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."

27 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Glassfish is a Must-Have for Oracle by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Glassfish is a Must-Have for Oracle by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Applets are still used quite extensively, actually. And now we have webstart, which is more or less the same candy in a different wrapper.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:Glassfish is a Must-Have for Oracle by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever since Microsoft got away with a slap on the wrist, Oracle has been buying their way to a monopoly. They give excuses for purchasing competitors (some of which might even be true), but their core aim is to be the big fish in the pond.

      Oracle may get some benefit out of BEA's product line or they might trash it. Doesn't matter either way. Oracle eliminated a competitor, bought a market, and is looking to reap the rewards of that maneuver. The tech is secondary.

      That being said, the Sun purchase is slightly different. Oracle and Sun have been a strong pairing on the high end of database deployments. Oracle needs Sun and their hardware to survive. It doesn't hurt that owning the business gives Oracle enough tools to hit IBM where it hurts...

      (I'll have to visit IBM sometime and see how many bloody stains I can find on the walls. There has got to be some serious head banging going on over there. ;-))

    3. Re:Glassfish is a Must-Have for Oracle by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More to the point, Glassfish has been sold with support to a number of companies. Unlike JavaFX (which has virtually no market share), a significant number of paying customers have bought into the Sun Application Server/Glassfish.

      In other words, Sun has contractual obligations to continue with Glassfish, and Oracle has inherited those obligations. They can't just drop support.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    4. Re:Glassfish is a Must-Have for Oracle by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

      a lot of moderators were wondering if pembo13 prefers ajax or java.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    5. Re:Glassfish is a Must-Have for Oracle by rbanffy · · Score: 5, Informative

      He was merely informing he would take a WebStart client over an AJAX client any day.

      Well... I wouldn't.

      Now, someone mod me um +5 informative.

    6. Re:Glassfish is a Must-Have for Oracle by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ever since Microsoft got away with a slap on the wrist, Oracle has been buying their way to a monopoly. They give excuses for purchasing competitors (some of which might even be true), but their core aim is to be the big fish in the pond.

      Buying their way to a monopoly is very different from buying their way to being a big fish in a little pond.

      Note that buying BEA still makes then only the second-biggest middleware firm (SAP still being larger in that market).

      I agree that Oracle wants to be the dominant competitor in each of the markets it competes in, BUT that is not the same as having monopoly position.

      Truth be told, aside from the Sun acquisition, most of Oracle's acquisitions in the past few years have been about horizontal growth -- getting Oracle middleware products into markets where they had little presence (finance & banking, insurance, etc). There has not been so much of them buying competitors in markets they already have a big presence in, which is where the monopoly fears should come.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Glassfish is a Must-Have for Oracle by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Applets are still used quite extensively, actually.

      Used? Yes. Extensively? No. There are too many competing technology for embedding applications in a web browser, and Java's applet API is the least powerful among them.

      And now we have webstart, which is more or less the same candy in a different wrapper.

      No it's not. JWS applications don't use the applet API and do not run in a browser window. They're just like non-embedded applications, except that instead of typing "java main class" or executing a JAR file, you execute an XML file that tells your JRE the URLs it needs to download. You might use a web browser to obtain the XML file. But you can also have a local XML file that you can run without firing up a web browser.

      Even at Sun, people mostly agree that applets aren't really useful. They're probably be around as long as Java is, but if Oracle has any sense, they'll stay in maintenance mode with no more API development.
       

  2. Looking Glass by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Looking Glass by Unending · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's worse than you think.
      I worked on the project 3 years ago and it was a horrible mess.
      They don't have any sort of 3D desktop concept all they have is a 2D desktop with 3D windows.
      The underlying 3D system is impossibly complex and non-nonsensical.
      Mouse clicks go through so many layers of checks that response time is ridiculous.
      They are using Java3D, which is incredibly slow anyway.
      To top all this off it doesn't look like they have changed anything in the last three years.
      I might have a slightly tainted view and I haven't looked at the code in three years, but I'm still highly unimpressed.

