Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM and Oracle To Collaborate On OpenJDK

Posted by Soulskill on from the what-does-the-color-blue-taste-like dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Today, IBM and Oracle announced their intent to work together to accelerate innovation on the Java Platform, leveraging OpenJDK. IBM and Oracle will also collaborate to support the Java SE 7 and Java SE 8 schedules presented recently at JavaOne and to continue to enhance the JCP."

125 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Here's a question ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Can somebody more familiar with Java and the overall Java scene clue us in as to whether this is a good thing?

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Here's a question ... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure this IBM-Oracle teamup will produce an amazing result with the reliability of LotusNotes and the developer friendliness of an Oracle database tool.

      It'll also have... well, crap. You're going to get sued if you use it no matter which parent is dominant there.

    2. Re:Here's a question ... by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Funny

      Java is the new Caldera Linux; buy it and you'll end up being sued by the very same people who sold it to you.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:Here's a question ... by TopSpin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Can somebody more familiar with Java and the overall Java scene clue us in as to whether this is a good thing?

      These joint announcements would appear to break the log jam that has prevailed over Java for the last few years. Sun simply didn't scale to open projects and gradually found itself at odds with the JCP on many fronts. Oracle and IBM have now slated specific items from the JCP backlog for future OpenJDK implementations, implicitly anointing both the JCP and the (open source) OpenJDK as the official future of Java. That is the closest thing to a 'plan' that has appeared in the Java world in about four years.

      The Oracle vs. Google thing is very troubling. Google made Java work in a huge way on Android. Networked, mobile, embedded stuff was use case for which Java was originally intended. Java badly needs to inculcate that success. Otherwise it will assume the role its detractors have often accused of it; the COBOL of our day.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    4. Re:Here's a question ... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Otherwise it will assume the role its detractors have often accused of it; the COBOL of our day.

      So it will be wildly successful with billions of lines of code still in use powering a ton of the infrastructure that modern-day business relies on?

    5. Re:Here's a question ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Otherwise it will assume the role its detractors have often accused of it; the COBOL of our day.

      So it will be wildly successful with billions of lines of code still in use powering a ton of the infrastructure that modern-day business relies on?

      Shhh!

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Here's a question ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Basically, since Oracle took over Sun, and hence bought the rights to Java, the Java community has been hostile to Oracle.

      I suspect this is just a play to get at least one major player on Oracle's side to apply pressure to the JCP to bow down to almighty Oracle's whim.

      Make of that what you will, I don't expect it'll work.

    7. Re:Here's a question ... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      It's a start.

      At this point, there are a few major threats to java. Oracle and IBM getting into a hissy fit and forking it, the fact that Oracle is involved in it poisoning it, the JCP process getting bogged down and causing it to stagnate, and .NET just being a lot easier to use.

      This change doesn't actually eliminate any of these problems, but it does mitigate at least the first three, which are crucial to doing anything about the 4th.

    8. Re:Here's a question ... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Thing is though that Android doesn't actually use Java, just a java syntax, so if anything the success of Android is hurting Java by further diluting it.

    9. Re:Here's a question ... by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      As a long time Java developer, I had mixed feelings about this. One the one hand, IBM has been a pretty good steward of java and platform independence. On the other hand, it scares me that they are getting in bed with Oracle, since Oracle has shown they support Open Source only where they have a direct benefit (i.e they are first in line to use open source code, but they don't seem to want to contribute much back, IMO).

    10. Re:Here's a question ... by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Thing is though that Android doesn't actually use Java, just a java syntax, so if anything the success of Android is hurting Java by further diluting it.

      So what happens if Dalvik becomes the new Java? I, for one, have more trust in Google than Oracle.

    11. Re:Here's a question ... by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well yeah, but it won't be cool to talk about it.

    12. Re:Here's a question ... by hachete · · Score: 1

      I'd rather get paid than be cool.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    13. Re:Here's a question ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup, and most of it will be written by people who have a lot of knowledge of the problem domain and a tiny bit of knowledge of programming, making the code very hard to maintain. It will then be used for about 20 years longer than the original designers expected.

      I've likened Java to COBOL before. It's not a criticism, just a point that they both fill the same niche. Java was created as a language for average programmers (that was a stated design goal) and it's succeeded in this - people with little knowledge can write (often horrible) code that works in Java. And code that works is far more valuable to most businesses than elegant code that doesn't work.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Here's a question ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Please stop repeating this nonsense. It uses a language which has:
      • Java syntax.
      • Java semantics.
      • A load of standard classes in the java.* namespace.
      • A different VM for execution.

      Saying it's not Java is like saying gcj is not Java because it compiles Java code to native code rather than to JVM bytecode.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Here's a question ... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      The downside is, sometime in the 22nd century, people will be screaming & tearing their hairs out maintaining the ancient code that I wrote back in 2010! Though that will be their problem, not mine.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    16. Re:Here's a question ... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      You can't take a compliant java application and compile it into Dalvik and have it work, you can't take compliant java byte code and run it in dalvik and you can't take dalvik byte code and run it in a compliant JVM.

      gcj is not java, it's a convertor from java to machine code.

  2. Now maybe we can get a decent JDK with yum by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For work reasons we have to use the sun JDK on our linux boxes. However since Sun/Oracle doesn't set up a yum repository for the thing every time it's updated we have to go manually download the thing, unpack it and then put it in our local repository. It's a huge pain in the ass and I'm hoping that the OpenJDK will become a drop in replacement for the official JDK so it can be put into mainstream yum repositories.

    --
    Monstar L
    1. Re:Now maybe we can get a decent JDK with yum by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not trying to be facetious, but this is the #1 reason I'm using Ubuntu instead of FC or OpenSUSE. (Not just Java specifically, but Java, restricted codecs, Flash, etc.) It also updates all of the relevant alternatives for me, as part of the package install, which is also very nice.

    2. Re:Now maybe we can get a decent JDK with yum by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Informative

      openjdk is in FC's yum repositories. It seems to be decent enough for my uses ( and red hats).

      Its passed the certification test for Java .

      What else, besides your companies policies, would have to change for you to consider it a drop in replacement for the official JDK that is available in mainstream yum repositories?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:Now maybe we can get a decent JDK with yum by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I switched to OpenSUSE from Ubuntu for my Linux install, and that's the thing I miss the most. Most things are in the repository, but a few of the things I use aren't.

    4. Re:Now maybe we can get a decent JDK with yum by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? openSUSE has the official Java (package is called "java-1_6_0-sun") as well as an OpenJDK/IcedTea-based one ("java-1_6_0-openjdk").

