Slashdot Mirror


Oracle Seeks $9.3 Billion For Google's Use Of Java In Android (computerworld.com)

angry tapir quotes a report from Computerworld: Oracle is seeking as much as $9.3 billion in damages in a long-running copyright lawsuit against Google over its use of Java in Android, court filings show. Oracle sued Google six years ago, claiming the search giant needs a license to use parts of the Java platform in Google's market-leading mobile OS. The two companies first went to trial in 2012, but the jury was split on whether or not Google's use of Java was protected by "fair use." Now they're headed back to the courtroom for a new trial scheduled to begin May 9, where Oracle's Larry Ellison and Google's Eric Schmidt will be present. Currently, the sum Oracle is asking for is about 10 times as much as when the two companies went to trial in 2012.

343 comments

  1. Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As per the comment subject.

    1. Re:Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As per the comment subject.

      Yes the neverending story.
      Sometimes I think the terrorists are doing us all a disservice by not targetting Oracle.

    2. Re:Here we go again by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Except that The Neverending Story book eventually ended.

    3. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oracle apparently bought it to kill Java. That's why I moved on years ago, as I immediately saw the writing on the wall. Oracle did not provide the necessary community interaction or API upkeep, instead they used their rights to patent troll the hell out of it, thus burying the technology, or trying.

    4. Re:Here we go again by monkeyhybrid · · Score: 1

      No spoilers!

    5. Re: Here we go again by drakaan · · Score: 1

      No, they don't. They take their own VM that happens to use the same signatures for non-copyrightable API interface definitions as Java and use it as a vehicle to take control of every aspect of your life via Android. There are no winners in the real world if Oracle wins this lawsuit. Say goodbye to interoperability, web services, and the venerable hyperlink, based on the logic Oracle is using in this suit.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    6. Re: Here we go again by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Admit it... noone wants Oracle to win - even if Oracle's win would benefit everyone (random sample from the set of pretty unlikely events)

    7. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If oracle is trying to kill Java then how come they keep coming out with updates, the latest as recent as last week?

    8. Re: Here we go again by drakaan · · Score: 1

      That's probably a fair statement of the general sentiment on this case. As someone who has strong feelings on why APIs *should* be non-copyrightable, I can't imagine how Oracle winning would benefit even Oracle, aside from a very short-term cash infusion.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    9. Re: Here we go again by easyTree · · Score: 1

      This would help Oracle because...

      (1) They are attempting to channel all bad feeling in the universe towards their in-house quantum emotion-to-cash transformer. This increases the input non-negligibly and is therefore a win.

      (2)...

  2. pure profit by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's more than they paid for Sun in total. (Sale price was $7.4 billion).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:pure profit by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's why Sun was actually an investment worth making. They hope to make more off of lawsuits with Sun's IP than they paid for Sun.

      Oracle's business model at this point is based off of extracting as much money out of existing customers and through lawsuits as possible. They reached the saturation point in the database market long ago.

    2. Re:pure profit by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to the public documents at the time of the purchase they purchased SUN primarily for the hardware division, they apparently valued the software assets very little.

    3. Re:pure profit by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you expect them to state that they were going to be an IP troll in a public document?

    4. Re:pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was part of the Sun buyout. When we went to Oracle one of the support managers told me that sales (that's all sales in Oracle, hardware and software), is just an enabler for the big money, support/license fees...

    5. Re:pure profit by somenickname · · Score: 3, Informative

      I actually worked for Sun in the 90s and their IP portfolio is impressive. Employees were encouraged to file patents by increasingly large monetary incentives. This lead to Sun owning the patents on pretty much everything. You want to do addition? Sun had that patent. You want to express a complex number? Sun had that patent. You needed a new air conditioner in your house? File some patents.

    6. Re:pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to the public documents at the time of the purchase they purchased SUN primarily for the hardware division, they apparently valued the software assets very little.

      It's Oracle.

      And you believed what they said.

      I hope your boss read that. He now knows to never let you anywhere near a salesman of any kind - especially an Oracle salesman.

    7. Re:pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's more than they paid for Sun in total. (Sale price was $7.4 billion).

      In all fairness to Oracle, Sun was being run into the ground by My Little Pony - who couldn't find his dick in the dark with multiple Maglites duct-taped to his head.

      Sun's leadership sure as shit didn't know the value of what they owned.

    8. Re:pure profit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Half those patents from the 90s are expired now.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:pure profit by somenickname · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps. But, the point still remains that my name stands on patents that seem to cover things like addition, complex numbers and even the general idea of algorithms. My name is literally on a patent that could be used to sue someone that had the audacity to add two numbers. That's how fucked up our system is.

