Red Hat Not Satisfied with Sun's New Java License

That's kind of a cheap shot... by nebaz · 2006-05-19 09:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

This may not be a popular sentiment here, but I think the statement the failure of open source Java
means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PC's ... to bring affordable computing
to children in developing nations is a bit of a cheap shot. The way it is stated, it makes Sun look
like some sort of terrible ogre, that is denying children access to computers, when it is the program
creator that does not allow Java on the laptops.

It is similar to the argument people make saying "corporations that make genetically modified food
are causing people in Africa to starve", in countries that forbid the import of genetically modified
food. The policy, not the companies making the food, are what is causing the lack of that particular
food to be used.

Don't get me wrong, it would be great if Sun made Java open source, but what they have now is not evil.
The software is free as in beer to use, and as such would add no more cost to the laptops, if installed, it would just conflict
with the philosophy of the program's founder.

Also, if you want to write your own JVM, Sun has written books to let you do just that.
It is not an easy project, it is similar to JBoss in complexity, but JBoss was written. If the CTO at
RedHat was that concerned about Java not being on the laptops, he could have part of his company work
on an open source JVM implementation. That company has a lot of resources, and would be more able
to manage a project of that complexity than several freelance developers in their free time.

--
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story

Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by illumin8 · 2006-05-19 09:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

The way it is stated, it makes Sun look like some sort of terrible ogre, that is denying children access to computers, when it is the program creator that does not allow Java on the laptops.

Exactly. It's a bit vindictive to say "Sun is preventing kids from running Java", when there is nothing preventing them from freely distributing Java with every kid's laptop, other than their open source only rule that was arbitrarily made by themselves.

From TFA:
Negroponte wants only open source software on the machines, according to Red Hat, which is a member of the project

You can't always have your cake and eat it too. How about a compromise? Only open-source where possible, but free as in beer is OK if there is no better open-source alternative. This would allow people to use a mostly free OS, but still use quality closed-source yet free as in beer software like Java.

Sadly, the Linux community is sometimes blinded by zealotry in cases like this.

--
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by d_jedi · 2006-05-19 09:43 · Score: 1

I absolutely agree. In fact, I was just about to post just about exactly what you did (but I won't, for fear of being modded redundant :->)

The only reason I can see why Negroponte would practically prefer OSS over proprietary software - aside from cost, which for Java isn't an issue - is the ability to modify the source, if necessary.

Flat out rejecting the use of proprietary software (I apologize if I'm misrepresenting his views..) just because it's not open source (ie. if the software already functions as desired, or the creators would be willing to code the desired modifications) is absurd..

--
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by sgholt · 2006-05-19 09:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

I am thinking that Negroponte probably doesn't really care, Redhat on the other hand would benefit from a open source java....in this situation I don't see why Redhat/Negroponte are being so anal about it...
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by KefabiMe · 2006-05-19 09:50 · Score: 1

Does anyone know exactly what problems Red Hat has with the new Java license? How can Debian, Debian(!) of all distros, support it and not Red Hat?
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by AuMatar · 2006-05-19 09:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

I disagree. The idea is to help raise the third world up, not keep them dependant on the first world. By only giving them free software, we give them the ability to make changes, to adapt the technology to their needs. It also gives them an entrance into the IT market, one of the few tech areas that can be entered into with no formal training and done from anywhere in the world. These are very good reasons to say OSS only. If Java wants to be a player there, that up to them. But OSS only is the right option for the laptop program.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by dekemoose · 2006-05-19 09:56 · Score: 1

I hate to say it, but how the heck do they expect Java apps to run well on this $100 laptop anyway? I like Java, my company works mostly in Java, but it can be a resource hog. How is it that they would even want to run it on these stripped down machines?
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by sog_abq · 2006-05-19 09:58 · Score: 1

I agree with the cheap shot sentament, but realistically, the $100 laptop per child thing is doomed to failure, unless we suddenly shift into a period of deflation.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Erwos · 2006-05-19 10:02 · Score: 1

"Don't get me wrong, it would be great if Sun made Java open source, but what they have now is not evil."

Is it non-Free? Yes? Then it is evil. I'm not RMS, I don't even practice what I preach (I dual-boot Windows and Fedora), but an ideal is at least something to hold on to and strive for.

Free as in freedom is the way to go. Don't accept anything less as the optimal solution - doing so just leads us further down the path where Free software becomes the exception, not the norm.

-Erwos (displaying his idealistic zeal for the day)

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by masklinn · 2006-05-19 10:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the funniest part is that the license seems to have Debian's support... and the Debian guys are just about the "worst" OSS zealots (in Stallman's sense of OSS) you can find, I'd like to get more infos of that from guys who read it but if the debian-legal madmen have endorsed or considered Java's new license "good enough"... duh...

--
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by advocate_one · 2006-05-19 10:18 · Score: 0, Troll

I hate to say it, but how the heck do they expect Java apps to run well on this $100 laptop anyway? I like Java, my company works mostly in Java, but it can be a resource hog. How is it that they would even want to run it on these stripped down machines?

b0ll0cks... I was running java apps on my old 486 SX 2 50 with win 3.1 and only 4 Meg of RAM way back in '94... I didn't notice any lack of performance then... and the Negroponte machine has better specs than that... way better.
This Java is slow FUD meme has been running ever since MS got their ass kicked by Sun and had to stop distributing that extended MS Java. I wonder why...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Mistshadow2k4 · 2006-05-19 10:27 · Score: 1

If I'm not mistaken, the $100 laptop has low CPU power but 1 gig of RAM. Would java run on it? Depends on the java program -- if it requires much CPU, no, but it's RAM-dependent, yes.

--
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by jrumney · 2006-05-19 10:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

It is similar to the argument people make saying "corporations that make genetically modified food are causing people in Africa to starve", in countries that forbid the import of genetically modified food.
Ever heard of terminator seeds? Seen any of the research about how they can spread to contaminate non-patented crops? Corporations that make GM food are causing people in Africa to starve whether countries allow the import of their crops or not.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by KiloByte · 2006-05-19 10:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, no one of those "debian-legal madmen" you're talking about endorses that license. In fact, only a single person (although it's the DPL) dared to say that it's acceptable for Debian's non-free section, and even then after a personal meeting with a Sun's person on the DebConf.

The license has pretty few clauses that are good enough even for non-free; on the other hand, those "zealots" you're bashing typically have problems with one or two issues per license. Sun's piece of crap is actually worse than their previous license.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:37 · Score: 0

That depends on your definition of "arbitrary". It's not just "because we say so". There are good reasons for demanding an Open Source license for all software on these laptops. A device which is supposed to make people in the third world more informed and independent doesn't look very honest when you make its users dependent on the decisions of an American company. Either Java is added as a toy, then it is unnecessary bloat, or it is an integral part of the system, then a non-free license is unacceptable. Another reason against non-free licenses is that whoever gets his software on these things, will shape the information technology future of entire countries, continents even. If you get on that slippery slope, everybody will fall over themselves to add their proprietary software to these machines and try to harvest the fruit of their investment later. But that's not what the project is trying to achieve. It's not a market expansion ploy for first-world IT companies.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · 2006-05-19 10:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

By only giving them free software, we give them the ability to make changes, to adapt the technology to their needs. It also gives them an entrance into the IT market

I'd agree with most of that but see no need for the "only" part. Give them OSS. However, I'd think the goal of such a project would be to expose them to technology. The more you can expose them to, the better of they are. If they want to make changes, etc and learn how to do all that then great they can do that with the OSS provided, but I don't see how you can argue that they'd be better prepared to enter the IT market by ignoring a huge segment of if (closed source is still the vast majority of the IT market). The choice doesn't need to be exclusive, you can give them both. Heck, if available for free (and available for the OS) I'd say you should ship it with MS software as well since thats the most used software in the world. If you want to help them, than give them as much as you can including stuff that will give them experience with the most popular technologies in the world. If its not so much about helping them, but more about proving a point or pushing your personal views, well then thats different.

--
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:40 · Score: 0

Ever heard of terminator seeds? Seen any of the research about how they can spread to contaminate non-patented crops?
Think that one over a little harder ... you're conflating two mutually exclusive bogeymen. Of course, you're also confusing food with seeds.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by SnowZero · 2006-05-19 10:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Here's the discussion about it on debian-legal. The new debian package for Sun's Java(tm) is intended to go into non-free, indicating they don't think it's really open source. Furthermore, it seems the debian-legal people were not consulted first, and they are not happy with the license even for a non-free package.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by JulesLt · 2006-05-19 10:47 · Score: 1

I'd be intrigued as to what definition of open-source Negroponte is working to - i.e. is he saying GPL only?

We know he has rejected free-beer closed source software (i.e. OS X), but it's a bit misleading to describe Sun's licence as 'closed-source'. It's not a binary blob (like many video drivers). You're free to study it, and you're free to implement your own; you could build a computer on a new kind of CPU and OS and compile up a version of the JVM without having to ask Sun's permission. To me that ticks most of the really important - personal freedom - parts of an open source licence.

What's limited is the ability of 'the community' to contribute, and more importantly, I suspect, to Red Hat, commercial freedom to modify and redistribute.
In that respect, the GPL is actually similarly restrictive, just in a different way.

--
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh ... you have' (League Against Tedium)
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by LDoggg_ · 2006-05-19 10:49 · Score: 1

Sadly, the Linux community is sometimes blinded by zealotry in cases like this.

You had me up until this.
The community isn't a hive mind. In this case only Mr. Negroponte's opinion here may or may not be considered zealotry because he's made his opinion public.

Sure it would be great if it was open source, but plenty of linux user's like myself are ok installing software like Sun's VM.

Sweeping generalizations of millions of individuals are 100% subjective by nature.
The only thing we know about the linux "community" is that it has something to do with linux.

--

"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:50 · Score: 0

The old quote about giving up essential liberties applies well here
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by samkass · 2006-05-19 10:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

By only giving them free software, we give them the ability to make changes, to adapt the technology to their needs.

That's a good argument, but not a good one for *only* giving them free software. What about the idea of giving them the best tool for the job? Wouldn't that that raise them up a bit? Such as a copy of Eclipse running on Java? Or do you want them to be stuck in emacs/C++ land, thinking that will help "raise the third world up" faster?

It also gives them an entrance into the IT market

The absolute BEST way to do THAT would be to load Windows on these machines.

No, the open source rule is arbitrary, petty, and will ultimately hurt the recipients of these machines.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:54 · Score: 0

Except in this case the "blind zealotry" position is being held by RedHat, the largest vendor of Linux, so it's hardly a fringe position.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:55 · Score: 0

It is similar to the argument people make saying "corporations that make genetically modified food
are causing people in Africa to starve", in countries that forbid the import of genetically modified
food. The policy, not the companies making the food, are what is causing the lack of that particular
food to be used.

And criticising people for refusing food which they believe will poison them is despicable. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that (a) people are starving, and (b) there is nothing stopping us giving them non-GM food. To say "you will accept the GM food our corporations want to force you to accept" is arrogant and inhuman.

I guess you would also offer bacon and ham to starving Jews, Muslims and vegetarians, and then sneer at them for being so stupid and picky when they turn down your "generous" offer.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by trollable · 2006-05-19 11:02 · Score: 1

way back in '94

Really? Which version? Did you run 1.0a? Still have it?

"... the first public release of Java and the HotJava web browser came on May 23, 1995. On January 9, 1996, the JavaSoft business group was formed by Sun Microsystems to develop the technology.[2] Two weeks later the first version of Java was released."

--
Million Dollar Screenshot
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 11:11 · Score: 0

The whole "laptop for every child" thing, noble as it may seem, is no more than a marketing strategy, anyway.

It is akin to Apple getting their stuff in all the schools.

Or cigarette ads with cartoon Camels.

If a real market doesn't exist, let's manipulate the minds of children to create one. Scary, and all hiding behind the guise of charity.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by goldspider · 2006-05-19 11:19 · Score: 1

"The idea is to help raise the third world up, not keep them dependant on the first world."

That's just a bit melodromatic, if not downright misleading, don't you think? Projects like this that rely solely on people's/companies' generocity should know better than to look a gift horse in the mouth.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 11:24 · Score: 0

The GP never said that is a good idea to only offer GM food, only that having an offer of food refused does not cause starvation. Scary thing is that in the US is it is getting harder and harder to find non-GM food. If that's what you have, that's what you have. Would you criticize a meat company that only offers meat charitably?
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 11:29 · Score: 0

in Stallman's sense of OSS

FFS, if you are going to single him out for his values, at least know what his values are. Stallman doesn't give a shit about open-source software (OSS). He cares about Free Software.

You could have said what you meant using the words "extreme" or "uncompromising" instead of misrepresenting somebody.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 11:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think the funniest part is that the license seems to have Debian's support...

Debian doesn't support anything unless there has been a general resolution to state a preference for or against something. This is a perfect example of how a few individuals in the Debian project have enough power to do whatever they want. This package was built in secret, the license was reviewed in secret, and it was pushed into the non-free achive after only a few hours in the new queue.

A new version of emacs would have more trouble getting it into the archive than Sun's Java apparently did. Please don't imagine that the actions of the Debian Cabal reflect the will of 1000 Debian Developers.

Even if Debian did allow Sun's Java in under the current license (and I expect to see it kicked back out shortly...the license is really that bad) it's in the non-free section. By definition, packages in non-free have licenses that Debian doesn't like.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · 2006-05-19 11:52 · Score: 1

Well, I'm sure it wasn't meant to be literal. Just another /. comment of "Hey! I like and you saying anything negitive at all about it makes me feel bad! Stop it!". You know, fanboy stuff ;-)

--
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by mangu · 2006-05-19 11:53 · Score: 1

You can't always have your cake and eat it too. How about a compromise? Only open-source where possible, but free as in beer is OK if there is no better open-source alternative.

That's a good compromise for a computer owned by a geek who can make his own decisions. For the stated purposes of the $100 laptop, it would be the camel's nose in the tent.

Children in the Third World do not need more corporation marketing telling them what to do, they already have access to as much Coca-Cola as they can buy, which is not very much. If there is one situation where zealotry is justified, this is it.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Firehed · 2006-05-19 12:12 · Score: 1

Well it hardly matters anyways. Unless it's my $100 going to pay for third-world laptops, the program isn't going to work. It's a great idea, but you're quite unlikely to find people with $100 saved up in regions of the world where families will buy non-iodized salt (which translates to all sorts of iodine-prevented diseases) for a fraction of a cent less because that fraction of a cent is important. Now if it's first-world taxpayers that will be funding this, it won't matter, but free software is - quite obviously - the only option for a sub-$100 laptop.

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Jason+Earl · 2006-05-19 12:26 · Score: 2

You don't need Sun's official Java to run Eclipse. Eclipse runs just fine using a Free Software JVM. Debian and Fedora both have packages where Eclipse is designed to run that way. Not that Eclipse is likely to run well on the sort of hardware that Negroponte is planning. Emacs, on the other hand, would run just fine on these machines. In fact, if you are willing to use SWT instead of Swing then you can create software that runs well on Free Software JVMs today. Just don't call what you are writing Java, because (like Eclipse) it isn't Java, but merely Java-esque. Part of the reason that Sun wants to retain control over Java is so that it can tell people what is Java (tm) and what is not Java (tm). Eclipse is not Java (tm).
As for loading Windows on these machines, that's clearly absurd. There simply isn't enough hardware to run anything remotely recent, and the Windows can't be modified to work around the obvious shortcomings of the hardware. Negroponte's goal with these computers is to create a software economy that can be met by folks in the third world. Free Software is clearly a quicker means to that end than anything Microsoft has to offer.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Rufty · 2006-05-19 13:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oh no! Sterility is spreading - soon everything will have inherited it and, erm, *wait just one minute here* ...
Sterility - heritable ? Spreading???? WFT?!?!?!?

--
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by kosmosik · 2006-05-19 13:44 · Score: 1

> This may not be a popular sentiment here

No. It is OK to bash Red Hat on /. ;)

> but I think the statement the failure of open source Java
> means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered
> PC's ... to bring affordable computing to children in developing
> nations is a bit of a cheap shot. The way it is stated, it makes
> Sun look like some sort of terrible ogre, that is denying children
> access to computers, when it is the program creator that does
> not allow Java on the laptops.

Exactly. Because (if You already haven't known that) RedHat is directly competing with Sun so this is basically a bullshit PR note to kick each other in the nuts.

RedHat for me has two faces - one is corporation side marketing/PR/and-so-on bullshit stuff.

The other is RH's great commitment to free software, RHEL is purely free software, with all sources aviable. You have some mandatory (on desktop) packages and some third-party binary-blob-drivers. But that is necesity for them to be on market.

Besides that RH is trully GPL, they give out sources, they pay for loads of developers working directly on GPLed code, they sponsor events, they even sponsor and support their free (like both beer and speech) distribution which is Fedora, they buy code and then release it as GPL so others can use it if they wish...

Etc.

RH is *great* company, with great attitude and great business model. Call me stupid - but I see it like this.

Oh, and I use SuSE. :)
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by SnowZero · 2006-05-19 13:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Get a fucking clue, you American cuntbag!

Where are you from, coward? Obviously your nation has taught you tolerance and tact.

open source != free software

No shit. I call Debian open source, because by RMS's definition, it includes things that are not Free Software. In fact, Debian's (slightly) more pragmatic approach is the prime origin of the term "open source".

You can open up your sources to everyone on the planet and forbid that they are compiled at all.

Actually, that wouldn't meet the open source definition. The very first sentence says "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Looks like it's you who could use a clue.

What have you contributed to the community?
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by illumin8 · 2006-05-19 14:08 · Score: 1

Sweeping generalizations of millions of individuals are 100% subjective by nature.
The only thing we know about the linux "community" is that it has something to do with linux.

Fair enough, my bad. I shouldn't have generalized. I should have said "sadly, some people (Negroponte) in the Linux community..."

--
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by miguel · 2006-05-19 14:10 · Score: 1

I actually find myself in agreement with this comment.

As I discussed on my blog (here) none of the reasons in the article seemed to go to the core of the issue.

The real issue here is having an "enterprise grade" Java implementation to go with the recent JBoss acquisition. I do not know if people routinely run JBoss on a full open source stack, but I would doubt that many people are willing to go that way, yet.

I said on the blog:

Now, on the other hand, everyone clamoring for Sun to open source Java seems to be tacitly admitting that free software can not compete in out-engineering a proprietary company if the proprietary company gives their goods for free, a point that I have made previously ("Fork in the Open Source Java world" and Open Source Java, Part 2). Tom Tromey did have an interesting follow up to my negative outlook (finding the post is an exercise for the reader).
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by dnoyeb · 2006-05-19 16:18 · Score: 2, Informative

There is no way you can call Eclipse Not Java just because it uses the available Java facilities to interface with the local OS. Eclipse runs in a sun JVM. Anything that is running in a sun JVM is definitely Java.

I agree that Sun is protecting their Java trademark. They have to after what MS pulled trying to kill off Java. I think they do go further than they really have to with it though.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by at2000 · 2006-05-19 16:43 · Score: 1

You can't always have your cake and eat it too. How about a compromise? Only open-source where possible, but free as in beer is OK if there is no better open-source alternative. This would allow people to use a mostly free OS, but still use quality closed-source yet free as in beer software like Java.
The phrase "open source" may have trapped you from considering why people care so much about it. It is not about whether we really want to view/modify the source, but that we have the freedom to do so. Freedom is so precious that you won't use money to compare with it. We need our children to grow up with freedom, so that they know how precious it is.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Ohreally_factor · 2006-05-19 17:16 · Score: 1

advocate one was pretty specific:

I was running java apps on my old 486 SX 2 50 with win 3.1 and only 4 Meg of RAM way back in '94

That sounds pretty literal to me.If he didn't want to be literal, he would have used a car analogy. =)

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Ohreally_factor · 2006-05-19 17:18 · Score: 1

So maybe they should change it to the 100 euro laptop project?

