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."

16 of 805 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

  2. 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....

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. 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
  5. 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 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.

  10. 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.)

  11. 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?

  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.