not his but based on his license) JRE.

      Of course the schema above is not linux distribution friendly ....

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  197. FSF by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    the only people the article identified as behind these complaints is the FSF.

    Christ.

    The FSF produces some great software, but why do they have to be such whiny bitches all the time? Seriously, they act like they own open source, and throw a tantrum anytime somebody else touches it. All I ever hear from them is how they are pissed off that people call it Linux and not GNU Linux, about how they are pissed off that people are using the word "open source" when they should say "free software". About how think that software has some kind of *moral obligation* to be free.

    They also have the most anal retentive development policies I've ever heard of for an open source group. People had to fork emacs into xemacs because the FSF wouldn't accept code unless the developers gave them the copyright to it, in writing.

    It just seems like I can't go a week without hearing about RMS doing something prickish. I say we draft an open letter to RMS, the contents of which would be something like this:

    Dear Richard Stallman,
    Thank you for GCC and emacs, they are awesome.
    Incidentally, would you please, if it is not too much of a bother, go fuck yourself?
    Sincerely, EVERYONE

  198. Note to myself... don't use OpenOffice 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, OpenOffice has never been a product warrenting being called "Great" or even "Above average". OpenOffice has classically been a fairly clunky system and every single time I try to use it for anything more than a plain vanilla document, the components of the suite refuse to cooperate. I've been forced to move back to MS Office and MS Visio to write any proper technical documentation. The prime reason for this is simple, Write and Draw do not integrate. Vector graphics designed in Draw do not scale in the Write application.

    I would imagine that in any suite focusing on vector graphics, meaning specifically a vector drawing program and a word processor, scalable graphics aren't a feature, it's a minimum requirement. If this can not be accomplished, then there are severe underlying structural failures to the layout engine. It would be like a Flash player that could only play at a fixed resolution.

    That being said, Java makes it even a bigger problem for me. I refuse to install Java on my systems and I go further to remove Java from any of my systems. I can't use the historical issues for this anymore, for example, performance in many cases is actually better than C/C++ code since Java is a compiled language implementing garbage collection and applications developed without at least a scheduled heap cleaner are much slower than a Java application with full GC. My reasoning for not using Java is simple. I lack confidence in developers writing code in Java. I don't want to trust any aspect of my life to someone using this language as their primary development tool.

    Too many "Programmers" are graduating from CS tracks and applying for jobs with little or no experience outside of Java for development. Unfortunately, they tend to lack a great deal of theory required for professional development. It's not because the topics aren't coverred in school, it's because when they're asked to use Java in a daa structures class, they breeze over the parts regarding "How not to leave a trail of poop behind me" parts since this is taken for granted in Java. I prefer to use software developed by people that are in fact educated on something else.

    I know that the Java community has a great deal of members that are in fact competant programmers, but the facts are simple, there are more Java developers that are educated in Java than there are that transitioned to Java. What is worse is that There are a great number of developers lacking CS education altogether that are working as Java developers since they can use JBuilder or Eclipse to point and click most of the application together and then use snippets to hack the rest. This is just reckless.

    Java is in fact becoming the Visual Basic of modern times. The Java market is becoming so heavily flooded with the types of people that cut and paste some snippets and made a JSP and therefore try to get jobs writing in Java to get more pay.

    What's worse was the comment in the linked article that people suggested porting the code to Ruby or Python instead. I mean "Holy Poop Batman!" what are you thinking, Java at least requires the slightest inkling of talent and knowledge to develop, you actually need to compile your code. Ruby and Python on the other hand are languages that rarely have much more than hacked to hell shell scripts written in them. The developers are typically 10 times worse than Java developer since they're usually undereducated IS flops that think they're actually more intelligent than a clueless user that calls the CD tray a coffee holder.

    In short, I feel that it's all fine and dandy that Sun is spending tons of time mixing languges and playing with Java environments and adding about a million hours of development to this silly stuff, but I would so much prefer that they evaluate just how crappy OO really is and then try to fix it instead. This seems like Sun is just trying to make OO/StarOffice more "Their Own"

  199. quick grammar tips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't use adverbs in a numbered list. Webster explains it:

    First (not firstly), it's unclear what the adverb is modifying. Second (not secondly), it's unnecessary. Third (not thirdly), after you get beyond "secondly," it starts to sound silly.

    Also, use:

    However, even if it were easy, ...

    This is known as a subjunctive.

  200. grammar nazi strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even if it was free as in speech.

    Learn English.

    I'll pretend the other errors were typos.

    1. Re:grammar nazi strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, your userid implies you are from Spain. If that is true then I apologize. Even native English speakers have trouble with subjunctives.