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Jason+Earl · 2006-05-19 17:27 · Score: 1

Eclipse certainly isn't Java when it is running on GCJ on my Debian box. It certainly isn't Java when I use GCJ to compile Eclipse not to byte code but to an ELF binary. GCJ isn't Java, it's not even close to passing Sun's tests. So are the programs that run on GCJ, and that admittedly aren't 100% Pure Java to begin with truly Java programs. Sun would say no.
What's more the SWT toolkit is essentially the same thing that got Microsoft into trouble. It's an extension to pure Java that only runs on certain operating systems, and doesn't look or act the same on the various platforms. What's more it provides lots of hooks for the various platform-specific features that it uses. Pick up an Eclipse installation on a Linux box and transfer it to Windows and it isn't going to work.
The problem is that when most developers talk about Java they are talking about Java the programming language. To us it's just a tool. However, Sun talks about Java as a platform. Eclipse breaks the idea of Java as a platform completely.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Nevyn · 2006-05-19 17:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Eclipse certainly isn't Java when it is running on GCJ ... etc.

So Eclipse the source code suddenly changes based on how it was compiled? Admitedly Sun designed all this talking at cross purposes into how they named a language a runtime and an ABI all the same thing.

Sure, when compiled into ELF binaries Eclipse (the binary) isn't in Java (binaries) anymore (duh!) ... but Eclipse (the source) is sure as hell is still written in Java (the language).

--
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by NutscrapeSucks · 2006-05-19 18:49 · Score: 1

There is no way you can call Eclipse Not Java just because it uses the available Java facilities to interface with the local OS.

The Sun marketing term is "Pure Java". Eclipse is not Pure Java.

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by jrumney · 2006-05-19 19:54 · Score: 1

About 80% of terminator seeds fail to reproduce. The other 20% pass on the trait to their children. Got it now?
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-05-19 20:39 · Score: 1

I call Debian open source, because by RMS's definition, it includes things that are not Free Software.
Eh? Like what? Stuff in non-free doesn't count, since it has been long established that non-free isn't part of Debian proper, but is rather a set of extra stuff that's maintained by the Debian project for the short-term benefit of Debian users.

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 21:03 · Score: 0

If you include Java on the $100 laptop, you give an opportunity to learn Java and the opportunity to gain employment in one of the most widely used languages for software development. Calling that a "market-expansion ploy" indicates you would rather achieve an iconoclastic victory in an intellectual debate with these "first-world IT companies" than actually help the $100 laptop users.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by shaitand · 2006-05-19 21:08 · Score: 1

"Now, on the other hand, everyone clamoring for Sun to open source Java seems to be tacitly admitting that free software can not compete in out-engineering a proprietary company if the proprietary company gives their goods for free, a point that I have made previously "

You would be wrong on this point. Nobody can compete with Sun on Java because Java is a standard that is controlled by Sun. By definition ALL innovation in the land of Java must come from Sun because only Sun has the power to bless it. Regardless of how rapid their development the best anyone else can hope to do is to not be very far behind.

Microsoft recognizes this and it is the basis of their embrace and extend philosophy. They rip a standard and turn it into a Microsoft standard by leveraging their existing monopoly. Because nobody else has a desktop monopoly they can use to create standards overnight, they are stuck trying to reverse engineer and copy a standard made by microsoft.

If anyone innovates in such a standard they risk the dictator holding the reigns (like sun or microsoft) not including their innovation and changing things in a way that is not compatible with their innovation.

Closed source products that are given away for free already fail to compete with open source. Look at IE and Firefox, IE is free but does not even begin to compare with Firefox. If you are a market drone then you will have to recognize that IE's marketshare was gained pre-firefox and that since Firefox went stable IE has only lost marketshare while firefox gained.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-05-19 21:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's a good argument, but not a good one for *only* giving them free software. What about the idea of giving them the best tool for the job?
What will be the best tool for the job in 5 years? In 20 years? Will Sun still be developing Java for Linux in that amount of time? If so, will it be compatible with these $100 laptops (which will probably not be replaced until the equipment wears out completely)?
Free software is the best tool for the job when your job has very long-term goals, and Negroponte knows it.

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-05-19 21:33 · Score: 1

Unless it's my $100 going to pay for third-world laptops, the program isn't going to work.
Consider this hypothetical scenario:
If I could get a hold of a $100 laptop, I'd probably buy two. So would others. Demand for the hardware would skyrocket. FOSS developers' interest in the platform would increase, simply because they have the hardware themselves. The amount of free software that's actually suited for the platform would increase, thus making the platform more valuable. More people buy the laptops.
To meet the demand, manufacturers would increase production. Competition and economies of scale would start to kick in. Prices go down.
Eventually, even a new computer architectures could be developed. Since the entire platform depends *only* on free software, the software is trivially ported to the new architectures. Demand goes up; Production increases; More economies of scale kick in; Prices go down.
Even if the prices of the laptops don't drop enough for the third world to be able to afford them, you can only use so many laptops. Eventually, you'll get tired of the current models (because you want increased battery life, or the screen is scratched, or whatever) and instead of pitching them into the trash, you can send your old laptops to the third world.
I see sub-$100 laptops as being very useful for the first world, and I think, at least hypothetically, that there is some plausibility in the claim that they could help the third world (or, more likely, "developing" countries).

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-05-19 21:35 · Score: 2, Informative

As far as I can tell, Debian doesn't have an official stance on the licensing yet, and debian-legal is quite unimpressed with it. The package was accepted into unstable/non-free prematurely, and has a good chance of being withdrawn soon. The article alleges support that really isn't there.

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 21:38 · Score: 0

As far as I am concerned, Red Hat is just another commercial entity. I don't think that Red Hat is any more or any less motivated to seek its own self interest by trying to increase share price than any other corporation, be it Sun, IBM, HP, or Microsoft.

The top institutional holders of Red Hat include Sands Capital, T. Rowe Price, RCM Capital Management, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Mellon Financial.

Red Hat insiders (Matt Szulik, Alex Pinchev, Joanne Rohde, Paul Cormier, and others) have sold over 2.7 million shares in the last 6 months.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 22:12 · Score: 0

I think the point is to let them learn about the technology rather than how to use the technology. Learning about the technology gives one the ability to improve the technology. Thus making one relevant with regards to the development of that technology.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Decaff · 2006-05-19 22:36 · Score: 1

What will be the best tool for the job in 5 years? In 20 years? Will Sun still be developing Java for Linux in that amount of time?

Why the focus on Sun? Don't you realise that other companies develop Java, including for Linux - like IBM?

Free software is the best tool for the job when your job has very long-term goals, and Negroponte knows it.

This is false. There have been non-free software products that have been around for far longer than free software and have excellent backward compatibility - Oracle is an example. In fact many free software products seem to have little worries about backward compatibility, breaking existing code. Look at migration issues with different versions of GCC and PERL over the past 10-15 years.

I am not saying that there is not some first-rate free software around, but to generalise in this way is nonsense.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by zootm · 2006-05-20 00:10 · Score: 1

BSD-licenced things and the like. "Free Software" includes only licences with the "copyleft"/"viral" restriction.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Frederico+Camara · 2006-05-20 02:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

The best tool to do the job, ok. But which job? Not the best job if you ask me. It's like saying that they should have the best broom to do the job. They would not make brooms, they would use them. That's the opposite of the idea behind the $100 computer.

The IT market is very well divided. A small group of people control the production means and a large amount of people are consumers. Copyright laws and Acts tend to dificult the entrance of people from the larger group to the smaller group. FLOSS tend to even the ground.

The problem here is that people generally are ok with the view that third world country should serve, because people from developed countries are servants too. They should have the best tools. But thinking of third world country people making tools is invasive, so have them use the tools for free instead. They will be happy. Forcing them to make the tools is "arbitrary, petty, and will ultimately hurt them".
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by amorsen · 2006-05-20 03:23 · Score: 1

The X Window System has always been considered Free Software by FSF. Look at the categories here, section "Non-copylefted free software".

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Smallpond · 2006-05-20 04:12 · Score: 1

Perhaps you should research your analogy a little. Zambia banned GM food partly because if it contaminates their native crop, then they will no longer be able to export to Europe. Since Europe requires labelling GM food, there is no market; people won't buy it. Second, look up "starlink" which is the corn that was being distributed in Zambia. It had not been approved for human consumption in the US at the time of the ban. There are two sides to every story.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by mrchaotica · 2006-05-20 04:35 · Score: 1

It is similar to the argument people make saying "corporations that make genetically modified food are causing people in Africa to starve", in countries that forbid the import of genetically modified food. The policy, not the companies making the food, are what is causing the lack of that particular food to be used.
Are you sure it's not the patents on the food that's the problem? 'Cause that's how it is with medicine...

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by synthespian · 2006-05-20 04:41 · Score: 1

Since when BSD-licensed software is not free software? You really gotta go read those FSF pages once again...

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-20 04:47 · Score: 0

That's a sound argument if the the goal is to get them jobs in the first world, but the goal is to enable them to work in their own countries and to do that they need free software that doesn't tie them into proprietary foreign IT products.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by synthespian · 2006-05-20 04:49 · Score: 1

You're absolutely right. It is a cheap shot, and we ought to be reading more into this RedHat notice to find out what it is really about.
Probably has to do with GCJ. RedHat has been competing with Novell for enterprise-grade dominance. Novell chose Mono and C#, so RedHat went with GCJ, at a time Sun was clearly hindering distribution on Linuxes (still does on BSDs - with the exception of FreeBSD now).
Now RedHat is probably pissed off that it won't be able to push their per-seat licenses + GCJ as a solution for enterprise grade Java platforms, since Sun has made life easier for Linux distros. All along, this has been a Sun vs. RedHat thing.
(IMHO, Sun really is too slow...Look at OpenSolaris...They really don't give it as much attention as they ought to.)

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by synthespian · 2006-05-20 04:52 · Score: 1

This non-free Debian thing is very much someone sucking your **** and then you saying that you did not have sex with that person.

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by synthespian · 2006-05-20 04:59 · Score: 1

You do realize that the JVM specifications are published and that, in fact, the OSS community has been incompetent in the sense that no one group has really come together to implement a fully compliant virtual machine (including security aspects) ?

It's very easy to point your fingers at Sun and blame them for the failure of the OSS community.

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by jgrahn · 2006-05-20 05:22 · Score: 1

BSD-licenced things and the like. "Free Software" includes only licences with the "copyleft"/"viral" restriction.
No it doesn't. Have a look at this list. The Gnu project defines the BSD license as a "GPL-Compatible, Free Software License", which is the category they like the most (apart from the GPL, that is).
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by jgrahn · 2006-05-20 05:34 · Score: 1

You can't always have your cake and eat it too. How about a compromise? Only open-source where possible, but free as in beer is OK if there is no better open-source alternative.
Yes. Fortunately, there's C++, Python and various other languages ...
This would allow people to use a mostly free OS, but still use quality closed-source yet free as in beer software like Java.
Not unreasonable in general (I use Opera with that excuse) but it's a more serious decision when that software is the basis of many other programs, like a Java environment is.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by yuna49 · 2006-05-20 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

All the comments in this thread so far have ignored the issue of software redistribution. The audience for the $100 laptop needs to be able to obtain and redistribute all its software freely. For instance, having a place (in a school, a Internet cafe, etc.) where you can connect this laptop and install anything it needs. That won't work unless all the software permits unlimited redistribution with no strings attached.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by zootm · 2006-05-20 06:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, I was being a bit stupid there. :)
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-05-20 09:35 · Score: 1

Yeah, I overgeneralized. I meant specifically the $100 laptop project, but that's not what I wrote.

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by sog_abq · 2006-05-20 14:48 · Score: 1

Hilarious!
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-20 18:50 · Score: 0

Home's user did not satisfy the Red Hat Enterprise License (RedHat 4 AS, RedHat 4 ES, ...) and don't want to back to Fedora.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Lally+Singh · 2006-05-20 23:49 · Score: 1

It's not a warm-fuzzy comprimise for the Open-source. A lot of governments don't like the idea of running code from a foreign nation without being able to see its source code. Which, IMHO, is fair.

--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by petermgreen · 2006-05-22 23:04 · Score: 1

you could build a computer on a new kind of CPU and OS and compile up a version of the JVM without having to ask Sun's permission.

but as soon as you wan't to distribute that computer outside your organisation you do need suns permission.

this new license is for binary redistribution (including repackageing) of official sun builds only!

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Braino420 · 2006-05-23 05:02 · Score: 1

Sadly, the Linux community is sometimes blinded by zealotry in cases like this.

How does thinking ahead and sticking to your ideals mean that you're "blinded"? You're just angry because you would give up your freedom for a very small convenience. To some people this is a big deal, and if you do a little reading on it, you would understand why. Some people underestimate the value of source code.

Mod me down, whatever, but Sun isn't making money either way.

--
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by JamesOfTheDesert · 2006-05-23 06:22 · Score: 1

That's a sound argument if the the goal is to get them jobs in the first world, but the goal is to enable them to work in their own countries and to do that they need free software that doesn't tie them into proprietary foreign IT products.
There's something of a chicken-and-egg process here, too. Larger companies may prefer to have their software written in Java because Java develoeprs are so numerous; (many) developers drift towards Java because they feel more comfortable having amore job opportunities. Lather, rinse, repeat.
But suppose the $100 laptop included a full developer's tool-set for Haskell, or Ruby, or Lisp (or whatever; something free and open to suit the distributers). Before long, there are large sections of the world where such developers are numerous; companies feel confortable doing projects in @some_other_language because they know they can always get developers. Jobs, then, are nice side effect.

--

Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by JulesLt · 2006-05-23 07:28 · Score: 1

Agreed.

I was trying to draw a line between licences that ensure personal freedom against those that allow commercial freedom - the former strikes me as more important if useless to most - the second is probably more useful.

--
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh ... you have' (League Against Tedium)
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by SnowZero · 2006-05-24 10:00 · Score: 1

Eh? Like what?

Such as every version of Perl before 6? FSF does not consider the Artistic Licence 1.x to be "free", while 2.0 is. Perl 5 is not in non-free. So yes, the differences are often pretty subtle or minor. However I refuse to be labelled "wrong" when my definition is in agreement with both the FSF and SPI.

Personally I'm more of an "open source" person than a "free software" person. However I do feel that uncompromising groups have something to add to society, by maintaining balance against forces pulling in the opposite direction (FSF, ACLU, etc). Thus I try not to misrepresent their interpretations.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-05-27 07:20 · Score: 1

Such as every version of Perl before 6? FSF does not consider the Artistic Licence 1.x to be "free", while 2.0 is.
Hmm. That's an interesting observation. My understanding is that the FSF doesn't so much consider the original Artistic Licence as being non-free in principle, just too vague to be considered free with certainty.
However, Debian's perl-base 5.8.8-4 package says this in its copyright file:
Copyright 1989-2001, Larry Wall All rights reserved. This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or b) the "Artistic License" which comes with Perl.

I doubt that RMS would consider that non-free. :)
However I do feel that uncompromising groups have something to add to society, by maintaining balance against forces pulling in the opposite direction (FSF, ACLU, etc). Thus I try not to misrepresent their interpretations.
Agreed.

--
http://outcampaign.org/

not satisfied with what? by sfjoe · 2006-05-19 09:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sun never said the new license was the final step. Contrarily, they said they are going to progress slowly:
"No date has been set for open sourcing Java but Sun is anxious to get more developers involved in the JCP and using NetBeans to get their feedback."
What's this bonehead complaining about?

--
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.

Re:not satisfied with what? by Eric+Smith · 2006-05-19 09:44 · Score: 1

Sun never said the new license was the final step. Contrarily, they said they are going to progress slowly:
Twelve years and counting...
Re:not satisfied with what? by MooUK · 2006-05-19 11:45 · Score: 1

WHY progress slowly, though?

I've seen nothing to support "progressing slowly" in any way. If you're going to do something like this, why not just do it rather than "progress slowly"?
Re:not satisfied with what? by sbrown123 · 2006-05-19 12:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

I take their (Sun's) message as not a tentative step but rather a step to see when, or if, the OSS community will bite. They will also probably do something like they did with OpenOffice and make developers agree to a JCA in order to contribute code. If you are not familiar with this contract I'll summarize it for you: it legally negates the LGPL that comes with OpenOffice, prevents forking, and allows Sun to close source the codebase and claim all work as sole IP owner. People are sometimes so blinded by their hate for Microsoft that they ignore that Sun is really just a competitor that wants to be more of the same.
Re:not satisfied with what? by bjarvis354 · 2006-05-19 12:30 · Score: 1

That "bonehead" has a valid complaint about the fact that this distribution license *still* sucks. Wrap Java in whatever new clothes you want, but as long as it is binary only, GNU/Linux alternative archs like powerpc/arm/sparc will be essentially unsupported. As such I will never be interested in using it either.
Re:not satisfied with what? by xenocide2 · 2006-05-19 18:06 · Score: 1

Well, if you're going to describe the process as a bargining situation, then he's taking his own next step. If your final goal is GPL'd Java, then when they allow you to merely redistribute the JDK, your next step is to complain that it's still not open source.

--
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Re:not satisfied with what? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-20 10:43 · Score: 0

"As such I will never be interested in using it either."
It's not exactly fascinated with you neither, shithead.

Well, given the specs for the OLPC 'puters by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 09:33 · Score: 5, Funny

I guess it's a good thing they won't run Java.

Re:Well, given the specs for the OLPC 'puters by AuMatar · 2006-05-19 09:40 · Score: 4, Funny

Agreed. Their arms would be too tired to crank before the JVM finished classloading.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?

Whose fault is it if it can't be used? by NSash · 2006-05-19 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

"He says the failure to open-source Java means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PCs envisioned under Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child project, to bring affordable computing to children in developing nations. Negroponte wants only open source software on the machines, according to Red Hat, which is a member of the project."

Well then that's Negroponte's problem, not Sun's. There's nothing in Sun's license that would prevent someone from bundling the JVM with whatever hardware you please.

Re:Whose fault is it if it can't be used? by gomoX · 2006-05-19 15:14 · Score: 1

The whole point of open sourcing java is to get more widespread use for it. "Hey, if you won't use my product, then that's your problem" - mmmmnope. It's Sun's problem when they miss a huge potential market like that.

--
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
Re:Whose fault is it if it can't be used? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 21:05 · Score: 0

It's just as equally the market's problem that they're missing Sun's software. Sun has one goal: make money. If something is likely to bring in more money for them, they will likely do it. If something is likely to result in zero additional profit, they likely will not do it. They're already giving away Java for free; opensourcing it would not help their financial interests one little bit, and they risk losing whatever IP they have invested in the platform. Which really brings us back to the fundamental problem with the opensource movement: sure, it's nice if software is free, but someone has to write it, and that someone has to make money somehow. If all software becomes free, noone's going to pay anything for it, and whatever programmers wrote it will either starve to death or find alternate employment (no, not all of us have the chance to get paid hundreds of thousands for doing speaking tours about how great OSS is). So you see, it really is not Sun's problem that someone with less business sense than them is refusing to use their product because they still think there's value to be extracted out of it.
Re:Whose fault is it if it can't be used? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-21 05:11 · Score: 0

Yes, but Sun is a hardware company, not a software company. An employee of Sun has said as much and also that Sun intends to open source all of their software at some point, this was in an interview not too long ago on (I think) lugradio. They'll make their money on their hardware not their software.

Debian? by Tester · 2006-05-19 09:34 · Score: 1

I suppose Debian has only accepted it into non-free?

Re:Debian? by Cyclops · 2006-05-19 09:46 · Score: 3, Informative

I suppose Debian has only accepted it into non-free?
Indeed, but without approval from the legal guys, even though he later on said something in his defense, but clearly not well thought enough to make a decision (eg, admits no knowledge of US law).

Before that, the Debian Project leader said someone apparently read the license, but not only was it definitly not analysed in public, but also apparently he did not think it proper to explain anything.

