Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle's Latest Java Moves Draw Industry Ire

Posted by Soulskill on from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

snydeq writes "Two years later, Oracle's stewardship of Java continues to raise user and vendor ire, this time due to modularization, licensing, and security concerns. 'Plans for version 8 of Java Platform Standard Edition, which is due next year, call for inclusion of Project Jigsaw to add modular capabilities to Java. But some organizations are concerned with how Oracle's plans might conflict with the OSGi module system already geared to Java. In the licensing arena, Canonical, the maker of Ubuntu Linux, says Oracle is no longer letting Linux distributors redistribute Oracle's own commercial Java, causing difficulties for the company. Meanwhile, security vendor F-Secure views Java as security hindrance.'"

3 of 372 comments (clear)

  1. I don't see these as real issues by Necroman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I follow Java developments regularly and I don't see these points as being real issues.

    Modularization: Project Jigsaw is meant to bring a more simple module system when compared to OSGi. OSGi is a great tool, but overly complicated for many people. Also, having Jigsaw built into the JRE will allow Oracle to split the base JRE into modules and hopefully reduce the memory required on initial load of a Java app. (Java core libraries have some horrible dependency trees, which cause a large chunk of the base JRE libraries to load on even the most simple applications).

    Java Licensing: Sun started to push OpenJDK before it was bought by Oracle and that trend is continuing. The idea is that OpenJDK should be included with OS's like Ubuntu. OpenJDK is a GPL fork of a majority of the Oracle JDK, but some pieces could not be released as GPL because Sun originally licensed them from others (so those parts had to be re-written). I think it's better for everyone if OpenJDK gets more people using it so the bugs are worked out and it's a great open source Java implementation.

    --
    Its not what it is, its something else.
  2. Not an accurate summary of the case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Those "two sides" are not correct. This lawsuit doesn't hinge on whether or not Java is open. The real situation is that if Google had licensed Java, it would be protected from Oracle's patent infringement lawsuits (due to licensing terms) regarding patents that have NOTHING PER SE TO DO WITH JAVA. Those patents cover techniques used to implement virtual machines, and they could potentially be used to sue Perl, Python, Ruby, and other virtual machine technologies.

  3. Re:Oracle and Java by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh, you're one of THOSE guys. You complain too much. Java isn't as bad as you say even if there's a whiff of truthiness in most of your criticisms.

    I argue, Mr. Grouch, that the crown jewels of Java are not to be found in the language. They're found in the JVM. Plain and simple: the JVM is the most banged on, battle hardened, security-first computer programs ever written. There is no more trustworthy binary in the world more than java.exe. You want an unrockable web server? Run Tomcat with the NIO thingy enabled on the latest Java 6 atop Linux with the firewall all ratcheted up. And don't proxy through Apache HTTPD if you don't have to - that's just one more security-as-afterthought, million moving parts binary with perennial remote exploits to worry about.

    Why do languages "that target the JVM" actually make a difference? Because you get all that bitchin runtime robustness without the Java language baggage you just love love love to complain about. And while we're at it: Java Native Invocation (JNI) is considered harmful. Native code tainting the JVM? You better have a darned important exotic business requirement to bring new native code into the equation. As far as I'm concerned, you're crazy as a loon to write native code these days unless you're doing embedded systems or device driver development. I'm wondering why you would suggest something so reckless! Care to elaborate?

    I know the JVM's design makes life a real drag sometimes. It feels like a trusty slingshot that's been upgraded into a WMD. But, I could care less about aesthetics or the angst about Java that computer language and open source purists express. I care about stability. I care about uptime. I care about speed. But most of all, I care about security. I care about the total cost of the systems I run.

    Ok, ok, I'm leaving, I'm getting off your lawn.