Slashdot Mirror
Will Oracle Keep Funding Sun's Pet Java Projects?
gkunene writes "Oracle expects Sun to contribute to its operating profit right away. To make that happen, Oracle may pull funding and staff from projects such as JavaFX, Project Looking Glass, and Project GlassFish."
IMHO, JavaFX has been a solution looking for a problem. Applets aren't coming back (thank God), so stop trying to create an ideal Applet platform. HTML5 is meeting that need well enough, thanks' much. Pulling funding from the JavaFX project would hardly even be noticable.
Project Looking Glass is one of those things I'd hate to see go, but Sun hasn't exactly done much with it. Oracle needs to decide that they'll support it full hog as a core product or just leave the project to the OSS community. This noncommittal attitude has been leaving the project in limbo.
Now Project Glassfish, that's a whole other ball of wax. Oracle screwed up Orion (the BEST J2EE server back in the day) to insane levels of uselessness under the guise of Oracle Application Server. (Hey look! Oracle is almost as good at naming as Sun!) Glassfish (aka Sun Java System Application Server) is modern, scalable, easy to use, and absolutely wicked when deployed. Oracle would do well to give up on OAS and just let Sun keep doing what they're doing with SJSAS/GlassFish.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
They're spending money on Looking Glass? I just went to the web site and they're still featuring the five-year-old demo video.
-Peter
I think Oracle should just strike agreements with *all* PC OEMs to have Java shipped with whatever OS these OEMs are loading on PCs. I know Java is Open Source Software and that those who need it can download it free of charge.
What troubles me is the exercise of having to repeat the installation procedure on so many machines. I recently installed 47 systems, six of them Kubuntu 9.0.4 systems with KDE 4.2.2. and the rest were Windows XP systems. It was not fun.
So to Oracle..."You have better fish to fry...now do the needful." It will not hurt you (Oracle) in any way.
One would hope that if the Open Source projects like Project Looking Glass, are worthwhile... they will be picked up by people who are using them. If they can open-source others rather than just killing them at least some can stay alive without showing up on the bottom line.
Oracle expects Sun to contribute to its operating profit right away. To make that happen, Oracle may pull funding and staff from projects such as JavaFX, Project Looking Glass, and Project GlassFish.
Ahh, but Oracle may decide to turn their offices into an exotic nightclub and force the engineers to work overtime as erotic dancers. You never know what they might do...
Speculation for nerds, stuff that's made up
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I remember thinking the same thing when Adobe bought out Macromedia. I think there is hope for some of the larger more useful pet projects but Oracles primary is making there a new acquisition profitable. Anything not strong enough to adequately monetize will probably be Open Sourced or shelf-ed.
So what observations can be made from other companies in our industry that have acquired companies with a strong library of technologies? What has lasted and what has fallen by the wayside historically speaking?
HTML/CSS/JavaScript is an insufficient platform for Rich Internet Applications (RIA). Why do you think Flash is still so widely used? It's not just video. It's complex charting, graphics, animations, etc.
If you think Flash and Silverlight are just going to go away, or that IE and its non-standard compliance and lack of SVG are just going to go away, you're dreaming in technicolour. Web standards will eventually hit a wall.
I don't disagree that a lot of functionality (including video) can be implemented by all browsers that implement that new web standards, but it won't enough.
Besides, JavaFX has distinct advantages over Flash and Silverlight. It integrates seamlessly with server-side Java code. It also shares the same APIs with JavaFX Mobile, which allows mobile and RIA apps to share the same code.
Besides, do you really want the rich web to turn into a battle between two proprietary frameworks? Parts of JavaFX are already open source, and Sun is planning to open source the rest.
This space left intentionally blank.
...force the engineers to work overtime as erotic dancers...
How to lose staff and alienate customers?
Oracle has a track record of such brilliance.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
You don't know what you're talking about.
Java is open source. Most of the source code for Java has been released under the GPL.
They started by releasing the JDK 7 code under an open source license. They then backported this code to OpenJDK 6 by removing some of the JDK 7 features and testing it under the JDK 6 TCK (testing kit).
The latest version of OpenJDK 6 is available for installation on Ubuntu and Fedora via their respective package managers.
The only parts of the proprietary Java 6 that are missing from OpenJDK 6 are:
1) SNMP code.