Debian's non-free is not for copyright violation, but for Freedom violation.
Re:Debian? by ENOENT · 2006-05-19 09:46 · Score: 1

Yup. You have to accept Sun's EULA before the packages will install.

--
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
Re:Debian? by rcw-work · 2006-05-19 09:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Correct.
Re:Debian? by KiloByte · 2006-05-19 10:28 · Score: 5, Informative

Not from Debian, just from Anthony Towns. He was soundly thrashed for this on debian-legal and debian-devel -- he's pretty much the only person who seems to believe Sun's new license is any good.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:Debian? by John+Hasler · 2006-05-19 10:30 · Score: 1

> Marketing speak from Debian?

Unfortunately, yes.

> Anyhow, it does confirm that Debian is convinced this is open
> enough "to be compatible."

This is by no means settled.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Debian? by wuzzeb · 2006-05-19 10:35 · Score: 1

Actually, there is a lot of discussion going on right now on the debian-devel and debian-legal mailing lists about if the new SUN License is compatible. See this thread on debian-legal to follow the discussion. People are calling for Sun's Java to be removed from non-free.

Sun is a Business... by ZSpade · 2006-05-19 09:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not a Charity. I think it would be fantastic if they opened up for everyone. But they have to look out for ol' number one first, or there won't be any Sun at all. I'm sure they could make it work though, this just isn't their priority, and shouldn't have to be. Red hat may not be happy with it, but last time I checked, Redhat's glee doesn't fill Sun's coffers.

--
Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.

Re:Sun is a Business... by Eric+Smith · 2006-05-19 09:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think it would be fantastic if they opened up for everyone. But they have to look out for ol' number one first, or there won't be any Sun at all.
OK, so explain how making the binary available as a no-charge download contributes more money to their bottom line than releasing it as open source or free software would.
Re:Sun is a Business... by AKAImBatman · 2006-05-19 09:53 · Score: 1

explain how making the binary available as a no-charge download

For the last time, Java has the source available. It just isn't "Free Software" in the sense that you can't release your own binaries or fork the code.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Sun is a Business... by ZSpade · 2006-05-19 09:55 · Score: 1

Easy, they still hold the exclusive license this way. No matter what anyone does with it, it still belongs to them, and so they hold a level of control over their product. I could be wrong, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I'm sure I'll be corrected if so. That's the beauty of posting at slashdot. If you post something in the wrong, you will no doubt be corrected, and learn.

--
Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
Re:Sun is a Business... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:17 · Score: 0

No the beauty of slashdot is that you'll get a big pile of answers and you can pick the one you like, right or wrong....
Re:Sun is a Business... by Eric+Smith · 2006-05-19 10:25 · Score: 1

For the last time, Java has the source available. It just isn't "Free Software"
Yes, so please explain again how it will hurt Sun's bottom line to go the extra step of making it open source. They've gone more than halfway there, but they're not going to get the real benefits of open source without finishing the job.
in the sense that you can't release your own binaries or fork the code.
In other words, it's not even CLOSE to being open source. Being able to release your own binaries is one of the strengths of open source (or free software). If that were allowed, we might actually have a working Java plugin for Firefox and Mozilla for 64-bit Linux.
"Almost open source" isn't good enough, when what's missing is the very thing that makes open source useful and worthwhile.
Re:Sun is a Business... by Eric+Smith · 2006-05-19 10:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

Easy, they still hold the exclusive license this way
If they were to GPL it, they would STILL hold the exclusive license. GPLing it doesn't give away the ownership, and it doesn't prevent the owner from also licensing it under other terms.
The same is true of various other open source licenses.
And in any case, that doesn't answer my question as to how it would hurt their bottom line.
Re:Sun is a Business... by NutscrapeSucks · 2006-05-19 11:19 · Score: 1

Yes, so please explain again how it will hurt Sun's bottom line to go the extra step of making it open source.

Sun was able to sue Microsoft for $750 Million because Java was not open source, not to mention all the indirect costs if Microsoft was successful at forking it.

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:Sun is a Business... by Eric+Smith · 2006-05-19 11:49 · Score: 1

And if it Java was available under the GPL, do you think that Microsoft would have been willing to use it under the GPL terms? It seems much more likely that Microsoft would have purchased a non-GPL license from Sun, given how much vitriol against the GPL they have vented in public.
If GPL'd Java had been available, and Microsoft had used it, Sun would have had grounds to sue if Microsoft did not comply with the GPL.
If GPL'd Java had been available, but Microsoft decided to purchase a non-GPL license from Sun, there is no reason to believe the outcome would have been any different than the actual case in which Java was not available under the GPL.
The same argument applies to almost any open source license, although the GPL would actually protect Sun's rights better than most open source licenses.
Re:Sun is a Business... by DragonWriter · 2006-05-19 11:56 · Score: 1

Sun was able to sue Microsoft for $750 Million because Java was not open source
Sun was able to sue Microsoft because of the licensing arrangement with Microsoft, true. However, that was then -- when Java was comparatively new, and their weren't clean room, open-source implementations. Now, if someone wanted to split the Java world, they wouldn't bother licensing it from Sun, anyway, so not open sourcing it doesn't protect Sun from forks of the standard, only from forks of the actual code, which aren't what matters in the market. (Alternatively, what someone would do now if they had lots of market power was release their own VM with similar features to Javas, their own set of languages targetting that VM, etc.)
Re:Sun is a Business... by Cal+Paterson · 2006-05-19 12:00 · Score: 1

Not a Charity. I think it would be fantastic if they opened up for everyone. But they have to look out for ol' number one first, or there won't be any Sun at all. I'm sure they could make it work though, this just isn't their priority, and shouldn't have to be. Red hat may not be happy with it, but last time I checked, Redhat's glee doesn't fill Sun's coffers.

The fact that they are or are not a business is of little concern to anyone involved. This could be written by the Pope, but if people don't think it's Free enough, it's not going anywhere.
Re:Sun is a Business... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 12:38 · Score: 0

You might have a point if they actually made any money out of Java being closed. But they don't. They don't sell Java. Keeping it closed doesn't improve the quality of the product. And no, it doesn't prevent incompatibility either. In fact, by keeping it closed, they guarantee multiple independent implementations, which causes more incompatibility than if they just opened the source.
Re:Sun is a Business... by NutscrapeSucks · 2006-05-19 12:46 · Score: 1

And if you're wrong about Microsoft and the GPL, you don't have an argument.

Anyway, my point is that As-Is Java has helped Sun's bottom line -- you might not like it, but dems the facts.

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:Sun is a Business... by VGPowerlord · 2006-05-19 14:29 · Score: 1

If they were to GPL it, they would STILL hold the exclusive license. GPLing it doesn't give away the ownership, and it doesn't prevent the owner from also licensing it under other terms.
Quoth the GPL v2:
"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)"
This is what we call forking, and yes, it is allowed under the GPL v2. Sun won't license it under the GPL for that very reason. See Sun vs. Microsoft, which resulted in .NET.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:Sun is a Business... by edwdig · 2006-05-19 17:35 · Score: 1

OK, so explain how making the binary available as a no-charge download contributes more money to their bottom line than releasing it as open source or free software would.

Sun doesn't make money directly from the Java downloads, but the company's reputation is largely built around Java.

Let's say Sun open sources Java, and RedHat tweaks it to work better with the version of Eclipse they ship. These changes accidentally break something in Sun's NetBeans. No one notices until after the RedHat ships a release. Sun now looks bad because their own Java products don't work well. The user's first impression is going to be that Sun is at fault, not RedHat, thereby reducing Sun's reputation because of RedHat's errors.

And for those who say that a bug like that would be caught in time, let's not forget that Fedora Core 5's initial release didn't work with binary drivers such as the nVidia drivers.
Re:Sun is a Business... by xenocide2 · 2006-05-19 18:10 · Score: 1

Well, lets face it, Sun's doing a good enough job making sure there won't be a Sun at all even without open sourcing things.

--
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Re:Sun is a Business... by jZnat · 2006-05-19 19:25 · Score: 1

Sun would already have that problem covered. If your version of Java does not fully meet Sun's specifications, you are not legally entitled to use the "Java" trademark (for instance this trademark). Thusly, if Red Hat were to release an incompatible version of Sun's Java anything (or any other Java-related technology) and falsely advertised it as such (using the Java trademark), Sun would be able to sue Red Hat for trademark infringement.

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Re:Sun is a Business... by synthespian · 2006-05-20 05:08 · Score: 1

And if you're wrong about Microsoft and the GPL, you don't have an argument.

You got him there! You can't sustain an argument when you ignore half of the truth table.

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Re:Sun is a Business... by j0ebaker · 2006-05-21 06:36 · Score: 1

Sun is a business, yess. But they are a business that courts Open Source practitioners. Sun needs to give up it's worry about forking. They have the power of branding on their side. If they use GPL, then any derivitive works also must be licensed under the GPL. So if there are improvements in a Fork, Sun is free to bring those improvements back into their version.

I am so outraged by Sun Microsystems and their rants against the GPL. Sun, please open source Java under the GPL. You could even take a page from MySQL's playbook and dual license it.

The path of building other Java stacks is a noble effort. But unless Sun agrees to wait to deploy their Java improvements untill these other stacks are 100% ready to implement the new features at the same time Sun rolls out theirs, we are threatened by upgrades from Sun.

-Joe Baker
Burlington, Wisconsin, USA

Honesty? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Okay ... Redhat is a competitor to Sun. Redhat is supporting an alternative Java implementation. Doesn't that make it likely Redhat has a slanted viewpoint, and would be presenting a slanted viewpoint?

Re:Honesty? by Eric+Smith · 2006-05-19 09:52 · Score: 1

Redhat isn't trying to make money on alternative Java implementations. They're doing it because the Sun implementation isn't available to them under licensing terms they are willing to accept. If Sun's Java license were open source (or better yet, free software), Redhat would likely not be investing nearly as much money and effort to develop an alternative.

I'm sorry, but how? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 09:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Java technology is still free to download and develop against. Why exactly does it not being fully OSS prevent it from being on these laptops? It sounds to me like another example of OSS zealots taking their passions too far. You're going to prevent technology from being put in the hands of those in need, just because you don't agree with their license?

Re:I'm sorry, but how? by bjarvis354 · 2006-05-19 12:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Obviously you haven't ever tried to install Java on GNU/Linux running on anything else that an x86. The real reason is that as long as Java license is so restritive as to only allow it to be distributed as binary only, it will suck using it on other archs...funny since it was promised as the solution...remember "write once, run anywhere"?
Re:I'm sorry, but how? by kosmosik · 2006-05-19 13:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because you've already sayed it - *still*. It is stil free for download. But it is *possible* to cease that - and that is why it is not compilant. Because you are dependent on one vendor. Point.

Free or not - same like being pregnant - you are or you are not. Java is not (free).
Re:I'm sorry, but how? by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · 2006-05-19 21:12 · Score: 1

Read the actual license, not the FAQ (which pretty clearly contradicts the license and tries to make it look better than it is), AC. Your point about downloading being free is a strawman anyway, the problem is distributing it as part of a distribution... After reading the license, if you really can't see what the problems are, read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/thrd2 .html#00752.
One example:
(c) you do not combine, configure or distribute the Software to run in conjunction with any additional software that implements the same or similar functionality or APIs as the Software;
That sounds like distributing gcj or a java library implementation on the same OS is not allowed, although "in conjunction" and "similar functionality" might mean something totally different in lawyer-lingo...
Re:I'm sorry, but how? by synthespian · 2006-05-20 05:12 · Score: 1

Why is it that people from NetBSD and OpenBSD are able to download the source code and compile it, and people from Linux distros aren't?

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Re:I'm sorry, but how? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-20 13:05 · Score: 0

Getting the Java port (in FreeBSD, at least) to compile on AMD64 was a bitch. I *could* and *did* do it, but I'd much rather have not had to. I would assume most people would feel the same.

I seriously doubt by rbanffy · 2006-05-19 09:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

I seriously doubt the current implementation of Java would fit inside a 400 MHz x86 computer that's designed more to be energy-efficient and small than to be fast.

If Java is to run on the OLPC computer, it needs a smaller, simpler implementation. Sun provides all information neccessary to build one. It's up to Red Hat or any one other than them to make it.

And, BTW, teaching Java to kids?! What do you want? To scare them away?

--
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com

Re:I seriously doubt by 9mm+Censor · 2006-05-19 09:56 · Score: 1

"And, BTW, teaching Java to kids?! What do you want? To scare them away?" Yeah, teach them C++ instead.
Re:I seriously doubt by geekoid · 2006-05-19 10:09 · Score: 1

You give any kid a compiler and a book on any language, they will do some amazing things. Even if it's only to create a tool for a project.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:I seriously doubt by FooBarWidget · 2006-05-19 10:18 · Score: 0, Redundant

"And, BTW, teaching Java to kids?! What do you want? To scare them away?"

Tell that to the millions of kids out there who program in Visual Basic.NET.
Re:I seriously doubt by bill_kress · 2006-05-19 10:26 · Score: 1, Informative

Except for certain math co-processor functions used for 3-d graphics, Java is rarely less than 50% as fast as C and often significantly faster.

If that seems counter-intuitive, consider that java compiles into machine code (at run time) that is run time-optimized.

For instance, if it notices that it's frequently calling a series of functions with a certain set of values and those functions don't change state, it could calculate the return and skip calling the function altogether.

Although that may not be an exact representation of what's going on, some of the optimizations are much more tricky, and they are across the board. These are things that C and C++ (and even assembly) physically can't compete with.

Here's another trick, one C++ can't compete with. In an OO language, you often allocate thousands of objects a second--that's extremely typical. In C++, it is necessary to spend execution time to physically recover the space of each object that has been allocated. In Java, the management process has gotten to the point where all it does is reserve the few objects it wants to keep then wipe the rest of the objects at once (like returning from a call, you recover the entire stack at once but for permanent heap memory instead of stack memory)

Or are you talking about the physical size of the JRE? It's 13mb, I'm not sure how much it expands to but considering that it's mostly a jar (compressed already), it should be much more efficient that C/C++ libraries. On top of that, since none of it's statically linked, each nontrivial Java app placed on the laptop should be smaller than the equivalent C/C++ app (Especially since byte code was invented to reduce size first--it was used in Excel to reduce code size long before Java was invented)

So, umm, in what way won't it fit?

Oh, and on top of that, to say something like java will scare kids away reveals much more about what kind of a programmer you are than I'd personally be comfortable with myself.
Re:I seriously doubt by Haeleth · 2006-05-19 11:02 · Score: 1

Java is rarely less than 50% as fast as C and often significantly faster.

This claim is made in every Java-related thread. In fact, with every thread, the claim gets more extravagant. You're the first person I've seen assert that it is often faster, or significantly faster.

So, where's the proof, please? Which scientific, peer-reviewed study are you referring to that demonstrates that Java is "often significantly faster" than C?

All I see in your post is fantastic claims supported by fast talking and handwaving. If there is anything to what you are saying, I would rather like to see, you know, just a teensy bit of evidence?
Re:I seriously doubt by rpdillon · 2006-05-19 11:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

I read GP's post as saying that it was rarely less than 50% as fast as C, and often significantly faster [than 50% as fast as C].
Which is to say, Java is typically somewhere between 50%-100% the speed of C. Specifically, this would mean it is typcially NOT as fast as C.
Not sure what you were saying, but this seems to be a _very_ reasonable claim, and perhaps a bit conservative. You can certainly craft some scenarios where Java could be faster, and I expect Java to typically be faster than half the speed of C.
Even in the java benchmark revisited, where the author is out to prove a point that Java is slow, Java performs fairly well (often better than 50% as fast as C using g++), and even sometimes being the fastest or in a dead heat with C (methcall and heapsort). This completely ignores that Java's performance will often be best in more complex applications, when it's own internal optimization can really pay off. Certainly, there are likewise instances where Java can be shown to be much slower than C as well.
Anyway, I can see your point in general, but I think so all the "extravagant claims about Java peroformance posts" to respond to, you picked the wrong one.
Re:I seriously doubt by dhasenan · 2006-05-19 11:38 · Score: 1

Significantly faster than half the speed of C, the grandparent meant. That could be 65% or 75% the speed of C.
Re:I seriously doubt by DragonWriter · 2006-05-19 11:59 · Score: 1

VB.Net is probably easier to get started in programming, though not programming well.

(Certainly, that would be true of vB6.0 vs. Java, I think its still true of VB.Net)

I'm really not sure what language is good for children to learn to program that both isn't scary and, at the same time, doesn't lend itself to fostering bad habits.
Re:I seriously doubt by Danga · 2006-05-19 12:26 · Score: 1

it should be much more efficient that C/C++ libraries. On top of that, since none of it's statically linked, each nontrivial Java app placed on the laptop should be smaller than the equivalent C/C++ app

I beg to differ, while the actual Java app may be smaller you still need to have the libraries available (and be the right version etc). Being dynamically linked can be great since resources can be shared between different apps, but for some situations having the ability to statically link is a good idea to "make sure" things will run. What happens if your java app needs something that is dynamically linked yet the library is too old? (I am curious since I have some Java experience from university but most of my professional experience is C/C++) Either way the actual apps might be smaller for Java but extra disk space still needs to be utilized (along with the real issue, that the libraries available are compatible).

--
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
Re:I seriously doubt by shutdown+-p+now · 2006-05-19 12:34 · Score: 1

VB.Net is probably easier to get started in programming, though not programming well. (Certainly, that would be true of vB6.0 vs. Java, I think its still true of VB.Net)
It's not. VB.NET is largely the same as C# - or Java, for that matter. There have been some steps made to simplify it in VB.NET 2005, but it is still a long way from VB6 in terms of how easy it is to just write something, no matter how ugly the code.
I'm really not sure what language is good for children to learn to program that both isn't scary and, at the same time, doesn't lend itself to fostering bad habits.
Plenty of them. Smalltalk is the one there are good IDEs (e.g. Squeak) for, though.
Re:I seriously doubt by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 12:48 · Score: 0

Here is some evidence. Java recived a bad rep from the first couple iterations. Before say 1.3 the performance was crap. Now with the 1.5vm it is quite competitive with c/c++ compilers.

It has it's uses though you don't want to use it to do ls or other programs with a short run time. But with the runtime optimization it can be optimized in ways a a c++ compiler just can't which benefits longer running programs.
Re:I seriously doubt by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 14:07 · Score: 0

I seriously doubt the current implementation of Java would fit inside a 400 MHz x86 computer that's designed more to be energy-efficient and small than to be fast. If Java is to run on the OLPC computer, it needs a smaller, simpler implementation.

Check out http://java.sun.com/products/cdc/, it's for smaller computers than their regular J2SE. Here is similar stuff from IBM: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zo nes/wireless/weme_eval_runtimes.html.

I run this on a 400 MHz MIPS (Au1500 from AMD) and it works just fine. 400 MHZ x86 should actually be faster and, depending on available memory, may be better off running J2SE.

Basically, here are JVMs for cellphones, server farms and everything in between.
Re:I seriously doubt by Chris+Pimlott · 2006-05-19 14:55 · Score: 1

Java first came out in 1996. A state of the art Pentium PC back then was around 200 Mhz. Since then Java has only gotten faster, and a 400Mhz MIPS CPU is faster than a P2 400 Mhz back in the day.

Maybe 400Mhz seems really slow today, but it's still got plenty of power. Java was in fact designed for appliances and it runs in plenty of devices today with much slower chips (your cellphone, for example). You've got a pretty myopic view of things if you really don't think a 400Mhz processor can run Java.
Re:I seriously doubt by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 15:09 · Score: 0

Don't know about that, currently I am running java on a 400MGhz embedded device, an XScale-PXA255, designed to be energy efficient. It does have 60 megabytes of memory, however, which is nice. The JVM takes up 10M on the disk (or flash drive).
Re:I seriously doubt by jlarocco · 2006-05-19 15:13 · Score: 1

Except for certain math co-processor functions used for 3-d graphics, Java is rarely less than 50% as fast as C and often significantly faster.
Is that Java compiled with gcj? With javac? Is it C compiled with gcc? Visual C++? Intel C compiler? egcs? Digital Mars? One language can't be "faster" than another. Only one compiler produces faster executables than another.