    5. Re:Now maybe we can get a decent JDK with yum by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone install several minor revisions of the same thing? Is it so pleasant to have JavaVMs with security holes installed?

    6. Re:Now maybe we can get a decent JDK with yum by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      The Java, Flash and restricted codecs are all in the Opensuse repositories. Opensuse installs flash and java automatically when you install it if you have the 'non-oss' add on CD. If not you can simply add this repo after installtion and install them.
      The restricted codecs are a 1-click install: http://opensuse-community.org/Restricted_formats [opensuse-community.org]

      The procedure might be slightly different from Ubuntu's but it couldn't be simpler, really.

      (double-post the other one I accidentally clicked 'post anonymously')

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    7. Re:Now maybe we can get a decent JDK with yum by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Minor revisions I'm not sure, but I've had a lot of "enjoyment" with SAP which seems to be very fussy about JVM versions. I thought they were supposed to be backward compatible, but apparently not.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. And Nothing(?) Was Gained by mpapet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I get that java is *the* enterprise-y choice for applications, but I still don't get it. I don't see the economic incentive for Oracle to keep this project, so I'm guessing the bulk of the Dev work is transitioning to IBM.

    What is communicated as a collaboration is more a transition for what would have likely gone abandonware with a rats nest of Intellectual Property issues perpetually constraining re-use.

    Please, correct me if I'm wrong because I never got Java from the beginning.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by TheSunborn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oracle have so much existing software written in Java that they kinda need to keep Java alive.

    2. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see the economic incentive for Oracle to keep this project,

      Maybe because Oracle, being enterprise-y, has an absurd number of applications which run on Java? Improving Java performance means nearly all Oracle applications run faster. Making Java more flexible as a language and as a VM means they have more powerful tools and better techniques going forward, which they can use for developing things which plug directly into all that legacy Java code they've got.

      And while Oracle certainly has the rights to close as much of it as they like, hopefully even they realize it's in their best interests to collaborate with the community (including IBM), rather than trying to go it alone.

      I'm guessing the bulk of the Dev work is transitioning to IBM.

      And why do you think IBM has a better incentive than Oracle?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      I don't see the economic incentive for Oracle to keep this project, so I'm guessing the bulk of the Dev work is transitioning to IBM.

      Well, look at it this way: your stereotypical Java enterprise project probably uses Oracle as its database. Conversely, while many .NET enterprise projects still use Oracle, the default database choice there is probably SQL Server. A project built in freer languages is probably looking at something like a PostGRE and not Oracle, etc. Java projects really are one of their best angles to sell Oracle licenses in the enterprise.

      Now, whether Oracle is smart enough to think that far ahead without shooting themselves in the groin, I don't know.

    4. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by Kenneth+Stephen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is an uneasy truce where two competitors agree to not put pressure on the swords that they have at each others throats. Oracle invested considerably in Sun, and knows that the biggest asset that Sun brings to the table is their Java related people and knowledge-base (and not Sun's proprietary hardware). Java is incredible valuable to Oracle since they have also bought up BEA Systems (who produced WebLogic - leading J2EE container) and are using this acquisition to position them as a vendor that can do everything and anything in software space (like IBM). IBM can jeopardize this by splintering the Java brand and developing OpenJDK further. Conversely, IBM doesn't want Oracle to spike its Java food pool with Oracle poison, and sees this initiative as a way to not expend resources on an all-out war with Oracle. If anything, IBM is much more invested in Java, and stands to lose a lot more with Java splintering.

      Of course, both these companies don't want the open source world to take Java away from them either. This is also a "both of us against the rest of the world" posture, which seems to smack of anti-competitive behavior.

      --

      There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.

    5. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by NuclearRampage · · Score: 1

      You're making the assumption Oracle will upgrade their apps to run on any improved version of Java. For example, the apps we have from Oracle that are enterprise-y still use versions of Java over 7 years old. Even though the version of the apps have marched on, the version of Java being used has not.

    6. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is some of what Java has going for it:

        1. Massive standard class library covering everything from smartphones to distributed application servers
        2. Huge amounts of third-party support. If you can think of it, someone somewhere has written a library for it, and chances are it's open source
        3. The best IDEs in existence. NetBeans, Eclipse, IntelliJ, etc. all come with built in support for unit testing, dependency management, source control (mercurial, SVN, git, you name it), profiling, local and remote debugging, etc.
        4. Agent support for instrumentation and runtime redeployment. Using tools like JRebel I can edit code in my IDE and see the results instantly in the application server, and *still* take advantage of strong typing, etc.
        5. Object-Relation-Management (ORM). Tools like TopLink and Hibernate mean that you can reverse engineer a class model from a DB, or generate a DB from a class model, and use the ORM API to effortlessly add optimistic locking, transaction management, and object based queries to your app
        6. Application servers support distributed transaction management (XA) and messaging (JMS) on top of a generalize connection management framework (JCA) in which any vendor can provide a standard connector (resource adapter) to their systems and participate in global two-phase transactions
        7. Open driver support for virtually every data store; lots of choices for embedded in-memory SQL/RDBMS databases
        8. Container-based pooling, caching, and transaction management
        9. Dependency management and build systems like Ant, Maven, Hudson, and Sonar that enable you to very easily configure scheduled builds with static code analysis, automated unit tests, and concise reports of errors with references to changesets included in the build
        10. Perhaps the largest collection of forums, blogs, and online documentation for any platform
        11. Strong typing, API contracts, and runtime introspection identify issues at compile/deploy time, rather than runtime
        12. Strong industry support from multiple vendors (Google, Oracle, IBM, RedHat, etc.)

      So, if you're writing a little GTK widget for managing your MP3 collection, maybe Java isn't for you. But if you are a medium-to-large business chances are you either develop or administer an enterprise-scale Java application.

      Another thing to consider is that the vast majority of Java tools and libraries are open source, and many of the specifications are formed once an open source toolset reaches a certain level of maturity/popularity. For example, Hibernate did most of the legwork for JPA; JSF was initiated largely due to the success of Struts; and WebBeans is a formal spec defining the basics what Seam provides. So all Oracle really has to do is keep the JCP going and publish the standards while RedHat (JBoss), IBM, the Glassfish development team, and everyone else provides the implementations. Oracle stays competitive with IBM and RedHat by offering a development stack (based on Oracle DB, Oracle AS, Oracle JDeveloper, etc. all of which use Java) *and* continues to collect licensing fees from the other players. Plus they have a little more say in the JCP process, which gives them a slight advantage when ratifying new APIs.