2) Applet/JavaWebStart code (although they're in the process of open sourcing it.
3) Latest bugfixes since JDK 6 Update 7 but these are slowly finding their way to OpenJDK 6.
Please do some basic research before posting your misconceptions as "facts".
This space left intentionally blank.
Wrong. Wrong on every point.
Java isn't really open source, that's why it's a huge pain in the ass under Linux.
It's in the standard repos on most distros now. It's not any different than installing python or perl or any other language/platform.
Yes, Sun released a version of Java under the GPL. It's the "next" version of Java, Java 7 or 1.7 or whatever they're deciding to call it.
They released the 1.6 JVM and libraries that it was legally allowed to.
The current version of Java, the one that everyone uses, is most definitely not open source. It's free, sure, but it's licensed in such a way that Linux distributions can't package it. (Easily - some have worked around it, but the bottom line is that installing Java 6 on Linux involves an interactive process. It can't be automated.)
Everyone should be using 1.6 because 1.7 isn't released yet. 1.6 is GPL and open source.
That "interactive" process was clicking on the EULA before it was open sourced. Not that big of a deal then, but it's not even an issue anymore.
The "open source" version of Java is missing large chunks of Java and is basically not at all ready.
Big chunks? The JVM and libs were almost complete. The small parts that couldn't be released were 3rd library implementations that Sun didn't have rights to release as GPL. The GNU Classpath project filled in the gaps almost from day.
So, Java isn't "really" open source. It's "going to be" at some point in the future - or at least it was. With Oracle in control, who knows.
It is open source. Really.
(Sure, Oracle can't un-open source what was released - but since that isn't enough for a full version of Java anyway, it's not like it really matters.)
No, it does matter. Billions of IT dollars are still being spent on projects using the java platform.
I'm sure Oracle would have rather had Sun's implemenation all to themselves, but then they should have bought Sun a couple of years ago.
"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
Well, They specifically said that they were going to keep funding mysql already, while specifically saying that they weren't going to comment on the future of open office. So I think that says something.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Pulling funding from JavaFX would probably be a bad idea since JavaFX is meant to keep Java competitive with .Net and Flash platforms which are rapidly taking over web and application markets. There is a big market in content design so it seems ridiculous to cut funding to those projects and they would shoot themselves in the foot. I see it more likely that MySQl is in danger, since this is heavily overlapped with oracles own database applications.
I would argue hardware is where Oracle saw the value in Sun. IMHO, there should be a home for Solaris at Oracle simply because it's a strong, viable server OS.
History has shown Sun has terrible problems running open source projects larger than their own paid contributors. I don't see Oracle improving or even interested in this.
Most of Sun's software projects will fade into oblivion as GPL'd abandonware because nearly all of them are also-ran projects started as Sun's version of things like Flash.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Well, I AM using openjdk for commercial development with Java... it's 99% free software. Sound already works, GUI/3d works, web start... well, with 50% chance ;). No JavaFX yet but I'm sure they'll discontinue it anyway.
The point is that Java (OpenJDK) is usable environment for developing and running GUI and web apps. Despite some missing bits it fullfills my needs in 100% without any closed-source blobs.
It is not like with OpenSolaris (I feared that they'll go this way), where you can't use it without kernel binaries - here you can just grab a copy, compile and use.
I just hope they don't go pulling the plug on Project Kenai.
Kenai is Sun's version of SourceForge/GitHub/Google Code. I'm hosting a project there and it works well enough, a few minor tweaks and it will be fantastic. I chose it because they had bugzilla, mercurial, forums with feeds and a rudimentary wiki with syntax I didn't hate. And a low-barrier to entry (I am more than capable of setting all that stuff up myself, but I'd rather spend the time hacking code).
Funny, though, I only just realized why I must have received that "please evangelize Kenai!" message in my inbox this morning...
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
It's all speculation at this point, but the project I'm concerned about is Open Office.
I'm so happy that Sun managed to release Java under the GPL before it was bought. I can't imagined what would happen if Oracle got a hold of Java without the community being able to fork it if nessecary.
One really good Java game.
8. Solaris - I see all of the cool features of Solaris (dtrace) moved over to Oracles Linux (if possible). That Linux version will run on "standard" X86 hardware or for "full support" it will run on the Oracle hardware (Sparc). This process will probably take 5 or more years.