If that seems counter-intuitive, consider that java compiles into machine code (at run time) that is run time-optimized.

For instance, if it notices that it's frequently calling a series of functions with a certain set of values and those functions don't change state, it could calculate the return and skip calling the function altogether.
Does it? What if the state of the object can affect the return value?

Although that may not be an exact representation of what's going on, some of the optimizations are much more tricky, and they are across the board.
Oh, no, I guess it doesn't actually do that. I think you meant to say "I pulled that example out of my ass, but Sun's JVM does some optimization at run-time."

These are things that C and C++ (and even assembly) physically can't compete with.
Bullshit. Assembly language, almost by definition, can do anything that a program on a particular architecture can do. If it can't be done in assembly language, it can't be done.
What do you think Sun's java binary is written in? It's C (or C++, I'm too lazy to check). If Sun can write a program in C that implements those optimizations, then it's possible to write a C program that performs the same optimizations on itself.

Here's another trick, one C++ can't compete with. In an OO language, you often allocate thousands of objects a second--that's extremely typical. In C++, it is necessary to spend execution time to physically recover the space of each object that has been allocated. In Java, the management process has gotten to the point where all it does is reserve the few objects it wants to keep then wipe the rest of the objects at once (like returning from a call, you recover the entire stack at once but for permanent heap memory instead of stack memory)
So...many...things...wrong... First, C++ *IS* object oriented. Second, I can think of several object oriented languages which do NOT lazily allocate memory. Third, do you even know for a fact that Java does this? Fourth, the fact that all of your OO code needs to create thousands of objects a second seems a little unusual. Fifth, "extremely typical" does not make sense. Sixth, there are very few things that are computationally possible, that C++ can't do. I can make a C++ program with lazy allocation in about 5 minutes. Just because you don't know how to do something in C++ doesn't mean it can't be done.

Or are you talking about the physical size of the JRE? It's 13mb, I'm not sure how much it expands to but considering that it's mostly a jar (compressed already), it should be much more efficient that C/C++ libraries. On top of that, since none of it's statically linked, each nontrivial Java app placed on the laptop should be smaller than the equivalent C/C++ app (Especially since byte code was invented to reduce size first--it was used in Excel to reduce code size long before Java was invented)
On my machine, the Java run-time alone, "rt.jar", is a 38 MB file. The GNU C++ library, "libstdc++.a", is a 7.6 MB file. Both of them are compressed, and both are loaded dynamically.
BUT, Sun's Java loads *every* jar file on the classpath entirely into shared memory. The *.jar files in my jre/lib directory are 51 MB by themselves. It's shared memory, so 20 JVMs can use a single copy, but it also means a single "Hello World" needs to load at least 51 MB, just to run. Unless there

--
Maybe not
Re:I seriously doubt by m874t232 · 2006-05-19 20:01 · Score: 1

Sun provides all information neccessary to build one.

Go read the license on the Java specs before you write such drivel.

If Java is to run on the OLPC computer, it needs a smaller, simpler implementation.

Well, funny you should say that, because that's what Sun's license specifically prohibits.

It's up to Red Hat or any one other than them to make it.

RedHat has been creating an implementation of Java--an excellent one. They have done so through cumbersome clean-room methods for the APIs because Sun's license doesn't allow them anything else, and the result will therefore never be fully compatible. That's Sun's fault, not RedHat's.
Re:I seriously doubt by MemoryDragon · 2006-05-19 21:35 · Score: 1

Seriously, forgoeing java and recommending C++ must be a joke. C++ is the biggest pile of garbage besides dos, which ever became industry standard. The language was designed after the, yeah this is cool, lets push this in also aspect. 90% of all problems arise by the fact that the language is insecure and has constructs which let people fight with the language itself instead of writing programs. Java is way closer to being able to teach children good programming practices, but practically I would neither choose C++, nor java, nor Lisp or Haskell, there is a system perfectly designed for such a task, and a language as well. Alan Kays Squeak system on top of Smalltalk (his baby also)
Re:I seriously doubt by bill_kress · 2006-05-20 02:28 · Score: 1

Google Java C speed comparison, or do you need me to do it for you?

Even peoploe who are pro-C come up with decent comparisions for java. Why shouldn't they, Java compiles to machine language anyway.
Re:I seriously doubt by ttfkam · 2006-05-20 03:32 · Score: 1

Is that Java compiled with gcj? With javac? Is it C compiled with gcc? Visual C++? Intel C compiler? egcs? Digital Mars? One language can't be "faster" than another. Only one compiler produces faster executables than another.

If you are compiling to bytecodes (*.class files), the "compiler" doesn't matter much. If you are comparing the runtimes of JVMs, which produce the binary executable ostensibly after the program starts, then we can talk. As for comparing GCJ's direct compilation to Sun Hotspot engine, GCJ loses almost every time and usually by a noticeable margin. GCJ at this point should be seen for its convenience in packaging, not its raw speed. (I still like GCJ, but let us call a spade a spade.)

If that seems counter-intuitive, consider that java compiles into machine code (at run time) that is run time-optimized.

For instance, if it notices that it's frequently calling a series of functions with a certain set of values and those functions don't change state, it could calculate the return and skip calling the function altogether.
Does it? What if the state of the object can affect the return value?

Often times, the granularity of the JVM in this case is not at the object level, but at the field level. This is a common misconception. What you see as an object at the code level is not necessarily how it's handled inside the JVM.

Although that may not be an exact representation of what's going on, some of the optimizations are much more tricky, and they are across the board.
Oh, no, I guess it doesn't actually do that. I think you meant to say "I pulled that example out of my ass, but Sun's JVM does some optimization at run-time."

No, he's right. Just because someone isn't a JVM developer doesn't mean that his points are made up.

Bullshit. Assembly language, almost by definition, can do anything that a program on a particular architecture can do. If it can't be done in assembly language, it can't be done.

From a pure math point of view you are correct. In the real world you're quite wrong. Except maybe (MAYBE!) for the top assembly coders in the world, a non-trivial application will be faster written in C than assembly. Not only will the assembly language version take orders of magnitude longer to write than a C version, humans make mistakes. While one or twenty particular sections will be optimized ahead of the equivalent C version -- commonly through the exploitation of side effects -- what about ten or twenty thousand code segments? A C compiler will do a damn fine job and as good a job with the hundred thousandth code segment as it does with the second. That's the gain. The same is becoming (has become?) true of Java when compared to C.

However, in a relatively small corner case, the grandparent post was absolutely right, even in a pure math sense. How? The JVM can detect what kind of processor you have at runtime. It can generate optimized code for a Pentium IV rather than the generic 486 or Pentium instructions commonly found in C or assembly builds. Assembly cannot dynamically adjust itself for the platform you are on. It cannot do runtime clock timings to determing optimal ordering. In short, assembly cannot make assumptions. Assembly must definitely KNOW that you have hardware X and it will only ever run on hardware X or hardware that emulates/extends it.

So yes, anything you do in a JVM can be done in assembly. However I am not aware of any non-trivial assembly projects that are completely rewritten to run faster on newer Athlon processors and completely rewritten again to run faster on Intel Xeons.

What do you think Sun's java binary is written in? It's C (or C++, I'm too lazy to check). If Sun can write a program in C that implements those optimizations, then it's possible to write a C program that perform

--

- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
Re:I seriously doubt by synthespian · 2006-05-20 05:16 · Score: 1

When Brad Cox brought OOP to C via Object C was right about the time AT & T was pushing C++ for its applications.
Guess what? AT & T flexed its powerfull muscles and now C++ is everywhere.

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Re:I seriously doubt by synthespian · 2006-05-20 05:25 · Score: 1

Might interest you: http://www.shudo.net/jit/perf/#scimark2

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Re:I seriously doubt by jlarocco · 2006-05-20 08:42 · Score: 1

If you are compiling to bytecodes (*.class files), the "compiler" doesn't matter much. If you are comparing the runtimes of JVMs, which produce the binary executable ostensibly after the program starts, then we can talk. As for comparing GCJ's direct compilation to Sun Hotspot engine, GCJ loses almost every time and usually by a noticeable margin. GCJ at this point should be seen for its convenience in packaging, not its raw speed. (I still like GCJ, but let us call a spade a spade.)
You missed my (poorly stated) point. I wasn't arguing for or against one compiler or language, but trying to emphasize that the languages themselves are separate from their implementations. It's quite possible to make a C++ compiler that compiles to JVM bytecode or a Java compiler that compiles to native code.

First of all, no it doesn't load every jar into memory. It scans every jar for the classes and resources available, but it does not actually load their entire contents just for "Hello World."
No contest on this one. I mis-remembered this article. I'm not sure if you're right, but I was definitely wrong.

From a pure math point of view you are correct. In the real world you're quite wrong. Except maybe (MAYBE!) for the top assembly coders in the world, a non-trivial application will be faster written in C than assembly. Not only will the assembly language version take orders of magnitude longer to write than a C version, humans make mistakes. While one or twenty particular sections will be optimized ahead of the equivalent C version -- commonly through the exploitation of side effects -- what about ten or twenty thousand code segments? A C compiler will do a damn fine job and as good a job with the hundred thousandth code segment as it does with the second. That's the gain. The same is becoming (has become?) true of Java when compared to C.
You're right, it would take a huge amount of time to do that stuff in assembly language, or even C. But to state that something simply can't be done in assembly or C is wrong. It may not be done easily, but it can definitely be done. That's the point I was trying to make.

So yes, anything you do in a JVM can be done in assembly. However I am not aware of any non-trivial assembly projects that are completely rewritten to run faster on newer Athlon processors and completely rewritten again to run faster on Intel Xeons.
Of course not. Any gain in execution speed would be lost to the huge development time. Any sane person would write it in a higher level language.

On a side note, any such C re-compiler would want the original C source code for reference. Once you compile down to machine code, you lose almost all context as to what the programmer intended. The source code contains context. So perhaps you would create a meta language that stored the program structure? Maybe you could call them bytecodes? Then perhaps your C re-compiler would read these bytecodes in and optimize them for the platform and environment you're running in?
That's exactly my point. I didn't say it was a good idea, I said it's possible in C. But nobody does it because there are better ways to speed up code.

No, C++ is a multi-paradigm language. It supports OO as well as generic programming as well as procedural as well as template meta programming as well as... Even Bjarne Stroustrop calls C++ a multi-paradigm language, not OO. Where have you been? Hell, many top C++ language architects actively disdain OO usage in C++ like the original author of the STL, the hallmark of C++ generics.
Yes, it's multi-paradigm, and one of those paradigms happens to be object oriented. Whether it's good to use it as such is irrelevant. The OP made the blanket statement that OO

--
Maybe not
Re:I seriously doubt by Jerim · 2006-05-20 12:28 · Score: 1

I was wondering that myself. C++ comes with a free compiler in Linux. This is like asking MS to open source VB.net. First off why would they, and secondly why do you want them to?

Just stick with what is available. Do we really want to creat an entire continent of Java-only programmers? Encourage them to use C++ and they will be better for it.

Or perhaps this is some CIA project to harm poor countries by getting them hooked on subpar languages. Hey, lets teach them Fortan.
Re:I seriously doubt by mypalmike · 2006-05-20 18:52 · Score: 1

In C++, it is necessary to spend execution time to physically recover the space of each object that has been allocated. In Java, the management process has gotten to the point where all it does is reserve the few objects it wants to keep then wipe the rest of the objects at once (like returning from a call, you recover the entire stack at once but for permanent heap memory instead of stack memory)

While I mainly agree with your other points, this one is wrong. In C++, the default allocator does what you say. But you can certainly write a custom allocator that doesn't spend time recovering space on a per-object basis (e.g. subheap allocation), or reduces the per-object recovery time to a couple cpu instructions (e.g. homoegenous object memory pools).

--
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Re:I seriously doubt by bill_kress · 2006-05-21 08:03 · Score: 1

You are correct, That optimization could be done by the user. Most of the others can't because C/C++ doesn't have the run time component, and the ones that can require some specialized code.
Re:I seriously doubt by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-21 21:42 · Score: 0

I used to use Java on a 400mhz PC years ago with a cruddy old JVM. It's not that unbelievable.
Re:I seriously doubt by rbanffy · 2006-05-22 02:47 · Score: 1

Oh, and on top of that, to say something like java will scare kids away reveals much more about what kind of a programmer you are than I'd personally be comfortable with myself.

I am the kind of programmer that would prefer kids not to be introduced to a write-compile-test cycle that only an IDE makes bearable.

Java is primitive by most modern standards. It even looks primitive if you compare it to the Smalltalk we had in the 80s. Go teach them Python, Boo or Ruby. Or start them up with something simple like Forth or Logo. Then, if they really want it, let them go the Java/C/C++ route.

Java is very powefull (I use it every day), but it evidently is not the best way to teach programming to a kid.

--
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Re:I seriously doubt by bill_kress · 2006-05-22 05:16 · Score: 1

Go teach them Python, Boo or Ruby.

fears confirmed. Have you ever worked on the same codebase with more than 10 people in your life?

Working in a large-scale development environment requires many many more considerations than weather or not you program within a GUI.

If you think that things like number of keystrokes or speed of initial prototype are more important than documentation or reuse then you just need a little more experience.

In the meantime, as I said, I wouldn't be spraying my lack of experience about so readily if I were you, but that's just me.
Re:I seriously doubt by rbanffy · 2006-05-22 06:02 · Score: 1

Bill,

We are talking about teaching kids, not building complex programs with huge teams, unless you want to employ child-labor in developing countries ;-)

Every programming language we mentioned in this thread has specific strenghts and weaknesses. I like the way you can express some low-level concepts and to naturally build up your program with FORTH. I love the way you can inspect just about everything in Smalltalk and the clever way you can add and remove attributes of a live object in Python. Java is a natural choice for huge teams and a much more comfortable C++ than C++.

But the OLPC is an educational tool. We should keep that in mind.

--
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Re:I seriously doubt by bill_kress · 2006-05-22 06:32 · Score: 1

The original comment was that java was a language that would scare children.

I learned in basic, then assembly, then C, pretty much on my own. The worst part was probably that I started in Basic, unless I'm severly mistaken, Java would have been a much nicer thing to start with.

For one thing, you never have to deal with the horrors of loose typing. You don't have to deal with random syntax and 20 ways to specify a single concept. If you want a loop in Java, you pretty much have a few simple, consistant tools to choose from.

Throughout the entire proccess of learning and using a language, you should have consistancy and readability, and I have yet to see a language that gives you more than Java.

As for the tricks, like being able to append a looping construct to an integer, I really can't see the advantage. What are you honestly saving?
Re:I seriously doubt by rbanffy · 2006-05-22 07:38 · Score: 1

Honestly, I think that the edit-compile-test cycle is scary and the verborragic syntax does little to help. IDEs make it bearable, but it does not lend itself to experimentation. Java may be a much better way to start programming than basic, but I think that teaching the simple concepts with a language better suited fot tinkering is a better approach. I too learned with Basic (on the Apple II). I did some programming with a TI-55 calculator before, but I consider Applesoft Basic my baptism.

Those who want to go deeper can learn Java, C++ or whatever they want afterwards.

And, besides that, when you learn a different language, you become a better programmer. IIRC, Eric Raymond recomends Lisp - and I agree it is a deeply enlightening experience. I recommend Python because I can do a lot of experimentation from within the runtime and being able to watch inside objects is crucial when you are learning to program.

I am sure that if you can picture a version of yourself who only saw Java. I am also sure that alter-you would be a very bad programmer.

--
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Re:I seriously doubt by bill_kress · 2006-05-22 09:10 · Score: 1

I agree that multiple languages are a great idea. Every good programmer needs a little assembly, and all should play with a few of the more esoteric languages.

Personally I'm not sure what you are talking about with the edit/compile/test cycle, how else do you do it? Maybe you have found some fantastic methodology of which I need to be informed.

With me, I am constantly doing exactly that. Edit 2 lines, run a test, test the app, close it, edit a little more.

I wonder if you are trying to claim that because a scripting language isn't compiled, it's faster. I can't imagine you would be making such an argument since you must recognize that incremental builds used for that type of testing cycle take less than 2 seconds, so what is it?

Also, I don't really understand how Java is more difficult than any other given language. The consistent and accessible documentation makes it much easier than any other I've tried. Also, there are fewer stupid programmer tricks to get yourself tangled up with.

I'm really curious as to what the differences are. Do you feel that moving library calls into language constructs is really that useful? Could you maybe give me an example of what I'm not understanding--I admit that my use of the newest batch of languages has been minimal over the last few years, but I do still keep tabs and have seen very few things that excite me and many that terrify me

(I'm still aghast that languages are being created that allow soft typing, even with an option for strong typing. A few years ago I'd still run into the occasional VB programmer that didn't know what "Option Explicit" was--a good case for immediate termination, or at least complete retraining if I ever heard of one)
Re:I seriously doubt by rbanffy · 2006-05-23 07:24 · Score: 1

Incremental compilation and inspecting the contents of a "live" object are fine - I remember them from my Smalltalk days. Unfortunately, the kind of IDE that allows it is huge (right now, Eclipse is taking 146 megabytes of RAM on my development box) and completely beyond what I expect to be available to OLPC computers.

Consistency is a strong point for Java. It is less consistent than some other languages - I like the "everything is an object" approach for teaching. I wouldn't want to explain primitive types.

And moving some library calls inside the language may be a good thing. Just think how regexp support within Perl or list/set/dictionary support in Python make them easy to use languages for many purposes (altough I wouldn't want to do a huge thing in Perl).

I am not sure what you call soft typing. If you are talking about "Duck-typing", I advise you to play with Python or Ruby a little. Duck typing (as in "if it walks like a duck") may make spotting problems at compile time difficult, but they make for more natural development on many other instances. With Java I often spend 50% of the time setting up "safety nets" for typing, potential problems and such.

By all means, grab one of these "newer" languages (Python is older than Java, AFAIK and Smalltalk is the granddaddy of OOP) and play with them. Always keep your mind set on how a child migh relate to what is on screen.

You will realise there are many better tools to teach programming just like there are many ways to teach how to cut trees better (and safer) than a chainsaw.

--
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Re:I seriously doubt by bill_kress · 2006-05-23 09:35 · Score: 1

Incremental compilation and inspecting the contents of a "live" object are fine - I remember them from my Smalltalk days. Unfortunately, the kind of IDE that allows it is huge (right now, Eclipse is taking 146 megabytes of RAM on my development box) and completely beyond what I expect to be available to OLPC computers.

Umm, I can (and have often did) use incremental compilation from the CLI with notepad. As for live inspection, blueJ is better than anything else I've seen out there and should run on a fairly small computer (I used to run it on a 64mb machine running '98 all the time).

Consistency is a strong point for Java. It is less consistent than some other languages - I like the "everything is an object" approach for teaching. I wouldn't want to explain primitive types.

Although I kind of agree--the compiler should be able to treat numbers as objects without any performance degradation, I don't think it's worth the fact that some people would use that bizarre 5.loop type syntax that still gives me shivers. This is just personal preference though and I'm sure some people have the same reaction to not being able to do it--but it totally breaks the consistency of the language to see crap like that. I still get nervous when using "abc".compareTo(str) in java for the same reason... just doesn't fit with the rest of the code.

And moving some library calls inside the language may be a good thing. Just think how regexp support within Perl or list/set/dictionary support in Python make them easy to use languages for many purposes (although I wouldn't want to do a huge thing in Perl).

Please go into more detail here--I think this is my biggest lack of understanding and possibly the widest gap in our communication. I really don't understand why having to learn a new "Pattern" of commands is better than making a library call. This is probably the biggest thing I don't understand. On top of remembering extra bizarre syntax, when it's embedded into a language don't you also lose the ability to easily replace it with another implementation?