      Not to mention that Java is installed in over 2.6 billion handheld devices, each of which pays a royalty fee to Oracle.

      What surprises me is that Oracle is partnering with IBM on this venture. I wonder what IBM has on Oracle?

    7. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      Buy the jvm upgrade support from your oracle rep there is a time limited sale : your left testicle and a bag full of money.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    8. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, all of Oracle's customers use Java (like it or not, it is the leading enterprise development language/platform) - and they have a lot of investment in hardware and software that can't be transitioned to Windows (the Java apps can be, but the big-iron hardware often cannot).

    9. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by gtall · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I wonder what IBM has on Oracle?" Business respectability. No one in their right mind trusts Oracle further than they can spit a two-headed rat. IBM is similar. However, if you have two two-headed rats, you, as a PHB, can buttress your choice of Java + Database + business application software as being dual sourced. Without IBM, its Oracle and their dumb lawsuit against Google. Few organizations would attempt what Google has done with using the language but not the infrastructure. But yer basic PHB won't see that, they'll see Java + lawsuit. Oracle's lawyers convinced the idiots at Oracle, errr....Uncle Larry...that Beeelllions can be made by knackering Google or that Google, left to its own devices, might find a way to supplant Oracle's DBs with Cloudiness. Put yourself in Uncle Larry's position. You see the world in us vs. them. The bigger the Them, the bigger the threat because they might just find a way to stick in a pin in your revenues and suck them dry. Yeah, I know, it isn't a particularly nuanced view, but then Uncle Larry didn't get Oracle to be in the position it is in by being nuanced.

      So about now, Oracle realized they've probably screwed the pooch deep enough and are attempting to pull it out a bit...just for aesthetic purposes.

    10. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      One thing Java doesn't, and never has, have:

      It's shit together for GUI desktop apps.

      --
      Comment of the year
    11. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 1

      So, if you're writing a little GTK widget for managing your MP3 collection, maybe Java isn't for you. But if you are a medium-to-large business chances are you either develop or administer an enterprise-scale Java application.

      It's true! People say "Java is the new COBOL" as if that's a bad thing. Java has become the lingua franca of business logic. Kudos to the non-Microsoft world for taking that spot.

      --
      Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    12. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by Eskarel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because if Java fails, .NET takes over, and .NET integrates a lot smoother with MS SQL than with Oracle(not that you can't access Oracle, just that the built in frameworks are all based on SQL). MS SQL is essentially the number one threat to Oracle's business in the short term, since for the vast majority of cases it's a perfectly viable solution, generally costs less(presuming you already have any MS products in your organization), and to be honest, Microsoft are a lot nicer to deal with than Oracle.

      IBM and Oracle both desperately need Java to survive, that's half the reason that Oracle bought Sun in the first place.

    13. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by Rexdude · · Score: 3, Informative

      And why do you think IBM has a better incentive than Oracle?

      Disclaimer: I work for IBM's Java Technology Center.
      Because IBM also uses Java as the core component of all its software brands - Rational,Lotus,Websphere,Tivoli - all of them run on IBM's Java. Also IBM provides JDKs for its own platforms (AIX, z/OS and Linux on System p/z) to support the same brands. Essentially,Java is crucial to allow modern enterprise applications to run on mainframes and legacy OSes like System p/z without having to code native applications for them, and which can benefit from the traditional stability and processing power of large mainframes.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    14. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by alannon · · Score: 1

      I'd be curious to actually know the real numbers, how frequently enterprise Java applications run on Oracle. I've worked for several large enterprises that standardized on Java as the development platform, but almost exclusively used MS SQL instead of Oracle for the databases.

    15. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by terryducks · · Score: 1

      Because if Java fails, .NET takes over, ...

      it wont take over for years and even in that case it might be only the new development. Business won't change everything over as that's a capital expenditure. Do you realize how may manhours it took to generate the first system and you want to change it? .NET = one platform (you mono guys go piss on someone else) You may get a small subset going over to mono but it isn't going to be "everyone"

      On the other hand - Companies will look for paid support.

      Which may be a good thing as Oracle's ERP offerings are Java based - Consultancy lock ins and jobs to retire in.....

    16. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      In other words, IBM has the same incentive as Oracle, so my point stands.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    17. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by Paul+Dubuc · · Score: 1

      MS SQL is essentially the number one threat to Oracle's business in the short term, since for the vast majority of cases it's a perfectly viable solution, generally costs less(presuming you already have any MS products in your organization), and to be honest, Microsoft are a lot nicer to deal with than Oracle.

      Seems like more of a reason for Oracle to keep MySQL going than Java.

    18. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      MySQL is a joke, always has been, it's possible that Oracle could make it into something that's not a Joke, but if you're running anything enterprise level in MySQL that's not a LAMP CMS then you're insane.

    19. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by Paul+Dubuc · · Score: 1

      MySQL is a joke, always has been...

      But is MS SQL Server any better? I heard a MySQL rep from Sun comment shortly after the Oracle deal to acquire Sun was announced that it might be Oracle's intent to use MySQL to compete with SQL Server. I don't see any less reason to believe his statements than yours above on the face of it. Innobase, the developer of the InnoDB transactional storage engine for MySQL, was acquired by Oracle some time before Oracle acquired Sun. Maybe Oracle has a higher opinion of MySQL than you do.

    20. Re:And Nothing(?) Was Gained by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      MS SQL is getting quite tolerable in the mid to to upper mid range. It's still not in a place to compete with Oracle at the top end, but for most use cases it's perfectly adequate.

      I don't know anyone who isn't a MySQL salesman or an open source fanatic who has never heard of Postgres who thinks MySQL is capable even in the mid level use case.

      That's not to say that Oracle pouring money into it couldn't make it good, or that they don't have plans for it or for Innobase, but as is, it's a joke.

  4. So will they stop suing Google? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

    No? Then I don't know that I care.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:So will they stop suing Google? by jernejk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you remember when MS had their own JVM and then started adding "extensions" to java? Yeah, that was bad. It was MS's embrace, extend, extinguish strategy. Id bound whatever you implemented on MS's java to Windows platform. Which is exactly the opposite of what java is all about. And yes, Sun sued them and MS discontinued it's own java and tarted .Net. Sun was considered to be the good guy and MS the bad guy.

      Now please explain to me how Google, doing exactly the same as MS did, is now the good guy?

    2. Re:So will they stop suing Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because Microsoft called it Java, and Google doesn't?