    2. Re:Looking Glass by fm6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1998 called. It wants its Java cliches back.

      Performance issues used to be a big problem with Java. That's long since been solved. The conventional wisdom was that these caused by Java being an "interpreted" language. That hasn't been true for a long time, and even when it was, it was only a minor factor in Java's performance issues.

      Aside from the big overhead in firing up the runtime (still a problem, but not an issue for a service application, like Looking Glass) the biggest impact on Java application performance was bad source code compilers. Sun was in such a hurry to get the thing to market that all the early compilers were hastily adapted from C++ compilers, and created code that was inefficient and full of memory leaks — this on a platform that was specifically designed to make memory leaks impossible!

      The Oracle acquisition is like a big second chance for Java, and a lot of other Sun technologies. Finally, they're under the control of a management hierarchy that doesn't consistently shoot itself in the foot!

  3. How much of it is Open Source? by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Such projects perhaps should die. by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  5. History by UseCase · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  6. RIA's need more than HTML5/CSS/JavaScript by javacowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:RIA's need more than HTML5/CSS/JavaScript by javacowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a reason why I specifically mentioned HTML5. Video, Canvas, Audio, SVG, Networking, Storage, multi-threading, etc. The platform meets and even exceeds the Flash and Silverlight platforms.

      P.S. Do development tools exist for these features? Flash/Flex, Silverlight and JavaFX already have development tools and IDEs.

      --
      This space left intentionally blank.
  7. Re:Such projects perhaps should die. by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...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
  8. Java *IS* open source by javacowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  9. Re:Java isn't (really) open source by LDoggg_ · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  10. Re:It all depends. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  11. Unlikely by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Oracle's New 'Hardware' company by mpapet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  13. Project Kenai by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Informative

    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()?
  14. Luckily Java is GPL'd by ManWithIceCream · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  15. Natural monopolies by pseudorand · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I think that the entire computer industry is a Natural Monopoly. Think about it. Intel, IBM and Sun basically duplicate a heck of a lot of work trying to do the same thing: make silicon add faster. Microsoft and the Linux community likewise do the same thing with operating systems. Flash/Silverlight/JavaFX/GWT: redundant. PHP/Rails/J2EE/.Net: redundant. And it's not just the companies that duplicate efforts. All their users and those who develop for these platforms duplicate efforts as well.

    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).

    1. Re:Natural monopolies by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ``Intel, IBM and Sun basically duplicate a heck of a lot of work trying to do the same thing: make silicon add faster.''

      But the competition between Intel and AMD is what has been driving CPU speeds up.

      ``Microsoft and the Linux community likewise do the same thing with operating systems.''

      Again, there is a lot of progress being made because of competition between the various camps. Good features are being cloned, new features are being added, and performance and security are being improved.

      ``Flash/Silverlight/JavaFX/GWT: redundant.''

      Perhaps. Or maybe we'll see some good come from it yet.

      ``PHP/Rails/J2EE/.Net: redundant.''

      Rails gave a major boost to the web development landscape. Competition from .NET has caused Java to improve massively.

      ``And it's not just the companies that duplicate efforts. All their users and those who develop for these platforms duplicate efforts as well.''

      This is true, and a lot of time and effort has been wasted. On the other hand, one has to wonder if we would really have been better off if that hadn't happened.

      The trick is that having multiple projects that cater to the same market allows evolution to occur. Each project can move in its own direction, and the world will vote with its feet and cause the projects that make the best choices to thrive. This functionality can then be incorporated by the competing projects, or not, as they see fit. I do believe we end up with better results this way than if we wanted to always avoid duplication.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  16. Re:It all depends. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 3, Informative

    Glassfish - This will become the reference implementation for J2EE and Oracle will kill (as best they can) development on large scalability features out of it.

    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