With Java I often spend 50% of the time setting up "safety nets" for typing, potential problems and such.

?
Wow. What are you saying? How do you transfer your design from paper into a language and still have problems with types? Is it in translation or design? I have never had a single issue with type casting and the like.

In fact, the only time I have had a serious problem was with the binding classes in the JGoodies binding package because he tried to use the Smalltalk theory of making all classes descend from a single root class then use that root class in calls everywhere--this was the most confusing code library I've ever had to use. Every method call took the same object type, so for any given call it was never obvious which sub-type needed to be passed in, or exactly how one object needed to be constructed in order to be connected to the next object.

By all means, grab one of these "newer" languages (Python is older than Java, AFAIK and Smalltalk is the granddaddy of OOP) and play with them. Always keep your mind set on how a child migh relate to what is on screen.

I played with Python before Java came out, and occasionally since. It has too much feature creep and is kind of one of those "Scripty" languages with an unwieldy language definition and, iirc, the ability to create variables on the fly which is an immediate language-killer, one of the worst language sins possible.

You will realise there are many better tools to teach programming just like there are many ways to teach how to cut trees better (and safer) than a chainsaw.

Haven't seen one yet. Small language definition, strong typing, the ability to easily construct classes and useful subclasses, garbage collection so you can focus on decent OO Design.. All the parts are there. If you combine it with an environment like BlueJ I can't imagine a better training environment.

Plus, like

Debian? by TopSpin · 2006-05-19 09:38 · Score: 2, Informative

The /. post mentions "support" from Debian, Ubuntu and Gentoo, but nothing more. A press release from Sun contains a quote from Anthony Towns:

"We are really pleased to see Sun's increasing involvement in the free software community, from the opening of the Solaris Operating System source and now the re-licensing of Java technology to be compatible with GNU/Linux distributions, and are looking forward to building stronger ties with the Sun community in the future", said Anthony Towns, Debian Project Leader.

Marketing speak from Debian? Anyhow, it does confirm that Debian is convinced this is open enough "to be compatible."

--
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old

Won't be on $100 laptops? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 09:40 · Score: 0

What can you run on something that doesn't exist, anyway?

NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Eric+Smith · 2006-05-19 09:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

This license isn't even remotely "GNU/Linux friendly". It's neither "open source" nor "free software". It's "The Emperor's New License". Sun wants to have their cake and eat it too; they want the benefits of open source without actually opening the source.

Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by 0xABADC0DA · 2006-05-19 09:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well if you actually RTFA, Red Hat wants to hack the JVM so that it supports real-time features. So in other words, they want their own Red Hat Realtime Java fork. Wtf up with that? Sun gives them a distributable Java and they say they also need to hack up their own version of it.

It sounds like Red Hat has it's cake, now it wants to eat Sun's too. Me, I just want emerge not to bail when it gets to java.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:07 · Score: 0

there is no need for a more open license, because there are no benefits to receive from open source. the only thing they needed was redistribution on the zealots' OSes, and this license gets them that. beyond that, there is nothing. i don't want j. random opensource hacker submitting patches to sun. there's problem enough already with mediocre 3rd-party contributions (like the date functions or java3d) and a deluge of low-quality submissions or--worse--additions would be sure to follow. the jcp has serious flaws, but it's the best way so far to make changes to java core.

the model that has served the open source community very well thus far is the idea of interdependent, independently-developed component libraries stacked atop each other, and this is how i would prefer to see java extensions developed. for example, java3d will never be a part of the core distribution because open source projects like jme have exceeded it in reach; this is good, and it is how java core and java open source can coexist.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by pla · 2006-05-19 10:09 · Score: 1

It's neither "open source" nor "free software"
The Stallmans (and apparently Nicholas Negropontes) of the world aside, it STILL, and always has, counted as free-as-in-beer.

Jeezus, people, get over this self-righteous trip about source code. As an SE, I appreciate having source code available, but will in general just run what works.

And that best describes 99.999% of the planet - They don't care about your BS philosophies. They just want a cool app to edit their digital pictures. A solitaire clone. An MP3 and DVD player (and they don't care if the second of those breaks a law they don't understand, either). An office productivity suite, whatever you call it and whatever (open or not) file formats it uses.

I seriously don't mean this as a troll - I do understand the importance of FOSS. But the zealots pushing so hard for its ubiquity will only end up killing it without at least a little compromise. Keep in mind that "we" count as an extremely small minority. The vast majority don't even know the issue exists! And of those who do, the vast majority just want free software and don't even have the ability to compile their own, much less make modifications to the source code.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Eric+Smith · 2006-05-19 10:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Jeezus, people, get over this self-righteous trip about source code. As an SE, I appreciate having source code available, but will in general just run what works.
That's EXACTLY why it would be better for it to be open source (or free software). Then we could actually hack together a working Java plugin for Linux on 64-bit Athlon64/Opteron platforms, since Sun is apparently unwilling to do so. That's just ONE example of how the current closed-source JDK is deficcient but could be fixed if it was open source.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Eric+Smith · 2006-05-19 10:31 · Score: 1

Well if you actually RTFA, Red Hat wants to hack the JVM so that it supports real-time features.
What's wrong with Red Hat wanting to add real-time features?
So in other words, they want their own Red Hat Realtime Java fork.
So?
If the hypothetical Red Hat version passed the Java conformance testing, they could call it Java. If it didn't, they'd have to call it something else. Either way it doesn't hurt Sun.
It's entirely possible that Red Hat might do a good job of it, and Sun might choose to include Red Hat's work in the official Java. That would be a win for everyone, Sun included.
It's easy to throw around words like "hack" and "fork" and make them sound scary. It's much more difficult to come up with a rational explanation of how open-sourcing Java would actually harm Sun.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Eric+Smith · 2006-05-19 10:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

the only thing they needed was redistribution on the zealots' OSes, and this license gets them that.
Actually it doesn't. It was put into Debian non-free without proper vetting of the license, and will likely be pulled out again. It's not going into Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Fedora.
i don't want j. random opensource hacker submitting patches to sun.
That's another red herring. Making Java truly open source doesn't make it any more or less difficult for people to submit bogus patches to Sun. As you point out, it already happens. If some of these have already made it into Java, that's Sun's fault for accepting them.
On the other hand, making it open source will increase the pool of programmers who are willing to contribute to it, so the probability of there being some good contributions goes up.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:51 · Score: 0

Actually it doesn't. It was put into Debian non-free without proper vetting of the license, and will likely be pulled out again. It's not going into Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Fedora.

what? dang... that's really too bad. the article is short on details, do you know what terms they object to?
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 12:11 · Score: 0

It's also easy to throw around things like "Sun should just open source Java" and make it sound like Sun are just being dorks. But there's a lot of 3rd party code in Java. Sun can't just wave a magic wand and open source that code.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 12:25 · Score: 0

They can get heaps of working replacement code right from http://www.classpath.org/
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by metallic · 2006-05-19 13:12 · Score: 1

Besides the fact that there is already a JVM that implements the Real-Time Specification for Java and is available for free from Sun? There's even a introduction for it to help developers get an idea of just what it has to offer.

--
Karma: Positive. Mostly effected by cowbell.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by j79zlr · 2006-05-19 13:29 · Score: 1

You can already get the source, you can compile it, you just can't redistribute it. Create your 64-bit clunky patch and distribute that along with the source and have the user patch and compile.

--
I'm not not licking toads.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by killjoe · 2006-05-19 13:54 · Score: 1

Sun also doesn't make a JVM for PPC. It's pretty much intel only for sun. You have to go to IBM for the rest.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by jonastullus · 2006-05-19 19:07 · Score: 1

Jeezus, people, get over this self-righteous trip about source code. As an SE, I appreciate having source code available, but will in general just run what works.
as stallman has stated again and again, free software is not about superior functionality but about a vibrant community. many non-democratic forms of government "work", but most people would (hopefully) choose a democracy over them, for it better ensures their involvement in future developments. the "just run what works" attitude lures people into vendor lockins and might well lead into a situation where the users are robbed of most of their short-time options.
obviously, java is not a prime example of this, but "just run what works" is generally a dangerous prerogative.
I do understand the importance of FOSS. But the zealots pushing so hard for its ubiquity will only end up killing it without at least a little compromise.
freedom/democracy are not necessarily a good place to start compromising. on some issues there just have to be firm principles. of course sun has every right to license their sources any which way, but i am proud and relieved that distributions like debian and gentoo voice their concerns loudly.
Keep in mind that "we" count as an extremely small minority. The vast majority don't even know the issue exists! And of those who do, the vast majority just want free software and don't even have the ability to compile their own, much less make modifications to the source code.
i have no idea what your point is. being a minoriy has absolutely no bearings about whether a position is right or wrong. free software is not about HAVING to obtain/compile/alter/distribute sources; it's about having the option to do so. in some countries a minority of eligible people go voting, that does not mean that this minority is wrong in doing so.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Rich0 · 2006-05-20 15:29 · Score: 1

All they need to do is GPL all the code they hold the rights for - and indicate which code that is. Sure, it won't be 100% open-source, but then rather than writing the whole thing from scratch now the community just needs to write 5-10% of it from scratch.

A simple statement of intent with some concrete action would mobilize legions of open-source zealots. Right now those legions are mobilized to try to contain the spread of java.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Braino420 · 2006-05-23 05:06 · Score: 1

Well if you actually RTFA, Red Hat wants to hack the JVM so that it supports real-time features. So in other words, they want their own Red Hat Realtime Java fork. Wtf up with that? Sun gives them a distributable Java and they say they also need to hack up their own version of it.

Wait a sec, isn't that why Red Hat, or anyone, would want the source code? You know... to modify it... It's kind of the whole point.

--
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am

Why would you want java on there anyway? by drinkypoo · 2006-05-19 09:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

I mean, I know why, but it's going to run like shit. I'm not saying that Java programs are slow or anything, but running Java on top of your OS is just adding weight and complexity, and we're talking about systems with extremely minimal specifications anyway. The machines don't need to run every program out there and Java on the web (as transmitted to browsers) is likely losing importance what with the whole AJAX thing.

Just the windows install for the latest JRE is 7.1 MB. That's the compressed package. It probably blows up to be twice that size. Java also has some noticable memory consumption overhead. Is it worth it on more capable systems? Sure. Is it worth it on this little toy computer? Hell no.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by fm6 · 2006-05-19 10:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

You're basically responding to Java as it was originally marketed years ago: web-distributed and "write once run anywhere". Nobody believes that shit anymore, not even Sun. Nowadays, Java is just a software platform.
You attitude towards the "weight and complexity" of Java is also out of date. Early versions of Java had a reputation (deserved, alas) for being bloated and slow. But nowadays, the Java runtime isn't any heavier or more complex than most of the runtimes you need to run most of the software out there. Even a C++ program, if it has any features had all, has a heavy-duty runtime. Besides which, the optimizing features of Sun's Java VM adds power, it doesn't take it away.
In any case, the specs of the $100 laptop are not that bad. Aside from lacking a hard disk, it's not much less powerful than a typical laptop sold in the US about 5 years ago.
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by pilkul · 2006-05-19 10:07 · Score: 1

Er, I actually like Java, but since when does it not add weight and complexity? Has it been so optimized now that it drains no system resources at all? Like it or not, Java is still a fairly large, demanding system and it's not a great idea to run it on systems with low RAM.
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by cortana · 2006-05-19 10:18 · Score: 1

$ aptitude show sun-java5-{bin,jre} | grep Size
Uncompressed Size: 66.6M
Uncompressed Size: 15.9M

The original .debs are 22M and 7.1M respectively. That's some compression!
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by intangible · 2006-05-19 10:20 · Score: 1

Have you downloaded the .NET framework?
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by drinkypoo · 2006-05-19 10:22 · Score: 1

I wouldn't put Mono on there either, nor would I run Windows with .net on a machine with those specs, so I don't know what that has to do with anything.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by drinkypoo · 2006-05-19 10:24 · Score: 1

You will need the C and C++ runtimes to run any decent selection of non-GUI software, so they will be there anywhere. Is there any software considered a must-have on a linux system that requires Java that would run acceptably on that hardware? there's a lot of Azureus fans out there but these things don't have any storage to speak of and Azureus is slow on just about any system...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by drinkypoo · 2006-05-19 10:36 · Score: 1

I get 67.2M and 16.1M respectively on Linux (ubuntu dapper drake) for .deb files of 21.1 and 7.0 MB... just for reference.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by TheRaven64 · 2006-05-19 10:55 · Score: 1

The real point is this:
Why would the $100 laptop want Java when it has Smalltalk?
Java was designed as a cut-down version of Smalltalk with C++ syntax. Since the $100 laptop is not aimed at people with C++ experience, this ceases to be an advantage (Smalltalk syntax is clearer). Oh, and Smalltalk already has a much nicer development environment than anything available for Java.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by fm6 · 2006-05-19 11:14 · Score: 1

Is there any software considered a must-have on a linux system that requires Java that would run acceptably on that hardware?
Like everyone else, you're trotting out the Java performance straw man. Java runs perfectly well on systems a lot less powerful than the $100 laptop, which has a 400mhz processor. Jeez, the first time I ran Java it was on a 100mhz system.
Nevertheless, you have a good point when you talk about "must have" software. There probably isn't any MH Java software for this platform, for the simple reason there isn't that much MH Java software of any kind. Aside from Azureus, I can't think of any commercial consumer software that's written in Java. The big use of Java seems to be for enterpise software, that big companies write for their own use.
I'm not trying to say it'd be a big deal if the $100 laptop doesn't run Java. Such a machine doesn't need every software technology there is. I'm just trying to debunk the notion that such a computer isn't powerful enough to run it.
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by NutscrapeSucks · 2006-05-19 11:22 · Score: 1

Given that this is a Redhat system, the bundled management software is written in Python. Now, Python is nice, but it's not nearly as optimized as Java, and in most cases a Java program will be much less bloated than an equivilant Python program.

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by dhasenan · 2006-05-19 11:48 · Score: 1

Which JRE did you run on that hundred milliHertz processor?
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by NutscrapeSucks · 2006-05-19 12:52 · Score: 1

That's a good point. After it's near total lack of adoption in the First World, Smalltalk could well be poised as the universal language for Third World computing! Or is this the least opportune time for language advocacy ever?

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by gomoX · 2006-05-19 15:18 · Score: 1

Man, a given trivial Java program might be faster than the Python equivalent, but it sure as hell won't take less memory. Java is way more bloated than Python.

--
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by NutscrapeSucks · 2006-05-19 16:48 · Score: 1

For a GUI application, Python might be smaller because it used native widgets. However, for other sorts of programs the memory use will be very similar between Java and Python ... and the Java version will be a lot faster.

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by Rary · 2006-05-19 17:32 · Score: 1

"The big use of Java seems to be for enterpise software, that big companies write for their own use."

Exactly. So, what do these kids need on their $100 laptop if they want to, say, learn the skills necessary to break into careers in software development in big companies?

--
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 22:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

You talk about Java not being slow and bloated is still invalid. I just compiled a program containing nothing but "for(;;);" on the most recent Sun Java SDK, and upon running it has a resident size of 8764 KB, and additionally it maps more than 50 MB of libraries (most of which initially are not used, but that amount of code for the given amount of functionality is far from tight).

For comparison, a similar C program has a resident size of 252 KB. The number is that high, because ld.so and GNU libc brings in a lot of statically allocated read-write data (more than 100 KB) to every process. That's also quite bad, but still less than 1/34th of what Java loads. The shared libraries amount to 1300 KB, but those are shared with almost every process in the system (i.e. those who use GNU libc).
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by fm6 · 2006-05-20 03:55 · Score: 1

You really should read a post all the way through before responding to it.
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? by Rary · 2006-05-23 10:00 · Score: 1

"You really should read a post all the way through before responding to it."

I did. The post stated that "[t]here probably isn't any MH Java software for this platform, for the simple reason there isn't that much MH Java software of any kind," and went on to comment that Java is mostly used in the enterprise, and therefore it isn't a big deal if the laptop doesn't run Java.

My point is that its use in the enterprise is exactly why Java is important on these laptops.

--
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

Money. by DAldredge · 2006-05-19 09:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

If Sun fully opensources Java like Redhat wants them to it will result in Sun losing millions per year in license fees from IBM and others. This will harm Sun, one of Redhat's major opponents.

Re:Money. by Wesley+Felter · 2006-05-19 09:48 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Nah, they can just charge millions for testing and logos.
Re:Money. by Eric+Smith · 2006-05-19 09:49 · Score: 2, Informative

If Sun fully opensources Java like Redhat wants them to it will result in Sun losing millions per year in license fees from IBM and others.
I don't think so. The reason that IBM and others pay license fees is that they want something more from Sun than just to download the binaries and sources, which Sun lets them do without paying any fees.
Re:Money. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 12:18 · Score: 0

You are slacking; you forgot to blame Steve Jobs for all this...
Re:Money. by killjoe · 2006-05-19 13:51 · Score: 1

According to Sun's management Java does not generate profits for them. Apparently they spend as much if not more maintaining it as they are making form license fees.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Money. by DAldredge · 2006-05-19 19:06 · Score: 1

While it may not make a profit, reducing the income for licensing will make the losses larger.
Re:Money. by killjoe · 2006-05-19 20:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

OPen sourcing it may also reduce costs. Perhaps they can devote some of the programmers that are working on java full time to other products which are actually making money for them.

Open sourcing may also increase the number of programmers adopting java and the number of manufacturers of hardware and software (operating systems) distributing java thereby growing the market for Java services. Finally open sourcing java may increase revenue from testing and compliance for those that want to pass the official tests.

I am sure none of those concepts are new to Sun because they have already made the decision to open source netbeans, openoffice, and solaris all of which were either making serious money for them or cost them serious money to buy. The same business decisions apply to Java and solaris.

Look how much open sourcing eclipse helped IBM with that product. Eclipse used to be a very little used program sold by IBM now it's the industry standard in java development and fast becoming the favored development environment of ruby and rails.

--
evil is as evil does

License terms? by babbling · 2006-05-19 09:44 · Score: 1

What are the terms of the DLJ license that Sun has created for this? What part of it is Red Hat not happy with? The article doesn't seem to mention any of these details, except that Sun has changed to this new license, and that Red Hat doesn't think it goes far enough.

Anyone have the details, please?

Re:License terms? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-20 04:41 · Score: 0

The DLJ terms are at: http://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/

CC No-No? by Doc+Ruby · 2006-05-19 09:45 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Recently I've seen arguments that the Creative Commons license is incompatible with Debian distribution, even if the code accompanying the CC content is GPL. That same argument seems to fault the CC license for its anticommerce clause.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:CC No-No? by rmm4pi8 · 2006-05-19 10:00 · Score: 1

CC isn't a monolithic license, but rather a package of licensing options. CC-sa (share-alike) is essentially the same as GPL, CC-by is roughly the same as the old 4-clause BSD license, etc. Certainly CC-nc (non-commercial) would be inappropriate for inclusion in a Debian system, since many commercial outfits run on Debian. So it just depends on which CC license is used; not all CC licenses are created equal, and certainly not all are GPL compatible or meet the Debian freedom guidelines.

--
U.S. War Crimes blog. Email for free Mandriva support.
Re:CC No-No? by AuMatar · 2006-05-19 10:03 · Score: 1

Repeat after me- there is no such thing as a Creative Commons license.

What we have instead is a set of licenses. Some count as open source. Some do not. There's even a CC licenses that allows the user no rights- basicly it means the data is completely proprietary. You can't copy it, use it, or modify it.

SO when you want to talk about a CC license, specify which one you mean. Otherwise no answer is possible.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:CC No-No? by Doc+Ruby · 2006-05-19 10:18 · Score: 1

Repeat after me: "click before talking".

I did specify which license, by linking to the arguments about it. The second of the two linked pages even quotes the specific license's clause.