    3. Re:So will they stop suing Google? by jernejk · · Score: 1

      Same tactics disguised in different, "don't be evil" package.

      Really, how can people be so blinded by Apple and Google? I mean, it's 20 and freaking 10, we don't have flying cars, but at least we could finally have portable software? You know, with something like JavaFx (or Flash or whatever) it's possible to implement cross-platform iPhone like apps.

      The ONLY profit from proprietary platforms goes to their authors. And again, if it was 95 and Microsoft did that.. oh boy...

    4. Re:So will they stop suing Google? by Joehonkie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only if you please explain how Davlik (which does not claim to be Java, although that is the language it uses) is "doing exactly the same thing?" especially since their complaint is that is has LESS features than normal Java, rather than more. I have never seen Google make any claims of 100% cross-compatibility between Davlik and Java.

    5. Re:So will they stop suing Google? by TheSunborn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google is not doing exactly the same thing.

      The big difference is that Microsoft and Sun made an contract where Microsoft were given a license to use suns source code to suns java implementation, in order to optimize it for Windows. Provided that their implementation were a full and exact implementation of Java.

      What Google have done is made an independent implementation of the java language* and part of the class library which Sun ship java. It would be the same thing if they had choosen c# instead and then made a (partial) implementation of that.

      They might have used Perl,C++,C# or any other language. But they used Java. And the funny thing is that if Google for example had used a Perl instead of java they would most likely still have violated** the same patents as they do now.

      *But they may not call it Java, and sun fucked up the naming by calling the language, the library the vm for Java. Different names for different things, please.

      **I don't know if the current implementation google uses does violate any patents, but if it does then an implementation using Perl would most likely have violated the same patents, because they are general vm patents which are not java specific.

    6. Re:So will they stop suing Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please turn in your programmer card. You've fallen for the deception that a language specification is the same thing as an execution environment, aka virtual machine, or -- even worse! -- an entire software platform. How did you become confused? Because common practice is to use Java as a cover-all term to mean Java the language, Java the JVM, and Java the platform. A programming language defines semantics, NOT the governing machine. A standard can include library details, but that is NOT the same as the core language itself.

      Android uses Java the language, the Android libraries (a DERIVATIVE of the Java libraries), the Dalvik virtual machine, which together form the Android platform. Why are the libraries derivative? Because they are based on the Java class libraries, not in completeness, and the behavior of the identical libraries are not guaranteed to be the same.

      Copying standard library specifications is not something new in the programming world. Look at D, which blatantly copies the C++ standard library. Why did D authors make that choice? Because the SC++L cannot feasibly be topped by recreating it; only by extending and improving on it can it be bettered. The Java class libraries were taken by Google because they are familiar to many thousands of programmers across the world, and because they have a long history of reliability and general design quality.

      A simple example may help to dispel the confusion. Let's build a compiler. I want to base it on C#. The goal is to produce bytecode that runs on my proprietary VM. Technically, we could make it produce Python/Java bytecode, or (perhaps) native binaries even. After I'm done, the syntax it compiles is exact and conforming to C#, and even behaves the same way. I might take a few .NET libraries and reimplement them to work with my compiler. Not all of .NET though; it's simply too large. The compiler successfully compiles pure C# code, and a varying amount of .NET-using C# code. See the resemblance to Dalvik? My compiler and VM are not .NET-based, and have zip to do with the CLR. It's a 100%-valid C# compiler, but is unrelated to .NET.

      Why is the above example easier to understand? Because Microsoft didn't name all its technologies the same: C# was never dubbed "the .NET programming language."

    7. Re:So will they stop suing Google? by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      Because Microsoft called it Java, and Google doesn't?

      Microsoft didn't call anything Java. Their VM was called "Microsoft JVM", their Java dialect "J++", etc.
      Even though it's completely unrelated technology, MS didn't even use the term "JavaScript" but used "JScript" instead (today they call it ECMAScript like everybody else).

    8. Re:So will they stop suing Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The key bit is "...part of the class library...". You can't take some Java code written for Sun or IBM's VM and be confident it will run on Android because parts of the core class library aren't there. That destroys one of the main selling points of Java which is its portability ("Write once, run anywhere"). And that is a big deal. I develop on Windows and Mac OS and deploy to Linux and Solaris. And it just works.

    9. Re:So will they stop suing Google? by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      given that android executable files arent called *.jar and arent java bytecode, i dont see how that matters, APK files dont run on any JVM, JAR files dont run on the dalvik VM and google doesnt claim that it does.

      As for your multi-os example, i fully agree that is a strength of java as a platform (which i use myself as well, even though windows has been all but banished from my personal IT structure), but when writing anything for a mobile device you need an emulator anyway, even if you use j2me instead of android. From my point of view android is a completely different platform, which in the current toolset from google, happens to use the java syntax (and many of its class libs) for development, making it much easier for java developers to use their skills to do mobile work (lets face it, j2me never got anywhere near the following as iOS objective C development, or android have)

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
  5. It's a trap by wonkavader · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not sure how, but it must be. OpenJDK is something Oracle doesn't make money on, as far as I can tell. Whenever Oracle touches something it doesn't make money on, it always makes an attempt to crush it between it's teeth.

    1. Re:It's a trap by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not sure how, but it must be. OpenJDK is something Oracle doesn't make money on, as far as I can tell.

      Oracle makes money selling software that uses Java.

      People working on improving Java without Oracle having to pay them is, therefore, in Oracle's interest.

    2. Re:It's a trap by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Whenever Oracle touches something it doesn't make money on, it always makes an attempt to crush it between it's teeth.

      Given how much it has already in Java, maybe this is why IBM stepped it and made an offer Oracle couldn't refuse?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  6. What's wrong with OpenJDK? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Informative

    It already is a drop-in replacement, unless you're dealing with software that makes remarkably stupid assumptions about the JDK it's running on.

    Unfortunately, that may be a lot of software -- I know Oracle's own JDeveloper uses some internal Sun JDK stuff, when there's no reason they couldn't use the standard public API for the same thing which OpenJDK also supports.

    Still, if it's in your power to do so, fix the app. If OpenJDK breaks it, chances are, a future Sun JDK will break it, too.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by Chep · · Score: 1

      try, as I have, to use OpenJDK to do plain dumb Play! Framework development under Eclipse (either vanilla Squeeze or Lucid Lynx)

      My experience at it is that it will crash about every time you change a bit in a page. Went back to the Sun JDK in no time.