That contradicts your initial premise and sounds more like wishful thinking.
All the cool stuff in Solaris is already in Solaris and making money. Yes people still use Solaris on new machines. Last quarter Sun sold almost $1 billion worth of SPARC based servers.
Since Solaris/SPARC is the leading platform for Oracle deployments, it makes more financial sense for Oracle to keep Solaris competitive against Linux in addition to it being cheaper than trying to integrate things into Linux.
Now that Oracle will have ZFS, I would wonder what might happen to Btrfs, which is an Oracle project.
Dual Opteron < $600
Oracle's stated goal is not just to own the server, but the desktop space.
Sun doesn't have a more useful desktop in any way. Who knows though, there have been plenty of dumb decisions in corporate America, thinking Sun's desktop is viable may be one of them.
But you think that Oracle bought Sun for its hardware and will now switch to Solaris, and drop Linux? Is that correct?
It's not that simple. Solaris has more features for big iron. For commodity hardware, Linux absolutely rocks. IMHO, they can easily support both Linux and Solaris on the Sales/Service side and not confuse anyone or cannibalize either customer base. But they desperately need to do a better job at running OSS-like projects if they want Solaris to stay vaguely relevant.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
These technologies aren't identical. They each have some nice features that appeal to some small subset of the user and developer bases, but the majority of uses can be implemented on whatever technology stack is available. The differences either force developers to learn multiple ways of doing things and learn about multiple sets of quirks of each tech stack, or get tied to one particular stack and risk having major parts of their skill die if that platform looses support.
That said, I think Oracle should probably dump as much of Sun's crap as possible. A platform either needs 110% support, needs to implement lots and lots of features, needs to fix bugs as if the earth itself depended on it, needs to be cheap and easy, or needs to not waste everyone's time in the first place.
Think about the PC. Microsoft and Intel got the 10% right that did 99% of what 99% of potential customers needed. It was affordable, it worked well enough, and it was easy to use. Since then, they used their economies of scale to take off, and now, for all the academic imperfection of i386, it's a really good, really stable platform. Even Windows (save some Visa graphics drivers) is a pretty stable platform by this point.
True, competition from AMD made Intel get of their ass with x86_64, multi-core, and virtualization, but AMD did it all while maintaining 100% backwards compatibility with x86. i386 is like an open standard that anyone can try to do better than Intel. If they do, they make money and Intel plays catch-up. If they don't KEEP doing it better... well, they they can just get some dumbass CEO to buy a shitty GPU maker.
True also that perceived competition from Linux has probably made Microsoft work a bit harder and cleaning things up. But in reality, Linux just proved that the *nix market really IS a natural monopoly and killed the other *nixes. Linux hasn't truly provided competition to M$ yet because it's not trivial to port an app from Windows to Linux. Wouldn't it be nice if there was just one OS to worry about (or better yet, one browser).
The true problems with technology today are: 1) Providing fast, reliable (read: clustered/redundant) full-featured (no limited SQL or proprietary database access methods) access to server-side data without compromising security on the server and without bumping into firewalls while forcing the end-user application developer to have to learn as little as possible about how that works. No specifying port numbers. No knowledge of http caching. Transparent (to the developer) statefullness. Minimal, simple interface for handling failed requests that uses the programming language's own error-handling mechanism (i.e. exceptions).
2) Full-featured client-side programs (read: 3D, video, multiple windows, local filesystem with appropriate security and space limitations) that can be written in any language, work on any client platform, don't compromise security on the client even though you're running untrusted code and don't require deployment of a browser plug-in or other runtime environment.
Oracle should aim big and do that, and keep it simple and easy instead of trying to tie developers to their language (Java) and/or platform (.NET).
They day they announced the merger, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison said that Solaris/SPARC was still the biggest place where Oracle was being deployed.
With all the pushing that Oracle has been doing towards Linux, their customers don't seem to be following. The question must have been raised whether Oracle should be leading their customers in OS choice, or following.
Oracle won't drop Linux, but they'll probably do more what IBM does. They'd rather sell you on AIX but if you want Linux you can have it.
Dual Opteron < $600
Just a nitpick, but Glassfish already IS the reference implementation of J2EE.
Having said that, I don't disagree that Oracle will stop adding features to it to encourage the use of WebLogic or Application Server.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011