    10. Re:pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Sun's leadership sure as shit didn't know the value of what they owned.

      Nor does Oracle, it seems.

    11. Re:pure profit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oracle has much more than just a database, though. I would be surprised if their database is more than a fraction of their revenue.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:pure profit by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 2

      That would be absurd. Especially since everybody knew Sun's hardware adventures had been going downhill, hard.

      --
      -SR
    13. Re:pure profit by mrprogrammerman · · Score: 1

      It would have been cheaper for Google to just have bought Sun. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Oracle would use Java for patent trolling.

    14. Re:pure profit by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Oracle has much more than just a database, though. I would be surprised if their database is more than a fraction of their revenue.

      Perhaps, for some very large value of "fraction." They don't break out what software is what, but software and the support to go along with it is still definitely the lion's share of their business.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    15. Re:pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought API's weren't IP? If they are, why do companies openly release them? Or, is that 'pretty much' what this entire lawsuit is about? Whether the code snippets that Google used, are considered part of that IP.

      Been too long to know what precisely, this case is about. I'm also too lazy to wiki the article... :/

    16. Re:pure profit by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Sure, but all the other companies are doing the same thing, and every company's patents overlap. You can be sure Google has patents covering the same stuff.

    17. Re:pure profit by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought it was absurd at the time but go back and read the interviews, it's right there in black and white. Oracle believed it needed a hardware division to counter IBM and HP who could offer complete hardware/software packages. When Oracle purchased sun, hardware was one aspect of their business they didn't have and they were losing support contracts to IBM and HP because of it. Executive management believed that purchasing SUN would give them the missing piece of the puzzle and allow them to more effectively compete.

      In today's market it would be insane due to the rise of the cloud and the dramatically lower costs is offers but when Oracle purchased SUN the cloud was in it's infancy and had made very few inroads into enterprise computing.

    18. Re:pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully. And like a murder acquittal, the concept of double jeopardy should be in play. The obvious ones should remain dead and buried forever.

    19. Re:pure profit by Daemonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's only fucked up because of companies like SUN flooding the patent office, which can't keep up and let's dumb obvious things get through. Your addition patent would fail in any kind of trial and be invalidated, unless you managed to discover some truly novel method and unheard of method of addition, and no "with a computer" doesn't count.

    20. Re:pure profit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes, and they have tons and tons of software offerings.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yea, because that is what they were actually thinking.
      You know, because we've never seen a large corporation say one thing and do another...

    22. Re: pure profit by Luthair · · Score: 1

      There were/are some claims that Google/Apache harmony copied some code (though famously the judge learned to code and pointed out it was trivial)

    23. Re:pure profit by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > That's why Sun was actually an investment worth making.

      That is also what people said about SCO Group for a while after they tried to sue people for basing Linux software on UNIX. That did not work out well for SCO Group. But I'm afraid Sun did not have any products left with a profitable future. Freeware versions of Java were available, especially OpenJDK, and they'd profoundly missed the boat on the move to x86 based hardware. And inexpensive laptops, desktops, and "pizza box" servers easily replaced the formerly invaluable Sun workstations and servers. Coupled with the disastrous migration from SunOS to Solaris, there was little reason to use Sun operating systems anymore.

    24. Re:pure profit by robbiedo · · Score: 1

      This is patently ridiculous.

    25. Re:pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WOW, wait until Oracle get their claws around the OpenZFS project.

    26. Re:pure profit by Flytrap · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Google has not made much from Java either... APIs on their own do not make money, it is what you do with the API that makes you money.

      The challenge or the jury will be in quantifying the extent to which building the Java APIs into Android might have been responsible for the success of Android.

    27. Re: pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone remibd why the hell Sun had to sell out to them. Instinctively u just know the old boys. I felt a disturbance in the force when Sun was bought out. They did a fantastic job with Java. Performance was a big issue because that scale of jvm had never been done but over time it got better. Oracle to me are a glorified, regressive, patent troll of a company.

      And god forbid a company like Google could actually use Jave for something productive unlike Oracle who just want to sit on it and release broken versions with features nobody asked for.

      The Judge should file that Oracle get the money, in exchange for the loss of their entire Sun patent porfolio.

    28. Re:pure profit by jandersen · · Score: 2

      Oracle believed it needed a hardware division to counter IBM and HP...