      Hopefully one day that gets better (and I'm sure it will, eventually)

    2. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by NightFears · · Score: 1

      > I know Oracle's own JDeveloper uses some internal Sun JDK stuff, when there's no reason they couldn't use the standard public API for the same thing While I don't know specifically about JDeveloper, I can testify first-hand that in some (rare) cases the standard Java API is simply not enough, and you are faced with the choice to either rewrite a huge piece of the library, or use the private API.

    3. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by NightFears · · Score: 1

      (Never skip the Preview button)
      > I know Oracle's own JDeveloper uses some internal Sun JDK stuff, when there's no reason they couldn't use the standard public API for the same thing
      While I don't know specifically about JDeveloper, I can testify first-hand that in some (rare) cases the standard Java API is simply not enough, and you are faced with the choice to either rewrite a huge piece of the library, or use the private API.

    4. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Any examples you can share?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by HelloKitty2 · · Score: 1

      Even if they use the standard APIs, they do other things differently so that the software might not run, try running Vuze on IBM JDK, it will crash or not download anything [iirc. after a while].

    6. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      It [OpenJDK] already is a drop-in replacement [for Sun JDK], unless you're dealing with software that makes remarkably stupid assumptions about the JDK it's running on.

      I assume Tomcat is "stupid" software then? It has issues running under OpenJDK. Many other Java applications also become unstable or unpredictable under OpenJDK - soi much so, that I wouldn't trust openJDK on any platform or for any application.

    7. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      The common examples are things like signal handling, which are not exposed as public APIs since they are not present on all platforms Java is targeted at. The solution in this, and many other cases, is usually to use a different approach - for instance Tomcat listens on a port for shutdown requests rather than requiring a signal, and in Java programming terms this is no more complex than signal handling in C.

    8. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      That's not what I said.

      I think Firefox is altogether an excellent browser, but I think they've made some remarkably stupid decisions with regards to HTML5. That doesn't make all of Firefox "stupid software."

      Similarly, I would imagine Tomcat is mostly well put together, but has made some stupid assumptions about the JDK it's running on. I'm also curious if it still has those issues...

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    9. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      So now I'm curious -- you've just pointed out a potential problem and a solution which didn't require going beyond the standard API. It also seems like unless your library is incredibly poorly written, this would be a trivial change.

      I suppose if I really, really needed signal handling, I'd do JNI, which would be incredibly ironic -- but really, if you're deliberately using features you know aren't supported on all Java platforms, you shouldn't be surprised when they don't work on all JVMs.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    10. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      Tomcat makes no assumptions about the JDK it's running on - the issue is the quality and consistency of behaviour of OpenJDK versus the Sun or IBM JDK. The latter two do not have any issues running Tomcat (or NetBeans, Eclipse, etc), whereas OpenJDK does.

    11. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      If you want to do signal handling, then you could use the "non-public" classes sun.misc.Signal and sun.misc.SignalHandler, which as far as I can tell haven't changed since their introduction. The problem if you do use them you will not have a "pure Java" applications, as these classes are not required to be in all implementations of the Java class libraries.

    12. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      But which behavior? Actual, specified behavior, or private interfaces no one had any business using?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    13. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      And my point was, if you don't have a "pure Java" application, and if you are making assumptions about both the platform you're running on and the JVM you're running on, it actually seems like an improvement to switch to JNI, which only makes assumptions about the platform.

      After all, C does have pretty consistent signal handling where that concept makes any sense.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    14. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      But which behavior?

      Locking up, crashing. Those trivial kinds of things that don't happen with Sun or IBM JDKs. Nothing to do with using non-public APIs.

    15. Re:What's wrong with OpenJDK? by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      Well, as the alternative idiom in "pure" Java is about the same number of lines of code, why bother with either the non-public API or native code via JNI?

  7. Not Sure by medv4380 · · Score: 1

    I'm not really sure if this is good or bad. It sounds like it couldn't get much worse. The cloud Java has right now is will it become a language ment only for interfacing with an Oracle system or will it be maintained as a language for things outside of the database world. IBM at least has a stake in it being more then just a lang to interface with one kind of system. That being said they can't be any worse then Sun was since a lot of the new functions in Java 6 and Java 7 came from IBM anyway. Heck just give it to Google since they seem more focused on making things run fast. Oh, Oracle is suing them? Well I guess Java Devs are screwed ether way.

    Sure, Not

    1. Re:Not Sure by jernejk · · Score: 1

      Dude, Oracle has more or less all their current product portfolio built around Java. From java stored procedures to Fusion Middleware, SOA, 2 application servers, 2 development environments, and most of their "applications" portfolio. Oracle bought Sun just to protect itself from loosing java. what they will make out of it is another story. Probably won't be as open as Sun was, but can't afford to loose customers and devs... interesting times ahaed.

  8. What does this mean for Android? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    If Oracle is actively supporting a free open source, implementation of the JDK, how does this affect their case with Google? how do they claim damages for a product that is available for free?

    1. Re:What does this mean for Android? by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      It was released to the open-source community under the condition that to be patent-compliant, forks had to maintain a certain level of compatibility. Android is not close to compatible.

    2. Re:What does this mean for Android? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Right, I understand that Google can't fork openJDK and do what they want with it, but since they didn't do that and claim to have written their JVM from scratch, how do you compute damages against a product that is available for free, source code and all. If anything, Android promotes Java and makes it more popular, so I fail to see how Oracle can claim that it damages them?

    3. Re:What does this mean for Android? by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      If you think of Java as a language then you're right. However, Java is considered to be a platform now just a language. As a platform what Google is doing is very bad, but as a language it is very good. It basically boils down to java code written and compiles for Android cannot work or run on any JVM outside of the Android platform. Oracle is also a little bit upset that Google sniped some of the Java devs when they bought Sun and everything went into limbo. Probably comes down to that Anti Trust suit that the big IT firms were having about collaborating not to snipe each others talent so they could keep wages low.

    4. Re:What does this mean for Android? by Eil · · Score: 4, Informative

      The complaint with Google was that Google was infringing on Oracle's patents and copyrights via Android. Google's official and legal response was along the lines of, "WTF are you talking about?"

      My own theory is that Sun (and now Oracle) liked the profits they were receiving via licensing royalties from mobile phones that shipped with an embedded Java environment. Google did an end-run around these royalties by developing their own third-party JVM, Dalvik. When it looked like Android would gain a decent foothold in the smart phone market, Oracle probably thought they needed to do something. Maybe they have this opinion that they "own" all parts of Java.