Having several CC licenses, only one of which is under discussion, does not mean that there is no such thing as a CC license. It means there are several such things as a CC license.

If you want me to take your advice, earn some respect by dropping the obnoxious, unearned condescension, the arrogance of ignoring the content you're criticizing, the basic failures of logic.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:CC No-No? by trollable · 2006-05-19 10:45 · Score: 1

I did specify which license, by linking to the arguments about it.
You didn't.

--
Million Dollar Screenshot
Re:CC No-No? by Doc+Ruby · 2006-05-19 10:57 · Score: 1

Yes, I did.. What are you, some kind of retard?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:CC No-No? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 11:06 · Score: 0

No you didnt

I've been sensing... by Null+Nihils · 2006-05-19 09:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

a whole lot of "peer pressure" in all areas of the industry against Sun's Java technology. The current "you should open-source it" demand doesn't sound new to my ears, I'm pretty sure I've been hearing it for years.

Although a platform in and of itself, Java is built on its own Object-Oriented language, and most people expect languages to be public-domain-ish, like C++, which is still a tremendously popular language despite its relative age and quirks.

However, when it comes to C++, there is no "official" implementation outside of the basic STL and C libraries. Java, on the other hand, isn't just a language, it comes with a platform that ties in with what most developers expect to have available when they use the language.

The dilemma is fairly obvious. If Sun tries to monopolize Java, Java will likely become marginalized (especially since it now competes on some levels with .NET) However, if Sun makes Java freer, Sun runs the risk of marginalizing themselves as a vendor.

In the meantime, others in the market (and other markets) will continue to apply pressure to get better access to the Java language/platform, simply because in terms of languages and platforms, openness is advantageous for everyone developing with it (unless you're talking to MS.)

Re:I've been sensing... by at2000 · 2006-05-19 16:45 · Score: 1

Do we have alternative implementation of Perl, Python, Ruby, ...? If the language grows with the community, no one forks it.

Redhat *does* work on an Open/Free Java stack... by jbailey999 · 2006-05-19 09:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Uhh.. Redhat *does* work on a Free Java stack. Look at the commits to http://www.classpath.org/ and that almost all of the gcj work is done by RedHat folks.

Re:Negroponte's project by Null+Nihils · 2006-05-19 09:53 · Score: 1

I'd rather not feed the trolls, but I'd like to point out that Negroponte's project is... Negroponte's project! If you would like to start your own laptops-for-starving-children project and do things differently, go right ahead! After all, its good that we're all Thinking Of The Children.

Re:Redhat *does* work on an Open/Free Java stack.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 09:53 · Score: 0

And that java substitute is a poor substitute for Sun's Java.

Come back when you have a better replacement product.

And we're surprised by this how? by suitepotato · 2006-05-19 09:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Red Hat is dead on the money with this. Unless Sun goes OSS for Java 100%, then it is still attached to the closed-source world and that causes certain problems.

More to the point, why do so many people have their hats on so tight that they can't think straight when it comes to Sun? Like Netscape and Oracle, people are willing to overlook a huge number of idiocies in certain companies in the name of united hate towards Microsoft as if Microsoft was the only closed source software publisher. In the end, THAT is what this about because even if every byte of Java's code was naked to the world, it isn't going to be any less slow or bloated. Fixing Java and spreading it is NOT what this is about.

Sun has plenty of baggage but positioned Java as if they could have their cake and eat it too: uber-cross-platform but closed source. Everyone should buy into it as if it came from the masses organically instead of top-down from Sun, as if it was open when it wasn't, and adopt it while shouting crap at Microsoft about Visual Basic, and so forth.

So now the OSS community which has so many coders so deeply psychologically invested in Java and the potential future, despite that future to date falling abysmally short of any of the initial propaganda, finds that they can't ignore the chickens who came home to roost and are laying eggs all over the sofa and desk.

Time to get with it and either pressure Sun or let the issue drop and come up with a totally OSS cross-platform language. Oh, I forgot. We have them but we still hold this childish fascination with the legend of Sun as competition for Microsoft when they are demonstrably not and their flagship OS Solaris is being kicked aside for SuSE, Ubuntu, and Fedora Core here, there, and everywhere. If the OSS community wants to continue this idiot face-off with Microsoft, the it needs to stop clinging to the apron-strings of companies that are in the end not one bit different.

Whichever way Sun goes on this, the OSS community can't let that be an influence or controlling factor in anything. Life must go on, Java or not. Not as though I use it for more than KoLMafia anyhow. Give me something that is fast, open, and cross platform that lives and dies by its own credentials and value. NOT something crappy being clung to for psycho-political reasons.

--
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)

Re:And we're surprised by this how? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:15 · Score: 0

You clearly haven't used Java in over five years. The UI, while still not at native win32 speeds, is entirely usable on the desktop. In the server market Java is well established and established well. Get with it will ya?

Oh, and Macs are cool now, welcome to 2006.

Sun still afraid by bobs666 · 2006-05-19 09:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

In the previous article article Sun was asking for help "... how to best ... prevent forking and fragmentation".

It seems They are afraid some one will provide better support for java then Sun. Perhaps the worst possibility is that Micro$oft will provide that support. :p

Re:Sun still afraid by nickthecook · 2006-05-19 10:24 · Score: 1

I think you're right on the money about Sun being scared of having Java highjacked, but I think they're more worried about IBM than Microsoft.
Re:Sun still afraid by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:29 · Score: 0

Learn the difference between 'than' and 'then', it's not that hard.

Also, quit being a stupid linux fanboy typing, 'Micro$oft'.
Re:Sun still afraid by Gryle · 2006-05-19 11:14 · Score: 1

[facetious]Sun should welcome MS support. Sun will undoubtably come out on top![/facetious]

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Re:Sun still afraid by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 11:37 · Score: 0

Learn the difference between 'than' and 'then', it's not that hard.
Please explain it than.
Re:Sun still afraid by DragonWriter · 2006-05-19 11:49 · Score: 1

Sun not open-sourcing their Java implementation isn't going to stop anyone with motivation and resources from pushing their own open-source Java implementation, especially since their are existing open source implementations out their than can be grabbed for the basis of such an effort.

OTOH, as long as Sun's implementation isn't open-source, if someone does do that and fork the standard, Sun is stuck themselves having to clean-room implement any of the features introduced in that fork if they became established as desirable -- so if Sun is worrying about someone else forking the code, the best bet may be for them to open the code now, when they can get some goodwill boost for it, rather than doing it when, e.g., IBM releases its own commercially-supported open source implementation with added features, and IBM, instead, gets the OS community goodwill, and Sun is forced to open source their version just to stay relevant.
Re:Sun still afraid by dhasenan · 2006-05-19 11:58 · Score: 1

By better support, you mean a better runtime engine?

Though logically, they could make sure that theirs was the best, taking all the features and optimizations from the OSS implementations and incorporating them using their full-time paid workers. The question is whether it's any benefit to them to have the best Java tools at the cost of open sourcing them (and losing licensing fees).
Re:Sun still afraid by nickthecook · 2006-05-19 12:26 · Score: 1

The prospect of IBM releasing their own open-source implementation is interesting.

They haven't let up the pressure they've been putting on Sun while trying to become the go-to Java vendor, with their own VM, and the cleverly-named Eclipse. Beating Sun to the punch with open-source Java would continue what seems to be a years-long strategy to dominate the Java world. Of course, it may not be about domination as much as that they have so much invested in the platform that they are doing whatever they can to make sure it thrives.

Although, I can only hope that if IBM releases a Java with, as you say, "added features" and tries the ol' embrace-and-extend, that they get no goodwill from the open-source community. They'd probably get a nice lawsuit from Sun for their trouble as well, unless they were very careful to not present their version as pure Java.
Re:Sun still afraid by Jason+Earl · 2006-05-19 13:14 · Score: 1

You are well behind the times my friend. IBM is currently helping the Apache Group's project Harmony. It's only a matter of time before Sun is Eclipsed, and Freeing Java is likely to be the only thing that maintains Sun's leadership in the Java field.
There are various Free Software Java-alikes, several of which are at a point where they have the potential to be competitive with Sun's Java. Eclipse, for example, already runs (and runs well) on a Free Software JVM. Sun (and Java) need the Free Software community. As evidence of this witness the fact that currently the Gnome desktop (that Sun repackages as its Java Desktop) depends on more software written in or extended in C# than it does on software written in Java. In point of fact, there is essentially no Java in Gnome.
Sun can either wait until the Free Software java-alikes (sponsored by the likes of IBM and Red Hat) are competitive with Java (tm) in which case Sun could very well become irrelevant, or Sun can Free its JVM and classpath now and maintain its current lead. Either way the pragmatic developer is likely to use the *best* version of Java (regardless as to whether or not it is actually Java, or whether it has added "features"), and the zealots are going to use the Free Software version of Java regardless of its technical merits. If the day comes when the non-Sun Free Software version is better than Sun's version then Sun's reign as Java king will be over for good. I personally think that such an ending is quite likely.
Re:Sun still afraid by nickthecook · 2006-05-19 14:08 · Score: 1

You said I was "well behind the times", but I missed the part where you disagreed with anything I said. :)

Anyway, IMHO, you laid it out nicely, and I'd be surprised if Sun didn't see the writing on the wall. I'm sure they'll take whatever steps they can to maintain the lead, even if it means fully open-sourcing it, which they've already said they will do. What will be fun is if Sun opens their implementation up, then IBM does as well, and they both fight for the love of the open-source community (in which area Sun may have some catching up to do).

In any case, all this competition is good for everyone, since, as you said, there are implementations of Java to keep both the zealots and the commercial-support junkies happy.
Re:Sun still afraid by Jason+Earl · 2006-05-19 17:09 · Score: 1

You said I was "well behind the times", but I missed the part where you disagreed with anything I said. :)

uh... my bad. Sorry.
The important thing to remember is that the longer Sun takes to Free Java and the more time and effort get poured into the various Free Software Java replacements the less likely the Free Software community is to join Sun's efforts when Sun finally does capitulate and Free Java. In essence Sun is making the same mistake that TrollTech made with QT. If TrollTech would have released QT under a Free Software license before Gnome and GTK starting gaining momentum the Linux desktop battle would never have gotten off of the ground. QT would have won by default.
In some ways Sun has already missed the boat. For example, if Java would have been Free Software a few years back when Ximian was looking around for a replacement for developing Gnome components in C then Mono probably would not have been born, and it certainly wouldn't have taken off as it has in the Free Software community.

grasping for straws by icepick72 · 2006-05-19 09:58 · Score: 3, Funny

"He says the failure to open-source Java means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PCs envisioned under Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child project,"

Well ahem, if that's his only good argument ....

Re:Negroponte's project by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'd like to point out that Negroponte's project is... Negroponte's project!

Key word being "Negroponte". In all probability, no starving kid is ever going to get a crank-powered laptop, but Negroponte is getting tons of self-promotion.

Sun really needs to embrace this $100 computer by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:01 · Score: 0

If these cheap computers really work and get distributed to all these kids in the world, then these computers will influence the next generation of software users and developers. If the people making these machines refuse to put Java on them, for whatever reason, then that next generation will grow up with little or no Java exposure, and the use of Java will decline into the sunset. Sun needs to be friendly to these people. They really want Java to be on these machines. It takes only one generation to change the world.

Good! by lewp · 2006-05-19 10:07 · Score: 0, Flamebait

He says the failure to open-source Java means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PCs envisioned under Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child project, to bring affordable computing to children in developing nations.

Keeping these kids the hell away from Java is a good way to give them an advantage over all those poor kids learning to program in developed nations.

--
Game... blouses.

Let's not be too hard on SUN... by Eric+Damron · 2006-05-19 10:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sun got burned pretty bad by Microsoft when Billy boy and his corporate thugs decided to use their monopoly OS to hijack Java. I don't blame SUN for moving slowly with license changes. It was only their license that stopped Microsoft.

As far as Java being Open Source, hasn't Java source code been available for years? Are we talking open source or GPL'd?

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

Re:Let's not be too hard on SUN... by John+Hasler · 2006-05-19 10:34 · Score: 1

> As far as Java being Open Source, hasn't Java source code been
> available for years? Are we talking open source or GPL'd?

We are talking about Open Source. "You can look at the source but only if you agree to this restrictive contract" isn't Open Source.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Let's not be too hard on SUN... by Eric+Damron · 2006-05-20 14:44 · Score: 1

Not being a Java programmer, I haven't actually read the Java license. What's so restrictive about it?

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

use only a java subset by free+space · 2006-05-19 10:12 · Score: 1

Perhaps they could use a subset of the Java libraries? If J2ME could run on several kilobytes on a mobile phone, what prevents another API subset to work on the specs you mentioned?

Java on the OLPC computer makes a lot of sense. That way the organizers can use any hardware and software configuration, ( even change the HW and SW in future models if they find cheaper alternatives) and not worry about re-developing applications. also, tons of educational Java applets would be instantly available to the new machines. perhaps even bundled with it.

and kids need not fear learning Java. There are tons of languages including scheme, python and others, that run on the java VM.

The whole thing is lame. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just read the Java license. One of the things limiting the distribution of the JRE is that you're not allowed to ship other products which change or replace certain parts of the JRE. Guess what software like gij, fastjar, kaffe and the likes are doing ? Other than this limitation I see no obstruction what so ever to ship Sun's JRE with your average Linux distribution. I mean; gimme a break, I can even package up the entire JRE with my (open source) software in order to make it act like a stand alone executable (or to make sure its always using a specific JRE).

Next to that I have full access to use the Java source code, I can use any knowledge I obtain from studying it and can even use parts and pieces from the code for my own good as long as I'm not trying to this this for commercial benefit. Isn't that also what open source is about, share and share alike. Spread the knowledge? As long as you're doing that you can just about do anything with the Java source.

So please, spare me all of this bullshit about restrictive licenses. I think the whole real issue is driven by a bunch of people in the background who are basicly hoping to get into projects which can make some money out of this. The GPL leaves enough playroom for this (see RHES) but other licenses appearantly leave out these options entirely. And how peculiar; these happen to be the exact licenses which have been under fire from just about every average OS zealot out there. Do I smell something fishy here ?

Leave Java Alone! by wizardmax · 2006-05-19 10:16 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm really tired of people railing on Sun for not open sourcing Java. Leave Sun and Java out of it. Its semi-open source and it works! No fragmentation. Works on multiple platforms. What else do you want? You want a fully open source language? Use Python. One of the things I absolutely love about Java is that there is One Java. One JVM (that anyone really needs). I don't have to deal with many different JVM's with different problems. Simply this, look at Linux, its good and all, but its 80% done and will never be done. I don't want that to happen to Java too. Simply, leave my Java alone.

--

Free speech is getting expensive...

Re:Leave Java Alone! by dmindless · 2006-05-19 11:55 · Score: 1

Perhaps the pressure is the other way around. Sun wants widespread embrace of Java, and developers are reluctant to embrace something that isn't truly free as in speech. The "railing" just happens when we get a glimmer of hope it is free, but, alas, it truly isn't. The same need for the blessing of developers eventually got Trolltech to free QT. So, how many versions of QT are there by competing, almost compatible toolkits? I really don't know, but I'd guess there aren't any that are in widespread use. My guess is if Java was free, the need for a competing version will be diminished. Why fragment? Sure you can, but if Sun Java is truly free, then the need for fragmenting goes down. It is more like a card that can be played if Sun does something crazy. What kernel do you think we would be running on GNU/Linux if the kernel wasn't free? This is a perfect example of a world that would be even more fragmented. We could very well have HURD, Minix(x), etc. running GNU systems, quite fragmented, but because of the sense of well being that the GPL provides for developers (and *some* corporations), it is OK to use Linux as the kernel. But I'm rambling. My point is: Sun is motivated to get Java widely embraced, and this is why they change and make promises about the licensing. Also, I'm not so sure that free software necessarily leads to fragmentation.
Re:Leave Java Alone! by shutdown+-p+now · 2006-05-19 12:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

What else do you want?
I want a working Java browser plugin for x86-64 Linux systems.
One of the things I absolutely love about Java is that there is One Java. One JVM (that anyone really needs). I don't have to deal with many different JVM's with different problems.
You'd be surprised at how many people use IBM JRE in enterprise rather than Sun's one, for example. And IIRC there were other major players, too. Sun never tried to restrict the ability of other companies to make compliant Java implementations, quite the opposite. Nor will keeping the source closed help - sooner or later, either CGJ/Classpath or Harmony will get to the point where they will be comparable with the latest Sun implementation.
Re:Leave Java Alone! by wizardmax · 2006-05-19 13:47 · Score: 1

Well, first, there is a Linux 86_64 JVM, I'm running it right now.

And as for other JVM's. What I really meant is that I don't have to worry about other JVM's. JVM's have to certify with Sun by using Sun tests. This makes sure that I'm not impacted. Face it, Java is already open source and it does not need to be GPL (or the likes).

--

Free speech is getting expensive...
Re:Leave Java Alone! by wizardmax · 2006-05-19 13:56 · Score: 1

That's just silly. Wake up. Java is the biggest thing out there. Just look out into the enterprise and see who has the biggest market share. Simple. And as for fragmentation. Just look at Linux. Quick, how many different and incompatible versions of Linux can you name? (ps, I use Linux) Fragmentation is not because of closed products, it's because of big egos in the developer communities who do not want to fix what's out there because they think their stuff is better. All I know, Java is semi-open source. It works well and it does not need to be GPL. Where as I see plenty of open source stuff which is not finished. I don't care if its GPL, if its broke, its broke.

--

Free speech is getting expensive...
Re:Leave Java Alone! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 14:01 · Score: 0

Well, first, there is a Linux 86_64 JVM, I'm running it right now.
He asked for a Java browser plugin for x86-64 Linux.
Re:Leave Java Alone! by wizardmax · 2006-05-19 14:25 · Score: 1

You're right, non there. But what's stopping people from creating one? Nothing that I see.

--

Free speech is getting expensive...
Re:Leave Java Alone! by Rich0 · 2006-05-20 15:26 · Score: 1

Try running freenet on it. You'll be lucky if it even fully loads without a segfault (something that shouldn't be possible with Java). Then again, haven't tried it recently so there is an outside chance it will work.

Sun's 64-bit JVM is adequate for helloworld.class, and for some moderately-complex stuff, but give it something massive and it tends to crash. If it were open-source it might be more likely to get some fixes.
Re:Leave Java Alone! by wizardmax · 2006-05-20 16:44 · Score: 1

I'm running JRun on it, works well.

--

Free speech is getting expensive...

To heck with Red Hat - rest of us should move on by MarkWatson · 2006-05-19 10:16 · Score: 1

Try leaving politics aside and do what benefits the most people.

Is Red Hat still a viable business? I am just curious - I don't use their stuff.

Also, didn't Red Hat buy JBoss? Why on earth would they not be strongly motivated to ship with built in JREs?

Re:Negroponte's project by ThePopeLayton · 2006-05-19 10:20 · Score: 1

Negroponte's project will fail for many reasons

You're right his project may fail in the sense that his laptops never get used on the wide scale that he is planning. But I disagree that the project is going to be a failure. The wide spread media he has recieved has publicly seeded the idea of computers in 3rd world countries. If his implementation fails it is only a matter of time before someone else comes in and completes it. With the open source community growing every day there is certainly the required software, and with hardware prices falling every day the hardware will not be an issue.
So if he fails it will be a failure on the political or buisness side of things, and an idea that stands to benefit so much of the world someone will eventually pick up the bricks and finish the project. So in that sense the project cannot and will not fail.

man... by sentientbrendan · 2006-05-19 10:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

What next, are they going to refuse to include the linux *kernel* because it doesn't use the latest version of the GNU license? Maybe they will throw in some crappy hurd kernel, then make their users go compile the linux kernel themselves if they want that... Then they can complain about how much linus is hurting open source software by not using the license they want.