  201. Re:Jesus people, get a grip - call to arms by Decameron81 · · Score: 1
    Free Software isn't about taking down Microsoft and other big corporations. I don't use FreeBSD because I want to "stick it to the man." Free software is about being able to use software unencumbered by licensing restrictions. And what do you mean that nerds have no vision? Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, the BSD developers, and hundreds of other nerds have the vision of creating completely free software for everyone. Yes, we still have some things to work on (like that Swedish thesaurus and spell checker that you mentioned), but it's getting there.


    "Free software", at least as Stallman understands it, is not about avoiding licensing restrictions. It is simply about making sure the code and derivate works always be released with their source code, which is a completely different thing.

    If what he wanted to do was to seriously make software free of the encumberance of licenses then he would not be supporting the GPL (which IS a license).
    --
    diegoT
  202. You got it backwards by nnappe · · Score: 1

    GCC, and libc, and bash, etc. existed before Linux.
    It would be more sensible to say that without linux there'd be another kernel (say, *bsd or hurd)
    And it is sensible the order in which the development took place. There is practically no point in running a free kernel in a non-free environment but there is in running a free compiler/libc/every-other-util in any non-free environment you choose.

  203. C# is more free as beer!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Port OO-2.0 to OO-2.0-GTK# from Mono-1.1.6!!!

    2. Port OO-2.0 to OO-2.0-GTK# from Mono-1.1.6!!!

    3. Port OO-2.0 to OO-2.0-GTK# from Mono-1.1.6!!!

    open4free &copy

  204. better enhance GCJ and kaffee by EXTmilky · · Score: 1

    Maybe the FSF should spend more time on GCJ development instead of forking a biggy like OOo2. And maybe we'd already have a more compliant Java-implementation, if it wasn't that Debian hindered interest in this language with not including Suns JVM for that long - If there's no real VM distributed, there won't run many apps, and without any Java applications there has been little incentive in evolving the free-as-in-FSF implementations at all.

  205. Re:If the license weren't so strict, Java'd be dea by m50d · · Score: 1

    Yeah, just like C is dead because Borland, MS and everyone else was able to embrace and extend it. Oh, wait.

    --
    I am trolling
  206. Re:Si vous pardon mon Français by julesh · · Score: 1

    le code source courant de Java peuvent être téléchargés ici

    With a singular subject, the verb should be in a singular form (e.g. 'peut'), and the verbal adjective in the subordinate clause should also agree (masculine subject - code - so 'téléchargé' would be correct)

    OpenOffice est le bébé du soleil.

    Indeed. And perhaps of Sun, too.

    Thanks for the laugh. :)

  207. OOo by metamatic · · Score: 1

    And this is an important point, because it means that OpenOffice.org requires *Sun* Java. Not just Java, specifically the Sun VM and libraries. Those of us using the IBM JVM are probably out of luck; it may not run on the Apple JVM either.

    I think it's just incompetence or bad design on the part of Sun rather than a deliberate decision, but it's still a problem.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:OOo by k98sven · · Score: 1

      I think it's just incompetence or bad design on the part of Sun rather than a deliberate decision

      Right, I don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence either.

      But.. I don't feel Sun has done enough to discourage this stuff. I've seen Sun example code using com.sun classes. Usually saying "You shouldn't really use this".

      The sloppiness does actually extend to the public API in places, too.

      Personally (and perhaps somewhat sadistically) I'd like to see Sun just rename all internal packages in com.sun.* for no other reason than to break those bad apps and have people fix them. If write-once-run-anywhere is as important as Sun makes it out to be, they should.

  208. Re:Jesus people, get a grip - call to arms by danskal · · Score: 1

    Ok... I'll drop the term "real world" if it offends anyone.

    But I thought that the point was to make free software available to the masses (free software for everyone, as you say yourself - and I take it we're talking free as in freedom, not necessarily free as in beer). It's no good making the most wonderful free software if no-one ever gets to use it. And there are two things preventing people from using it at the moment:

    1. They have never heard of it
    2. It isn't quite a credible competitor to Microsoft, yet.

    Now, I don't have any personal agenda against Bill Gates: he is very good at what he does. He saw early on that the way to conquer the software market was to make sure his software got into ordinary people's homes.

    I just wish that the people who care deeply about great, free software also could see this.

    The problem for OSS is that ordinary people usually don't research what software is best or cheapest or most free. They go with what they know, or else with what they're given, or else with what they can find in the shops.

    Or did I get it completely wrong????? Am I the only one who wants to see ordinary people using OpenOffice??????