      (My understanding is that Dalvik and Java(tm) are completely different, except that the human-readable source code for both happens to be the Java programming language. A programming language itself, so far as I know, cannot be copyrighted. Patented, maybe, but you would have a tremendously difficult time trying to find any feature of a "modern" language that doesn't have decades of prior art.)

      As for OpenJDK, Oracle appears to be the copyright holder of the source code and are entitled to any Java copyrights or patents applicable to it. Whether they give it away for free or charge for it doesn't matter.

    5. Re:What does this mean for Android? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      The J2ME VM is not free; phone vendors pay a lot of money to Snoracle for it. Just multiply the price of J2ME by the number of phones that have Dalvik instead of J2ME.

    6. Re:What does this mean for Android? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The patents are for the inner workins of a VM for Java like programs. They apply to the JVM (obviously), MS CLR (which is probably more or less their old JVM with modified instruction set) and probably Dalvik. Oracle probably had the analysis done long before they launched their lawsuit. I think Google will have to go for the jugular and get the patents completely thrown out if they want to avoid having to pay the same kind of money Microsoft pays for .NET.

  9. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by hedwards · · Score: 1, Troll

    Um, Google created something that couldn't inter-operate with the rest of the Java installations out there. They claimed to be using the Java language, but didn't actually do anything other than use Java syntax and IIRC didn't include the standard libraries. The VM itself couldn't handle the normal class files, nor could the authorized VMs handle the files that the Google version was using.

    This wasn't a matter of Google adding things to the language, this was a case of Google deliberately misrepresenting their implementation and harming Oracle's trademark.

  10. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by metamatic · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've yet to notice any standard SDK libraries missing from the Android SDK. Even stuff like BigDecimal is there.

    Not that Google actually claim that the Android SDK is a Java SDK, of course.

    [Opinions mine, not IBM's.]

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  11. Re:Yeah, right, remember OS2? by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Excuse me, when I go reread the history book on this.

    Didn't IBM and Microsoft wrote a chapter together on one OS already? OS2?

    What relation does OS2 have with Java?
    Excuse me, but reading the history book myself, a bunch of relevant things emerge:

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  12. Re:Yeah, right, remember OS2? by Eil · · Score: 1

    Uh yeah. Because writing a desktop PC operating system in the late 1980's and continuing development of an enterprise-class programming environment in 2010 are exactly the same thing.

  13. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by zuperduperman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They claimed to be using the Java language

    Actually the main plank of Google's defence is that Android does *not* run Java. The test of whether they succeed or fail is largely whether they can convince the court that Dalvik is *not* a Java VM. And sure enough if you scan the Android SDK you'll find just about nowhere that it says you are programming in Java. It's pretty weird and interesting.

  14. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by zuperduperman · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've yet to notice any standard SDK libraries missing

    All of AWT and Swing are missing. That counts for a lot, especially since those APIs extend into a lot of third party libraries that have nothing to do with UI or even graphics (eg: the Rect2D class is commonly used for doing geometry calculations).

  15. Too many cooks in the kitchen... by ndykman · · Score: 1

    I really don't think bodes very well for OpenJDK. Both Oracle and IBM have tons of resources but often don't see eye to eye and aren't above using this and the JCP as a proxy for competitive battling. I see this drowning in politics and little in Java being improved in a timely manner. Meanwhile, things like .Net will accelerate with Microsoft firmly at the helm, and other open source options that are more agile (Ruby on Rails, etc.) and have more benevolent or open-minded stewards will become more popular as well.

    I see less and less hope for Java adopting the positive language and library features from the C# and Ruby worlds. I am currently working on a C# project, and things like LINQ, anonymous types, extension methods (haven't used dynamic yet) and the functional/fluent programming styles they enabled enhances my productivity compared to Java.

    Sometimes, I feel that Java is destined to become like COBOL, still widely used, but with the language mostly frozen in its current form, some codes with generics and annotations, some without, and with new features eschewed for backwards compatibility with older codes. I could even see codes that have generics taken out to match the Java 1.1 code to be better maintained or understood (that ? wildcard can be tricky to some).

    1. Re:Too many cooks in the kitchen... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Informative

      > I really don't think bodes very well for OpenJDK.

      Huh? How do you get that. Now you have the resources of *two* giants working on Java and ensuring it remains compatible and new features are added.

      > I see less and less hope for Java adopting the positive language and library features from the C# and Ruby worlds. I am currently working on a C# project, and things like LINQ, anonymous types, extension methods (haven't used dynamic yet) and the functional/fluent programming styles they enabled enhances my productivity compared to Java.

      Java users for large-scale projects doesn't generally don't want to adopt these things. They have massive existing investments and projects that take years to complete (due ot the sheer number of featiures being built). They can't throw that away every two years for the next coolest version of Visual Studio with new things in it. Enterprise software architecture is a different beast and has strategic considerations that don't correspond to tactical niceities (eg. LINQ). A lot of the Java feature conservatism is deliberate because you can get people with less experience to be *productive* in Java earlier. .NET rapid feature adoption is deliberate because Microsoft need to continually add features to Visual Studio to ensure you buy each release (which unfortunately can prematurely obsolete your investment in existing code - which is one reason enteprises don't always pick .NET - can you see how rapid feature adoption might be good for the desktop but as a result would be bad in the enterprise?).

      The deliberate simplicity of Java means you can do *massive* projects with it (where you get a spectrum of developer abilities and the time scale is long where the people who start the project may not be around at the end). When you start to use more obscure features you limit how big your project can get, since not everyone will use the feature in the same way or be bug-free with it. I'm sure those C# features are nice, but it turns out Java already has a vast array of alternatives (some see this as an advantage, some as a disadvantage) and the features you speak of are significant for small projects but aren't a significant part of the code-base for *massive* projects.

      In short, .NET is designed to be great to build your desktop apps and moderate-scale webapps in, and Java is designed to run your bank and Internet-scale services (millions of simultaneous users). Simply different horses for courses with different advantages. It is not like the JDK team and Java users don't see some of the new stuff in .NET, but it turns out that what is good for .NET would not be good for the stuff developed in the Java space (although .NET devs don't always grok that).

    2. Re:Too many cooks in the kitchen... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Huh? How do you get that. Now you have the resources of *two* giants working on Java and ensuring it remains compatible and new features are added.

      Have you ever used any software from IBM? Or from Oracle?

      All of their apps have shitty UIs, half of them still require IE6. (You know when people complained they have to use IE6 for some shitty app at work? These are the companies making those shitty apps! Also Siemens.) Oracle's headlining product is a database that can't tell an empty string apart from null. IBM's headlining product is Lotus Notes-- enough said!