Where do they get off demanding that sun or any company release its software under any particular license? Sun is *already* giving away their software for free. Red Hat and others should consider themselves lucky that it gets to sell software that it didn't even write in the first place. The people that are acting to *prevent* anyone from getting access to java are the linux distro makers who refuse to put java in.

This is nothing but an inconvenience for users. Who seriously does not go ahead and install sun java anyway? Who is not inconvenienced by the fact that most distros refuse to integrate it into their package management scheme?

There's literally no reason that red hat, ubuntu and others couldn't package sun java. They only do it out of a desire to strongarm sun into using a different license which will not provide any benefit to their user base. If I was a shareholder, I would punish them severely for this nonsense, as it doesn't serve any kind of business end that I can see, and is more reminiscent of the behavior of the FSF than a for profit company. Someone needs to remind them that they are obligated to pursue the ends of their users and their shareholders before anything else.

Re:man... by expro · 2006-05-19 10:51 · Score: 3, Informative

What next, are they going to refuse to include the linux *kernel* because it doesn't use the latest version of the GNU license? Why would they do that. The kernel is free software whereas Java never has been anything like free software.

Where do they get off demanding that sun or any company release its software under any particular license? They only control the nature of what they ship

Sun is *already* giving away their software for free. Only in the limited sense that Internet Explorer is "free". It comes with very limited freedom and lots of strings.

Red Hat and others should consider themselves lucky that it gets to sell software that it didn't even write in the first place. Luck had nothing to do with it. It is free by design, and were it not free, it would not have received the contributions.

The people that are acting to *prevent* anyone from getting access to java are the linux distro makers who refuse to put java in. It has been Sun's decisions to restrict its freedom from the outset, which is why many people who cared most about Java have abandoned it for better alternatives.

This is nothing but an inconvenience for users. Who seriously does not go ahead and install sun java anyway? There are any number of languages with a free or open source base whose users do not just go ahead and install Java, and their numbers will continue to swell as long as Java is proprietary.

Who is not inconvenienced by the fact that most distros refuse to integrate it into their package management scheme? Apparently Sun is not inconvenienced, and it is their call to make the license free or proprietary.

There's literally no reason that red hat, ubuntu and others couldn't package sun java. Only if you are someone who can't tell the difference between Free / Open Source and proprietary software.

They only do it out of a desire to strongarm sun into using a different license which will not provide any benefit to their user base. Their current user base or their potential user base? The Sun directions have greatly restricted the former. You may be right that those who care about programming and distribution freedom have already moved on which is why there is no one asking for it any more. I stopped asking quite a while ago and ported away from Java.

If I was a shareholder, I would punish them severely for this nonsense, as it doesn't serve any kind of business end that I can see, and is more reminiscent of the behavior of the FSF than a for profit company. Someone needs to remind them that they are obligated to pursue the ends of their users and their shareholders before anything else. Of course, and by the same logic, they really should be packaging Visual Basic, instead of Java in the first place.
Re:man... by Valar · 2006-05-19 12:16 · Score: 1

How do they get off demanding that sun release java under a license? Well, how about it's their distribution and they can make whatever standards they want for inclusion. Don't like it? Pick a different distro. Where do you get off telling Red Hat what to do with their distribution?

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games
Re:man... by kosmosik · 2006-05-19 14:06 · Score: 1

> What next, are they going to refuse to include the linux *kernel*
> because it doesn't use the latest version of the GNU license?

They *may* - and this is the point. They want to stay independent

(...)

> then make their users go compile the linux kernel themselves if
> they want that...

But already their users *may* go compile their kernel on their own - that is exactly the point. What is your argument?

> Then they can complain about how much linus is hurting open source
> software by not using the license they want.

Or alternatively they *may* fork current kernel which is released on GPL (not future-GPL) *forever*.

> Where do they get off demanding that sun or any company release
> its software under any particular license?

They do not demand anything - they just state that this license is not proper according to them. Sun can still "do-what-they-wanna".

> Sun is *already* giving away their software for free.

So fucking what? MS is giving away MS Windows Media Encoder for free - does it make it anyway more free? Free as in beer contrasted to free speech - simple as that.

> Red Hat and others should consider themselves lucky that it gets to
> sell software that it didn't even write in the first place.

Maybe, just, please, consider that they (RH) don't sell software? :) They sell service. Welcome to 21st century.
Re:man... by sentientbrendan · 2006-05-19 19:09 · Score: 1

>So fucking what? MS is giving away MS Windows Media Encoder for free - does it make it anyway more >free? Free as in beer contrasted to free speech - simple as that.

We all know the difference between free as in beer software and free as in speech software. It is fairly obnoxious to hear it pointed out it every conversation as if it were something quite novel.

Complaining too much to someone who has been generous to you, is called ingratitude. If you actually use this "MS video encoder," you should in fact feel grateful that it was given to you free of charge (arguably it was not given to you free of charge since you paid for the operating system it runs on, but I digress).

Demanding that you be given even more rights to something that you gave nothing in return for is just plain rude.

>>> Red Hat and others should consider themselves lucky that it gets to
>>> sell software that it didn't even write in the first place.

>Maybe, just, please, consider that they (RH) don't sell software? :) They sell service. Welcome to 21st
>century.

Yes, the ability to sell services is an amazing innovation of our century. How barbaric it must have been to live in the era when men could also sell goods.

Well, I'm saying the "service" the provide to their customers could use some improvement if they expect customers to pay for it. Now, there's no reason anyone has to buy their service, but if people don't buy their service, red hat's shareholders will be unhappy. If red hats shareholders are unhappy, the people running red hat have done something very wrong, as they work for their shareholders.
Re:man... by asuffield · 2006-05-19 21:11 · Score: 1

The people that are acting to *prevent* anyone from getting access to java are the linux distro makers who refuse to put java in.

No. For years, Sun have been refusing to permit distro makers to include java. Recently they relaxed slightly (distro makers are actually permitted to redistribute the thing now), but it is still impossible for anybody but Sun to support the thing.

The people that are acting to prevent anyone from getting access to java are Sun. Nobody else has any control over this.

There's literally no reason that red hat, ubuntu and others couldn't package sun java. They only do it out of a desire to strongarm sun into using a different license which will not provide any benefit to their user base.

Nonsense. There are many reasons why they can't do it, and they don't do it because it would be a big support issue. Currently, they can say "we will support this software and fix the problems". If they include things where that's not possible, then they can't say that any more.

You need to get your head out of your capitalist arse and realise that there are more important things about a piece of software than its price tag.

...About these laptops by PGC · 2006-05-19 10:26 · Score: 1

Totally off-topic but... I know they don't sell the $100 versions to normal folks ... but where can I get one that meets these same specs... and design !? These seem like the ideal laptops to me .

--
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!

Re:...About these laptops by Kadin2048 · 2006-05-19 14:00 · Score: 1

Wait and buy them when they're smuggled back into this country after being sold by the people they're given to.

I'll give it maybe three months before they're all over eBay.

And that's even if they're painted some sort of really obnoxious color to distinguish them from legitimately-imported/"non-OLPC" ones. I bet in certain circles, having a 'hot laptop' will be fashionable. (After all, sagging pants originated from prisons, where high-risk inmates aren't given belts. Don't put anything by popular culture.)

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:...About these laptops by PGC · 2006-05-19 20:33 · Score: 1

I really couldn't care less about the color my laptop has.

--
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!

Not Supported By Debian by John+Hasler · 2006-05-19 10:26 · Score: 1

> The new license does have the support ... Debian."

This is not true. The package has been added to Non-free (without adequate discussion IMHO) but it may not stay, and it most definitely will not go into Main.

This package is far from Free, and may not even be legal for Debian to distribute in Non-free.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

Re:To heck with Red Hat - rest of us should move o by trollable · 2006-05-19 10:34 · Score: 1

Also, didn't Red Hat buy JBoss? Why on earth would they not be strongly motivated to ship with built in JREs?
Sure they are. Maybe that's why they want a better license.

--
Million Dollar Screenshot

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch by Mistshadow2k4 · 2006-05-19 10:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

As flamy as this AC's post may be, I'm afriad I have to agree with him or her. These are potentially serious "gotchas" that could cause real problems for devs who include java with their OSes and have apparently been overlooked. Sun hasn't exploited these sections of their license recently to my knowledge, but they wouldn't be there if they didn't intend to. Makes me wonder if they weren't trying for a dirty tactic there -- get the community dependent on their java and then exploit the license to unduly influence it. Read it yourself and think about what a corporate exec could do with this.

--
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.

Re:Redhat *does* work on an Open/Free Java stack.. by RobertLTux · 2006-05-19 10:48 · Score: 1

you may swear by that weasel scat coffee but "food lion"/generic works for 99.99% of the time.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch by Null+Nihils · 2006-05-19 10:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Note to self: Do not include the words "asshole" or "bitch" in the title of an otherwise informative post.

FYI: No consultation with the Debian community by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:52 · Score: 0

Please do not get the impression that the Debian community supports this license--even for the non-free archive. The Debian legal mailing list was NOT consulted and no reasonable review of the license was performed. The Sun FAQ of the licence is a smokescreen. It does not match a common sense or legal reading of the license text itself.

For example the License states "you do not combine, configure or distribute the Software to run in conjunction with any additional software that implements the same or similar functionality or APIs as the Software;". The FAQ states "It is of course perfectly OK to ship programs or libraries that use the JDK... there is nothing in the DLJ intended to prevent you from shipping alternative technologies with your OS distribution." This explanation doesn't match the license! And the FAQ states: "nothing in this FAQ is intended to amend the license, so please consult the license itself for the precise terms and conditions that actually apply."

Secondly: "(f) 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 (i) the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner, or..." If you analyse the section Debian is liable even if they do nothing wrong so long as a modification is made under Debian's control.

Follow this thread (click on the `Follow-Ups' links) to confirm what I've highlighted.

Re:FYI: No consultation with the Debian community by synthespian · 2006-05-20 05:48 · Score: 1

Yeah, they do. If they have it in their repository for download, they do. Let's drop this Debian sainthood bullshit.
Want an uncompromising OS? Look elsewhere.

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts

JavaOne Announcement-- "Not if, but how" by rrwood · 2006-05-19 10:52 · Score: 2, Informative

I've been at JavaOne this week, and on the first day, Jonathan Scwartz and Rich Green publicly stated that it was "not question of if, but how" in regard to open sourcing Java. Go check Google if you don't believe me.

This seems a pretty strong statement from Sun-- particularly compared to the waffling they've done in the past with respect to open source and Linux, yadda yadda. Given the conversations I had with various Sun-folk at the conference, it's pretty clear that there is a very strong pro-OSS camp within Sun, and we should be patient just a little bit longer.

And speaking of open source and Java, that was one of the big themes at JavaOne. Pretty much all the big name orgs here (Sun, Oracle, IBM, BEA, etc.) made a number of announcements about their open-source contributions. I know the debate on open source involves subtle and unresolved arguments, but apparently the powers-that-be at these corporations are convinced enough to buy in (quite literally, since they are ponying up serious money to fund the work). Of course, as profit-driven machines, they are doing it because of the anticipated return on such an investment, but that's still cool by me, since I love free speech/beer as much as any SlashDot AC, and will take any vindication of the same from just about anywhere I can get it....

open source java compiler by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:58 · Score: 0

i thought there was an open source java compiler that worked resonably well

Re:open source java compiler by RPoet · 2006-05-19 11:17 · Score: 1

Yes, but the runtime environment is much harder to do, and free implementations still lag behind.

--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Re:open source java compiler by takeaslash · 2006-05-20 04:46 · Score: 1

Funny, I thought most of the comments I have seen in the past on slashdot was that the development of Java was slow. From waht I see is that eithen with Sun's help the open source implementations are having trouble catching up with the java standards. Thus they cannot be called Java. This said Red Hat now has a real problem with it taking over JBoss, that it now may have to pay to license the software before they can bundle it with the software they sell. Remember the only to companys that dont licence Java are Microsoft and Red Hat. While Microsoft dont pretend, Red Hat has a big wooley jumper on at the moment and are going "bar... bar....". (For those who dont read - "Wolf in sheep clothing). Grandmother, what big eyes you have!

Still warm down here! by Reverend528 · 2006-05-19 10:58 · Score: 0, Troll

It'll be a cold day in hell before Sun releases the source code to any software that people actually use.

--
Badass Resumes

Re:Still warm down here! by despisethesun · 2006-05-19 12:56 · Score: 1

WTF is this? You're linking to a comment that links to a comment that links to another comment where you say this exact same thing. Why not just link to the first comment, or not link at all since you're not saying anything new? Here I thought I was going to a post where there was something of substance written.

--
This poo is cold.
Re:Still warm down here! by Reverend528 · 2006-05-19 15:26 · Score: 1

When sun provides something of substance to the free software community, I will say something of substance. But as long as they keep trolling, so will I.

--
Badass Resumes
Re:Still warm down here! by kunalthakar · 2006-05-19 22:31 · Score: 1

Sun will be forced to open source Java sooner than you think. Take a look at this article by Danese Cooper in which she says: "Today at JavaONE my pal Geir Magnusson is announcing that Harmony has full support for SWING/AWT. This is really big news if you're following Harmony from the sidelines (as Sun has been doing)." If SWING has been implemented fully, I think a fully compatible open source Java is very nearby.
Re:Still warm down here! by YooHoo2U2 · 2006-05-20 01:00 · Score: 1

When sun provides something of substance to the free software community, I will say something of substance. But as long as they keep trolling, so will I

I think someone needs to do some research before they start flapping their lip.

So what, exactly have YOU provided?

The gall! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 11:05 · Score: 0

This from the people who have the gall to charge money (lots of it) for their own sick twisted abortion of Linux?

Red Hat + Java... just gives me chills thinking about it. I can't imagine a more inefficient, unstable, expensive and bloated combination.

Re:Negroponte's project by giorgiofr · 2006-05-19 11:20 · Score: 1

So if he fails it will be a failure on the political or buisness side of things

Yes that's my point, too. He refused to sell his notebooks to private citizens and corporations because as we know doing business is *evil*. Therefore he will never reach the economies of scale needed to pull such a stunt as 100$ notebooks with power cranks and multiple-function LCDs and whatnot.
I was criticizing his management, not the idea at the base.

--
Global warming is a cube.

That's *why* RH wants it OSS. by pigeon768 · 2006-05-19 11:29 · Score: 1

I seriously doubt the current implementation of Java would fit inside a 400 MHz x86 computer that's designed more to be energy-efficient and small than to be fast.

If Java is to run on the OLPC computer, it needs a smaller, simpler implementation. Sun provides all information neccessary to build one. It's up to Red Hat or any one other than them to make it.

You're absolutely right; the JVM won't run very well on a 400MHz x86. RH wants it open-sourced so they can freely modify the JVM so that it will run decently, if not well, on those laptops. It's a lot easier to modify an existing JVM than it is to build one up from scratch.

That being said, GCJ is not that far away from being a complete replacement for Sun's implementation. RH may very well have a much easier time continuing what they've already been doing for years, and finishing the GCJ implementation.

Of course, there's also the line of though that a previous poster brought up; RH directly competes with Sun, and maybe they're just beating their angry-drums to give Sun a hard time. Personally, I doubt it. But it's worth thinking about.

OSS Java would be nice for The Movement(tm) but having rabid GPL monkies take a hard line on Sun won't help. Help them move in the OSS direction, but don't antaganize them.

Re:That's *why* RH wants it OSS. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 15:08 · Score: 0

RH may very well have a much easier time continuing what they've already been doing for years, and finishing the GCJ implementation.

Too bad GCJ will probably never be certified compatible (for political reasons), and thus will always have a certain amount of FUD hanging over it.

OLTPC and Sun Java by DragonWriter · 2006-05-19 11:40 · Score: 1

He says the failure to open-source Java means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PCs envisioned under Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child project,

Well, the Sun JRE can't be, but one of the open-source Java implementations can; this is a small loss for One Laptop Per Child (it would be slightly better to have the genuine sun system, since the open versions are a bit behind, IIRC, though their compatibility with the version of the JRE whose features they implement is, as I understand, very good), and maybe a small loss for Sun -- it may lose some dominance, but among a market segment that's going to be spending a lot. I suppose it could hurt Sun if content providers target that group enough that the open-source platform chosen becomes a de facto standard, especially if "bug compatibility" with it becomes important, but how likely is that?

Really, except for Sun goodwill/PR, I don't see a big deal here.

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch by mark-t · 2006-05-19 11:56 · Score: 1

It would be far simpler if they disallowed anyone who creates a derivative work from calling it Java, or having the word 'Java' in the name, or even claiming compatibility with Java in ANY way except to the extent of admitting that the software was derived from Sun's Java.

Then let whatever forking or fragmentation Sun is worried about happen... they won't be part of anything called Java unless Sun adopts any such changes.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:Negroponte's project by DragonWriter · 2006-05-19 12:08 · Score: 1

He refused to sell his notebooks to private citizens and corporations because as we know doing business is *evil*.

Strange, then, that the project FAQ states "A commercial version of the machine will be explored in parallel".

I was criticizing his management, not the idea at the base.

Wouldn't such a criticism be more valid if it was based on something with some connection to the truth?

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch by dhasenan · 2006-05-19 12:27 · Score: 1

So the Linuxes that actually include Sun's Java in their package repositories will have to have alternative JREs/compilers be listed as blocking Sun's Java and vice versa. Moreover, they should be prepared to return to manual downloading requirements at a moment's notice.

I don't see an issue, as long as the maintainers are well aware of the issues.

Is that right genius? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 12:35 · Score: 0

Read the thread, all of their paranoid concerns are either answered or irrelevant. In fact they look like complete fools, misreading simple clauses like amateurs, leaving out important sections in their analysis, etc. If this is the quality of Debian legal team I'd say they are in touble, yes, but it's not from Sun.

Red hat can...what's the word?...blow me by notaprguy · 2006-05-19 12:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

BEGIN RANT. I'm not the biggest fan of Sun or Java. Java has become, to borrow Scott McNealy's famous description of Windows, a giant hairball. But for Redhat to get on their high horse and complain that Sun has yet to offer Java under an open source license stinks. What has Redhat ever innovated? They take software developed by the open source community, add some tweaks, and sell it for good money. Sun invented Java, spent large amount of money developing it and they can and should do whatever the hell they want with it. If they decide to license the sourcecode freely, great. If they don't, that's their business. Redhat should stick to their knitting...which is leaching off of others innovations. END RANT But seriously, I rarely if ever flame on Slashdot but these guys are rediculous. I promise to be more politic next time.

Re:Red hat can...what's the word?...blow me by vga_init · 2006-05-19 21:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

They take software developed by the open source community, add some tweaks, and sell it for good money.

It's tempting to think like that. Actually, Red Hat subsidizes a very large amount of open source development, including kernel developers and other folks that do good work on some of the most essential parts of GNU/Linux. They make great contributions to the community--they are the community.
Re:Red hat can...what's the word?...blow me by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-05-20 14:49 · Score: 1

What has Redhat ever innovated?
Ever?
Ever heard of RPM, the Red Hat Package Manager? Granted, Debian's overall package management system is technically superior, but IIRC it's also newer.
Red Hat beat the pants off Slackware in terms of ease-of-use (again, this was years ago).
Hell, ever heard of Alan Cox?
I'm not a fan of Red Hat's Linux distributions, but to say that Red Hat has never done anything innovative is simply wrong.

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:Red hat can...what's the word?...blow me by notaprguy · 2006-05-21 14:38 · Score: 1

Like I said, I was ranting a bit but to hold up RPM as a sign of great innovation doesn't really convince me. Heck, Microsoft's Cleartype technology is more exciting. Redhat certainly contributes to the open source community but that's basically like saying Microsoft contributes to the development of Windows...it's in their business interests to do so.

You are both wrong. by Slithe · 2006-05-19 13:13 · Score: 1

Lisp Forever!!! It would not be too hard to emulate a Lisp Machine, so 3rd world kids could run MIT CADR.

The previous statement was a joke by the way.