      Glaciers move faster than these guys when adopting new ideas or OS features-- IBM's Lotus Notes for Windows gained multi-user support a mere decade and change after Windows did!

      Anyway, there's no way this is a good thing. A good headline would be something like, "IBM and Oracle, after realizing how bad their own developers are, just make the Google distribution the default one because Google has their shit together."

      --
      Comment of the year
    3. Re:Too many cooks in the kitchen... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're completely right. IBM's code is pretty noxious (and Eclipse is a bit like Visual Studio where you need to learn lots of little tricks - whereas Netbeans is marginally less powerful but vastly simpler than either).

    4. Re:Too many cooks in the kitchen... by ndykman · · Score: 1

      The process can slow down if Oracle and IBM decided to apply their efforts in different directions. If one is pulling one way, and the other pulls the other way, then nothing happens, just a lot of strain. Now, it could be different, but so be it. Having seen IBM and Oracle reps work in as part of a OMG standardization process, it could definitely go either way. They could really get some work done in the JCP, or they can just bog it down to nothing.

      I know when C# and .Net come up, it is hard to split them out from Visual Studio and the larger ecosystem, but if I look at the core languages, there seems to be a lot of cross pollination between C# and Java. And looking at the planned features for JDK 7 and 8, I'd be chomping at the bit for an implementation of them to see how they can impact existing code bases and new projects.

      If you look at the C++0x efforts, a lot of vendors are adopting draft features already. Visual Studio 2010, GCC and Intel C++ all have lambda support for example and some other draft standard features. If you told me that C++ might beat Java to a standard on things like type inference and lambdas just a year or two ago, I'd scarely believe it possible. In the current political climate, who knows.

      Here's hoping the good ideas get unblocked and back on track.

    5. Re:Too many cooks in the kitchen... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      > The process can slow down if Oracle and IBM decided to apply their efforts in different directions I believe the announcement is they wish to work together. Wouldn't this mean that they should be moving in a common direction? > If you look at the C++0x efforts, a lot of vendors are adopting draft features already This sounds good but about 15 years ago I wrote a C++ program that I maintained for a decade. The use of 'draft' features made it a pain to maintain, and was worse as I was keeping it portable (every vendor had slightly different headers that changed with each compiler release). This was just awful and Java was bliss in comparison, which is why I'm an advocate of it. The stability of Java means much more to me (with huge, long-lived programs) than any neat features that'll get be out-of-vogue in a few years. > Here's hoping the good ideas get unblocked and back on track Same here. Thanks for your comments.

  16. It's about bloody time... by c0lo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    And a good move, too... At a certain time, people wondered why IBM let the SUN be bought by Oracle: it would have been a more natural choice given that IBM is so much into Java.

    The way I see, IBM is progressing now towards a stewardship role in Java, without bothering with all the SUN's hardware business (which would have been a dead-weight for it)... and this without spending a extra nickel, on top the strong investment in Java IBM already has.
    Almost a perfect solution... the only drawback being the Imaginary Property in Java still being owned by Oracle (with known consequences... the minuet and other high society dances Oracle chose to drag Google into).

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    1. Re:It's about bloody time... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If the Google settlement (over Java patents) turns out to be anything like the Microsoft settlement, IBM likely could have made the purchase price back based on that alone.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:It's about bloody time... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      At a certain time, people wondered why IBM let the SUN be bought by Oracle: it would have been a more natural choice given that IBM is so much into Java.

      Oracle is also heavily into Java though - they bought BEA to get WebLogic, huge chunks of their Fusion middleware stack is written in Java, etc.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  17. Well, think about it like this... by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, think about it like this - there was one giant slow mega-corporation working on stagnating Java development before.

    Now there are TWO mega-corporations known for their agility working on a single piece of software. With strong commitment to committee-centered development.

    1. Re:Well, think about it like this... by Digital_Liberty · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the IBM / Microsoft collaboration on OS/2 worked out so well what could possibly go wrong with this?

  18. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by jernejk · · Score: 1, Troll

    It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.. but it's isDuck() returns false, so duck it's not!

    - language is _the same_, java
    - some APIs are the same: java.*, javax.*... but some packages are excluded
    - extended with android.*
    - uses different bytecode, still called bytecode (but hey, this is totally different than java!)
    - has java bytecode to dalvik bytecode compiler, agan, not java, it's totally different

    Do no evil my ass.

  19. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's not gonna hold up if their implementation still falls under the Java patents.

  20. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by jernejk · · Score: 1

    And your point is? JVM can be implemented as register vm code.licenser.net/rvm/trunk/etc/p153-yunhe.pdf

  21. Re:Yeah, right, remember OS2? by jernejk · · Score: 1

    OS2 was much more than "desktop OS". It was what Windows NT only became much later.

    I still don't understand how IBM let MS get away with what they did. There's a lot of OS2 know how and architecture in Windows.

  22. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    Actually the main plank of Google's defence is that Android does *not* run Java.

    Can you explain how not being Java defends them against being sued over patents?

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  23. Re:Yeah, right, remember OS2? by thammoud · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked, the Java platform is the dominant platform for enterprise applications. Unfortunately for OS/2, it never even came close. IBM and Oracle coming together is hopefully a good thing.

  24. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

    You're right, it doesn't help them with patents, but patents are not the only thing Oracle is contesting here. What it does do is it helps them avoid being sued for the same problem Microsoft was (successfully) sued for. If Google claimed Android was real Java then they would be in trouble because Oracle owns the Java trademark and use that ownership to ensure that anybody claiming to run Java must be running "real" Java.

    If Google really did implement full Java then they could potentially claim they are covered by Sun's patent grant for JVM implementors - however that seems to depend on passing the compatibility test kit which they don't have access to and which only Oracle can give them access to. So even if they claimed they implemented Java it really wouldn't help, and since they don't it would just get them into a lot of hot water in other areas.

    Google's defense against patents is simply that they are not violating them. It will be interesting to see if they are or not - it's entirely possible that Google did in fact work around the patents in their VM. Some of the patents are fairly fundamental in terms of how any VM would be implemented so it seems unlikely they can be completely clear (and neither can any other VM implementation).

  25. Re:Incoming IBM bloatware.... by dr.+chuck+bunsen · · Score: 1

    Pure troll. The only thing still even remotely slow about java is Swing. Gui-less server-side java is damn near native speed, super fast. I really can't believe after all this time their are still so many misconceptions about Java. Probably just because a bunch of flunky PHP devs can't wrap their heads around real OO and Typing.