--
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."

MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 13:54 · Score: 0

No mods for me today. :(

Rich Green & open source by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 14:05 · Score: 0

Having worked with Rich Green for a while, I'm pretty sure that he doesn't "get it" when it comes to open source & free software. He thinks "free beer" almost exclusively, so anything that he's involved in isn't likely to satisfy the "free speech" crowd anytime soon.

Can the bytecode step be avoided? by Kadin2048 · 2006-05-19 14:16 · Score: 1

Okay, I may be exposing my ignorance here, not having much experience with Java, but I just have to wonder -- is there something fundamental about the Java language that lends itself to or requires the whole JIT-bytecode thing?

I mean, if it's a Turing-complete language, can't it be compiled into any machine code you want, with the right compiler? Is there some reason why one has never been built?

Why is it that people always tie Java to these JIT compilers? If Java is so slow, can't a direct machine-code/binary compiler be made for it, just like GCC? Sure, it would give away the platform-independence advantage, but it would allow people to optimize sections of Java code for particular architectures without rewriting them in C.

Maybe I'm missing something, because it seems too obvious to not have been created already. But why would Java be inherently any more slow than any other language, if it were directly compiled on an optimized x86 compiler?

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

Re:Can the bytecode step be avoided? by Tyler+Eaves · 2006-05-19 14:33 · Score: 1

That's exactly what a JIT *is*. It compiles the java byte code to native machine code for whatever chip its running on.

--
TODO: Something witty here...
Re:Can the bytecode step be avoided? by Wesley+Felter · 2006-05-19 15:01 · Score: 1

is there something fundamental about the Java language that lends itself to or requires the whole JIT-bytecode thing?

No, not really.

I mean, if it's a Turing-complete language, can't it be compiled into any machine code you want, with the right compiler? Is there some reason why one has never been built?

It's called GCJ or JET (and in the old days there was BulletTrain and another one I don't remember).

But why would Java be inherently any more slow than any other language, if it were directly compiled on an optimized x86 compiler?

Because the language semantics are different, which affects the allowable optimizations. (This effect is not unique to Java; if you write "the same" program in C and Fortran, in some cases the Fortran version will be faster because Fortran has stricter aliasing rules.)
Re:Can the bytecode step be avoided? by Kadin2048 · 2006-05-19 16:40 · Score: 1

What I was trying to describe (and perhaps failing) was skipping the bytecode step and the whole JIT compilation business.

Go from the Java source to machine-specific binaries, in one step, and distribute the binaries. Just like you'd do with a program written in C and compiled with GCC (or any other language that doesn't use an intermediate language). Nothing in between: Java to binary.

Basically, my question was 'can we separate the strengths and weaknesses of Java as a language from the way it's generally used, with all the bytecode and JIT stuff?'

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

Java is a hairball... time for something new by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 14:18 · Score: 0

From another's posting, I agree Java is a hairball (furball?).

It's time for something new.

Java has taught us a lot, so let's give credit where it's due.

Let us (the open source community) spec out a new product, and address some of the downfalls of Java as they exist today. Create something new, innovative... that Sun's patents lawyers can't touch.

Rather than complain about what Sun isn't doing, let them be. The world will move on without them and Java for once!

Re:Java is a hairball... time for something new by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-05-20 14:41 · Score: 1

Create something new, innovative... that Sun's patents lawyers can't touch.
Ha. Hahahahaha.
You don't quite understand the software patent problem, do you?

--
http://outcampaign.org/

Java Phones. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 14:18 · Score: 0

"From the article: "He says the failure to open-source Java means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PCs envisioned under Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child project, to bring affordable computing to children in developing nations"

And yet cheap cellphones (with ever growing capabilities) running Java or BREW are making inroads into developing countries. Don't hang on too long onto your ideology, otherwise progress may render you irrelevent.

Article summary is kinda pathetic. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 14:26 · Score: 0

It's not just RedHat dissing the license. Debian doesn't like it either, and is on the verge of pulling java from non-free....let alone putting it anywhere else.

The restrictions are odious...kernel problems exposed by Java must be fixed immediately, all users must be warned, etc. How is Debian going to do that? There are many other ridiculous clauses in the new license.

How is this "GNU/Linux" friendly, if it barely makes it into debian non-free? ReHat has a long history of rejecting licenses like this, just dropping them on the floor.

Sun : You thought the Schwartz was with you, and now he's showing his true colors! All that yapping about an improved license, and it's just another minimal effort. Are you sure Scott McNealy is not still pulling the strings somewhere?

Thankfully the truly free, truly "GNU/Linux" friendly java (gcj, swt, eclipse) is coming along well. Thank you RedHat, IBM, Apache Foundation for making a truly free GNU/Linux implementation of Java.

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch by dramenbejs · 2006-05-19 14:38 · Score: 0

I suggest to anyone to set "Reason modifier" for "Flamebait" in user preferences to +3.

This way one would not miss important information in discussions.

Java versus Subsistence Farming by hoyhoy · 2006-05-19 15:19 · Score: 1

The real reason that these $100 laptops won't have a JVM is because it will make children in developing countries realize that subsistence farming is way more kickass than programming in Java.

Re:Redhat *does* work on an Open/Free Java stack.. by NutscrapeSucks · 2006-05-19 16:35 · Score: 1

I wonder what company pays $1200/Year for RedHat Enterprise SuperKickAss Server edition and then uses GCJ instead of Sun Java.

(AKA, RedHat seems to be rather blatently acting competitively versus Sun rather than in their customers' interests.)

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.

Screw Red Hat by rjdohnert · 2006-05-19 17:02 · Score: 1

They need to learn to get along. Here is what I think of their objections

http://rjdohnert.wordpress.com/2006/05/19/java-to- be-released-as-open-source-red-hat-says-not-enough /

Re:Redhat *does* work on an Open/Free Java stack.. by jbailey999 · 2006-05-19 17:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can't imagine. There are pretty clearly four or five people who are involved in this more or less full time. Without their efforts, Free Java would be generally useless today.

responding by sentientbrendan · 2006-05-19 19:43 · Score: 1

>What next, are they going to refuse to include the linux *kernel* because it doesn't use the latest
>version of the GNU license?
>>Why would they do that. The kernel is free software whereas Java never has been anything like free
>>software.
It's called an analogy. It isn't the *same* situation, but a *similar* situation meant to highlight certain attributes of this situation.

Specifically, in both the concrete of red hat refusing to include sun java, and the hypothetical situation of red hat refusing to include the linux kernel, red hat is excluding a critical piece of software from their distro and including a shoddy substitute in order to strongarm a developer into releasing software under a license more to their liking.

>>If I was a shareholder, I would punish them severely for this nonsense, as it doesn't serve any kind >>of business end that I can see, and is more reminiscent of the behavior of the FSF than a for profit >>company. Someone needs to remind them that they are obligated to pursue the ends of their users >>and their shareholders before anything else.
>Of course, and by the same logic, they really should be packaging Visual Basic, instead of Java in the
>first place.

That is a total misrepresentation of what I just said.

No, by that logic, they would not package Visual Basic with their linux distro because Microsoft Visual Basic is a windows application that does not run on linux. Furthermore, there isn't much call from customers for any kind of basic on linux.

By my logic, if their customers actually had a demand for visual basic, and it could run on linux, then yes they would be obligated to include it in their distro. Obviously there are other problems with that since VS costs money, but that is beside the point since we are actually talking about java which is free of charge.

Do you have some particular hatred of Microsoft products and loath the idea they might be included in your distro? Many do. However, if that is the case, consider that your argument is in bad faith on another level. It is essentially an argument where you compare what your opponent's position to some position that Hitler held since you know that people generally think that Hitler is a bad guy, and that the mere association with your opponent will make people more likely to disagree with him.

For example:
Guy #1: Milk is good for you. It strengthens your bones.
Guy #2: You know who else liked milk? Hitler! He fed gallons of milk to his super soldiers, and that got super strong bones and used them to beat up jews.

Now, I think it is quite clear here that Guy #2 is just being a jackass and not because he made up the thing about milk. Even if the thing about milk was true, he'd still be making a bad faith argument because it in no way refutes that milk is good for you, or that it strengthens your bones.

When you come up with an example to disprove something, please make sure it is a valid counter model and not just a veiled ad hominem. Arguments should not make people *want* to agree or disagree with you, but should rather make them *compelled* to agree or disagree with you by force of logic and empirical evidence.

Re:To heck with Red Hat - rest of us should move o by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 19:46 · Score: 0

Why on earth would they not be strongly motivated to ship with built in JREs?

They are, that's why they are working on GCJ.

misleading advertising by m874t232 · 2006-05-19 19:55 · Score: 1

Not a Charity.

Sun can do with Java whatever they want.

The problem is that it is Sun that keeps claiming that Java is open-this and open-that, that it is Sun that apparently wants support from the open source community, that it is Sun that wants Linux to use more Java, and that Sun is involved in Linux and sells Linux stuff.

A second problem is that Sun has demonstrated repeatedly in their history that they are unable to execute a competent business strategy when it comes to these kinds of products, and Java looks just like what they did to some other similar products in the past.

In fact, one thing that upsets a lot of people about Sun is that they promised one thing (an open platform for applet and GUI development with third party implementations and an ANSI/ISO standard), and switched to a different one once they had gotten the community support (a de-facto single source implementation for server side development, a proprietary spec, and the JCP). After something like that, the company can't be trusted on anything as far as I'm concerned.

but last time I checked, Redhat's glee doesn't fill Sun's coffers

Are you sure? Where do you think a lot of Java enterprise apps run? Furthermore, where do you think Java would be today without the support and volunteer contributions of large numbers of open source proponents?

which only goes to show by m874t232 · 2006-05-19 19:57 · Score: 1

Your argument only goes to show what a rotten idea it is to let Sun control Java. If Java is supposed to be an open platform, then its specs should be open and independent of Sun, and multiple independent implementations of it must exist. If companies like RedHat need to worry about competing with the company that holds the rights to Java, then Java simply fails to be open.

Well then why Java ? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 20:05 · Score: 0

Why not use .NET ? After all, it's made it to an ECMA standard and there is a nice open source implementation (Mono anyone).

Debian Legal discussion by m874t232 · 2006-05-19 20:10 · Score: 1

This post (excerpt) on Debian Legal explains it pretty well. The license is the usual two-pronged legal and PR strategy Sun has been using over the last few years: claim to support open standards and software in public, while burying ridiculous and dangerous terms in their legal licenses.

From: "Brian M. Carlson" <...> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:02:34 +0000 [...] > Could someone please explain to me why paragraph 2(f) does not pose a > problem? I couldn't find ANY discussion about the license on Debian legal > which surprises me a little bit, but then maybe I just missed the > relevant parts of the license. Anyway, as a non-lawyer I'm surprised > that we seem to accept that we have to "defend and indemnify Sun". Also, section 4 poses a major issue. If, for any reason, the Linux kernel doesn't do something that Java requires, then we are obligated to either fix it or inform everyone who has acquired Java from us. Section 10 is not possible with our infrastructure. The ftp-master scripts merely remove the package from the tag database, not the archive (at least until there are no dependencies), and not from all of our mirrors. Section 2(b) prohibits allowing people to develop software with Java that is to be run on another system. Section 2(c) prohibits us from using the software in conjunction with C, C++, Perl, Python, or *any reasonable Turing-complete programming language*. Section 12 requires that this software be in non-US/non-free. It is not, which is not only a violation of the license, but a violation of United States law. This conflicts with other project policies and exposes Debian/SPI to major legal liabilities. I think that this should be removed from the archive as soon as possible, preferably before the next mirror pulse. [...]

(full message and license)

Re:Negroponte's project by giorgiofr · 2006-05-19 21:32 · Score: 1

How about you stop the FUD?

The laptops will be sold to governments and issued to children by schools on a basis of one laptop per child.

Does not sound like free market to me. And A commercial version of the machine will be explored in parallel is certainly no strong statement - it's just keeping the door open.

--
Global warming is a cube.

you're one thick amerinigger /nt by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 23:19 · Score: 0

nt

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch by lon3st4r · 2006-05-20 00:49 · Score: 1

yes. that would be one way. but how many people actually do WANT to keep the name Java if they can get to do anything with it?
so effectively, to a customer, Sun would say.. take our product.. it's "called" Java.
Why would he take that if he could get the same thing for free from somebody else by some other name?

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch by lon3st4r · 2006-05-20 00:51 · Score: 1

yes, that is one way. but then sun would effectively be giving away everything and just keeping the name.
you can't keep customers with just the "name", you know. why will the customer take it from Sun when they can take the same thing from somewhere else (ie. sun again, but with a different name, now) for free!

Redhat in a Nutshell by joeytsai · 2006-05-20 00:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you consider RedHat and their recent acquisition of JBoss, their response to Sun is quite understandable. After all, previous versions of Java were even less free than they are now and I don't remember RedHat saying anything. Why do they say something now?

Before, the status quo was actually more palatable to RedHat - no free Linux distribution could legally distribute Sun's JDK/JRE and everyone complained. This also meant that there was a lot of interest in creating a free software Java solution - gcj, harmony, classpath, etc - something that RedHat has invested a lot in. Plus, RedHat could still support Sun's Java through RHEL.

Also, everything that JBoss has created is all open source, but all of it requires Sun's Java. I seriously doubt any of JBoss' major clients runs any part of JBoss on gcj. I think RedHat's next move was to start migrating JBoss' components so they could run on gcj as well, further providing momentum to the free software Java solution as well as moving the largest open source Java company (and its highly deployed Java Application Server) towards a non-Sun Java.

Now the circumstances are a bit different. I think Sun is hoping (and RedHat is dreading) that Java is now "free enough" - without being free software. Now all the distributions can legally provide Sun's JDK/JRE - even Debian, which is more or less the standard (though it is in the non-free section), and consequently Ubuntu, which is now the crowd favorite. Since perhaps the biggest complaint about Sun's Java has now been diffused, there's likely to be a shift in attitude towards free software Java. Why bother? But this is exactly the situation that RedHat doesn't want to be in. I really doubt they want to support gcj while essentially still endorsing Sun's Java through JBoss.

Obviously, this is all my speculation, so I could totally wrong. But it makes sense to me.

--
http://www.talknerdy.org

Re:Redhat in a Nutshell by SwashbucklingCowboy · 2006-05-20 02:31 · Score: 1

> Why do they say something now?
To increase the pressure on Sun to get Java open sourced ASAP.
Re:Redhat in a Nutshell by synthespian · 2006-05-20 05:44 · Score: 1

I think you've figured it out. Jboss was the missing link. I mean, RedHat has per-seat licenses, has released code without makefiles, they even threatened CentOS. So, for them to pose as paladins of free software...you'd be a fool to take that PR spin for real concern about children in the 3rd world.
It's even fucking grotesque. I believe they should even fire the PR people who put that crap on the media. For having the sickest bad taste of them all.
It always was about RedHat vs. Sun. Sun just won this round.

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts

Re:Redhat *does* work on an Open/Free Java stack.. by Znork · 2006-05-20 04:03 · Score: 1

There are a lot of tools like, for example, the redhat directory servers gui that it's just plain annoying to have to install Sun java for.

So, I most definitely appreciate the work done with gcj for that.

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch by mark-t · 2006-05-20 09:31 · Score: 1

Two words... "Brand Name"

Brand names matter a lot in the corporate world which is the only place where forking and fragmentation would actually have any sort of impact.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

effing wah. by swordgeek · 2006-05-20 11:06 · Score: 1

So Red Hat doesn't like the license? Screw 'em--they can write their own Java, according to the open-source published code standard.

Negroponte is religious about open-source (according to his own definition) only? Then he probably won't get nearly as far as if he used the tools available, with the licenses as is.

Red Hat has been a blight on the world of commercial software companies, while spouting out BS about OSS that they don't even pretend to follow themselves. Fuck 'em all. My computer is no longer a religious shrine--it's just a tool.

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban

Fair enough by ttfkam · 2006-05-20 11:11 · Score: 1

Just one thing...

This and other technologies have found their way into Java 1.6. The implementation details are being dealt with. So what's your beef now?
To answer with your own quote: "Yes it is theoretically possible. And yet no one has done it. Stop talking about hypotheticals. We're talking about code that exists today, not in your wild imaginations." But I do agree the problems the JVM has aren't inherent to VMs in general. For example, OCaml's VM doesn't have these problems.

I admit, I was... well... acting the role of the asshole at points in my post, and I apologize for my tone at times. That said, it does exist today, not in my wild imagination.

--

- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.

bitchy asshole mods are on crack (MOD PARENT UP) by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-05-20 14:34 · Score: 1

-1, Troll? WTF? Mod the parent up, please!

--
http://outcampaign.org/

Go join proprietary fanbois anonymous. by expro · 2006-05-21 01:29 · Score: 1

Do you have some particular hatred of Microsoft products and loath the idea they might be included in your distro? Many do. However, if that is the case, consider that your argument is in bad faith on another level. It is essentially an argument where you compare what your opponent's position to some position that Hitler held since you know that people generally think that Hitler is a bad guy, and that the mere association with your opponent will make people more likely to disagree with him.

You will coninue to have answers as long as you keep ignoring licensing issues. You obviously couldn't care less about licensing. If Microsoft VB had a free license, I would include it tomorrow, just as I would do with Java. There is no basis for your assertion of hating Microsoft products or your other assertions about your favorite Hitler comparisons, any more than any of the other assertions in your post. But free software is a license to freedom, which is important.

Re:Go join proprietary fanbois anonymous. by sentientbrendan · 2006-05-22 13:41 · Score: 1

>>But free software is a license to freedom
No... That's just nonsense. You are vastly oversimplifying the issue.

It is a license that gives you rights to modify and redistribute the source code for software. That source code is someone else's property even under an open source license, you have just been granted specific rights to it via the license. It is great if a developer chooses to give you that right, but he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. It isn't your right to use someone else's property until you are granted that right.

If you have no right to something, it isn't a restriction of your freedom to not let you act as if you do. You don't have a right to my physical property, and I'd doubt you'd argue that is a restriction of your freedom.

Most people call free software open source because that's what it really is. Freedom isn't about giving you the rights to other people's property, but about giving you the rights to your own property. You have freedom when you have all your natural rights, and your property is one of them.

While there are many benefits to open source software, you should be careful not to be brainwashed by a few catch phrases.
Re:Go join proprietary fanbois anonymous. by expro · 2006-05-24 07:15 · Score: 1

Most people call free software open source because that's what it really is.

Only those who cannot tell the difference. Lots of people misidentify lots of things, and this does not make it so.

Re:Negroponte's project by DragonWriter · 2006-05-21 11:48 · Score: 1

Does not sound like free market to me.

What is not "free market" about a private (even if non-profit) business deciding to sell a particular product only in a particular market, and considering a different version to sell in another market?

Is market segmentation now communism?

"support of debian" is pushing it by petermgreen · 2006-05-22 22:57 · Score: 1

they certainly view it as an improvement as it allows them to package it but they aren't going to change the DFSG to let it into main or anything like that.

and the sarge installer doesn't even offer non-free in a standard install any more! So installing its still going to require manually editing sources.list

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register

Hey, Sun, here is another idea! by DimGeo · 2006-05-22 23:49 · Score: 1

You can go the way of id: release older versions under the GPL: for instance you could GPL JDK 1.2.2 or even 1.3.1. That way everyone will be happy. Once JDK 1.7 hits the internet, JDK 1.4.2 will be GPL'ed.

Worst ever by magicjava · 2006-05-23 03:21 · Score: 1

This article , and its replies, gets my vote for "worst ever" on slashdot.

With millions dieing in Africa every year, the idea of sending them $100.00 laptops is worse than stupid. Send them food. Send them medicine. Do something to actually help them. That the shallow folks on this board would be arguing over Java and open source in this context is disgusting.

http://www.redcross.org/

Slashdot Mirror

Red Hat Not Satisfied with Sun's New Java License

338 comments