  26. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by devent · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google never claimed to make a Java for Android. You will see no Java in Android, no advertising about Java in Android and nothing similar. What Google did was to build a VM and use the Java syntax for the language.

    Google is only guilty of re-using the Java developers and the Java tools like Eclipse. Oracle sued Google over specific technologies in a VM, it doesn't sued over trademark.

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  27. Re:Yeah, right, remember OS2? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    IBM didn't "let" MSFT get away with anything, IBM shot itself square in the foot with OS/2. You see there was a lot of MSFT AND IBM code in OS/2, and MSFT was happy to let them have OS/2 because they knew they'd shoot themselves in the foot, which they did! They tried tying OS/2 to sales of IBM hardware, which at the time was more crazy priced than high end Macs are today. The public saw they could pay out the ass for slower 'big blue" hardware and OS/2, or pay a hell of a lot less and get cutting edge (remember IBM stuck with 286 for quite awhile after 386 and 486 was out) and Windows was "good enough" especially after Windows 3 came out.

    So while I enjoyed OS/2 and thought it was better than Win9x, IBM killed that horse before it ever even got a chance to start the race by trying to tie it into their overpriced hardware. Personally I'm glad as IBM kept trying to go the proprietary route with their hardware (see MCA for an example) and I like the fact that the hardware, at least on the desktop side, is bog standard now. Now if we can only get the same thing to happen with laptops, which are so damned proprietary that often it is cheaper to shitcan than to fix, well then I'd be a happy camper.

    As for TFA? I wish them all the luck. There is a hell of a lot of enterprise Java out there, and if they can make it run better I say great.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  28. Not the same at all. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    The Microsoft tactic was to embrace, extend, and extinguish Java.

    Google wants to use some of the Java stuff, build on it, and adapt it to their own platform.

    Do you see the difference? Google isn't trying to kill portable Java, and isn't claiming that Android is a portable Java. Microsoft was pretty much deliberately trying to head off "compile once, run anywhere" by letting people develop what they thought was portable Java, discover it would only work on Windows, and then shrug and avoid other platforms.

    There's an important legal distinction, also -- the Microsoft thing is a trademark dispute (they were actually pretending it was Java), while the Google thing is a patent dispute, which would be as if they sued Microsoft for .NET.

    Oh, and by the way, I can do portable software in HTML5.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Not the same at all. by sourcerror · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "while the Google thing is a patent dispute, which would be as if they sued Microsoft for .NET."

      They sued .NET for excactly the same reasons: VM patents.

  29. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by HelloKitty2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google is creating the same situation as Microsoft did with their custom HTML standards, once Googles implementation starts being used in other google products, and people start using that instead, it will create all kinds of problems for everyone (non-inter-operating libraries, for example).

  30. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    LLVM has bytecode too. Completely different bytecode than Java. I suppose that's just java in disguise too though huh?

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  31. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by alannon · · Score: 1

    Umm... What about the fact that the Android SDK includes compatible implementations of the Java class library, using EXACTLY the same names and APIs? How can you both include core APIs named, for example, java.lang.Object while at the same time claim that it has nothing to do with Java? The Android SDK documentation has specific portions that describe what the specific differences are between it and a full Java implementation.

    In the end, though, I believe that none of this has ANY bearing on weither Google is violating Oracle/Sun patents that are used in Java or not. As previously discussed, MS ran afoul of Sun's patents on Java while implementing a different API and VM from scratch. Sun put a huge amount of work into what has become an excellent VM that amazingly rivals the performance of a lot of C/C++ code. It did so by having a whole lot of clever people write a whole lot of clever code. Clever ideas are what patents were intended for. I have no doubt that Google as well as ANY other modern VM implementors have ran afoul of these patents, accidentally or otherwise. Google is a large target with deep pockets, as was Microsoft. It's hardly a surprise that Oracle is grabbing for this revenue stream, even though it appears to be a risky long-term strategic move to arouse Google's wrath.

    Incidentally, James Gosling has a very clear opinion on the Google/Oracle patent issue, while having no love of Oracle. His opinion is that Google is unquestionably violating Oracle's patents. You can read that directly here: http://www.basementcoders.com/transcripts/James_Gosling_Transcript.html

    As an aside, I still feel that software patents are a bad idea in general.

  32. BEA? You gotta be kidding by mdm42 · · Score: 1

    "BEA Systems (who bought WebLogic - leading J2EE container)..."

    There. Fixed that for ya.

    In the early days (around '98 or thereabouts) if you wanted to write Java code that talked to an Oracle database you went to download it from Weblogic's website (long before they were acquired by BEA). It wasn't so much the case that Oracle's driver implementations were crap, it was that they just plain didn't exist!

    Weblogic had a bloody good app server; sad that they got totally borged and reborged.

    --
    New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
  33. Incoming? Too late. by mdm42 · · Score: 1

    Waaayyy too late, dude! The bloatware from IBM is already entrenched, and it's called J2EE. After all, they had to something with theat stinking pile of poo called the San Francisco Framework that came out of Taligent...

    --
    New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
  34. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by jon207 · · Score: 1

    this was a case of Google deliberately misrepresenting their implementation and harming Oracle's trademark.

    You mean by not doing crap they were harming Oracle's trademark ? Couldn't agree more...

    --
    "Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom." Max Stirner
  35. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

    They newer claimed it had nothing to do with Java. They just newer claimed it was Java.

  36. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

    And you think Microsoft will let that one through?

  37. Minecraft by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    An unnamed source at IBM informed us that their primary goal with the joint venture was to improve Minecraft's performance

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  38. Re:Oracle, OpenJDK?? Yeah Right. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

    The difference in the context of this discussion is meaningless. The point is there are numerous languages that compile down to bytecodes, doing so doesn't automatically make anything Java.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  39. WTF? .Net? On linux/ibm/sun/hp/nokia/htc/windows by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Java = yes .Net = no

    I'm not a big fan of java, but come on... Java is *everywhere* from a phone in your pocket to the mainframe in the datacenter, including windows, and .Net is nothing but Windows.

    Really, it's a no contest/brainer.

     

    --
    Deleted
  40. Re:WTF? .Net? On linux/ibm/sun/hp/nokia/htc/window by Eskarel · · Score: 1

    If you're talking about Web Services which is where things like Java and .NET are growing, the only thing which has to be Windows is the server you're hosting the application on, and .NET is sufficiently nicer for that to be a tradeoff you consider. Relying on any third party plugin to be present on your client's PC is really rather risky in this day and age anyway.