      I think it is more than the hardware, though. Sun's hardware is certainly on a par with HP and IBM, and in my experience comes at a better price than those (I used to buy servers from all three some years ago, in a previous life); but Sun also come with Java, and Solaris, which has a few amazingly good features, like predictive self-healing and ZFS. I know, people keep predicting the imminent demise of Java, but the big players actually still believe in it in a big, if somewhat discreet way: Oracle's database, of course, comes with integrated support for Java and IBM even offer special CPUs for Java processing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIIP). There is a whole world of Java application servers, and then there is Android. And so on.

      As for why they need to have their own hardware: look into Exadata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Exadata), which is basically a rack of hefty, strongly optimized hardware running Oracle RAC.

    29. Re:pure profit by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      That's more than they paid for Sun in total. (Sale price was $7.4 billion).

      With that kind of money Oracle could have bought Star Wars. Twice. A surefire cash cow.

      I'm sure there's an excellent joke around there somewhere with Oracle, Sun, Java and Star Wars.

    30. Re: pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. But it is for national interest. Oyherwise, how are we going to fight aganist roy memorizing asians?

    31. Re:pure profit by bungo · · Score: 2

      From what I understood, Oracle were already invested heavily in Java before they bought Sun, and so in buying Sun, they were protecting their own products and stoping the ability of someone else doing what they are now trying to do to Google.

      They are just following the golden rule of business "Do unto others ..... but do it first."

       

      --
      "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
    32. Re:pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's only fucked up because of companies like SUN flooding the patent office,

      The failure mode for a patent office should not be to grant patents without investigation. That invites abuses.

      Two other failure modes are better:
      1. Let the backlog build up forever
      2. Reject patent applications without investigation.

      Rather than abuse, either of those approaches invites more funding of the patent office - so they can do a proper job. Possibly a fee on patent applications - that would keep a lot of the silly ones out - thus reducing the workload.

    33. Re:pure profit by BigZee · · Score: 1

      Oracle is producing hardware products. The most obvious is Exadata but they also produce cloud servers and analytics servers as well.

    34. Re:pure profit by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Rather than abuse, either of those approaches invites more funding of the patent office - so they can do a proper job. Possibly a fee on patent applications - that would keep a lot of the silly ones out - thus reducing the workload.

      How about eliminating software patents instead? Current flooding patent applications are software patents. Besides, it gets more and more ridiculous that most of patents are covering algorithm instead of implementation due to vague (catch-all) description of implementation. If they forbid software patents, there shouldn't be a backlog, patent office has more time to investigate other patents, and no need more funding...

    35. Re:pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oracle will win, which is unfortunate.

      The Cloud is also still broken. The only people using AWS and it's knockoffs are people who don't have the capital to invest in hardware, but know what they need in software. AWS is high-latency (due to the accounting required to bill you), inefficient (you're not paying for CPU TIME, you are paying for CPU Core exclusivity, and that CPU core can be anything from a Celeron core with a passmark of 500 to a Xeon core with a passmark of 4000 ) Until such time that Amazon explicitly spells out what CPU you are getting in a EC2 instance, it's highway robbery. Being billed for IOPS of a hard drive is also highway robbery. Being billed for outbound bandwidth and not inbound bandwidth is highway robbery.

      Like if you're a startup and burning investors money, buy all fricken means, and build your data center later. But if you rely on AWS for more than 6 solid months, you could have bought the hardware and support staff necessary to maintain the hardware twice over unless you are eating CPU's for breakfast with unoptimized code.

      In about 5 more years, people will be building "clouds" out of cell phone CPU's with ECC memory because it will be cheaper to replace a SBC when you can fit 64 of them in the space of one 5U system pulling 10A.

    36. Re:pure profit by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      ... and it shows by how they've been maintaining them.

      Zing!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    37. Re:pure profit by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Until such time that Amazon explicitly spells out what CPU you are getting in a EC2 instance, it's highway robbery

      *ahem* Take your FUD elsewhere. 5 seconds with Google results with: https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/ins...

      M4 instances: Intel Xeon® E5-2676 v3 (Haswell) processors
      M3 instances: Intel Xeon E5-2670 v2 (Ivy Bridge) processors
      C4 instances: Intel Xeon E5-2666 v3 (Haswell) processors
      C3 instances: Intel Xeon E5-2680 v2 (Ivy Bridge) Processors
      R3 instances: Intel Xeon E5-2670 v2 (Ivy Bridge) Processors
      G2 instances: Intel Xeon E5-2670 (Sandy Bridge) Processors + 1,536 CUDA cores and 4GB of video memory
      I2 instances: Intel Xeon E5-2670 v2 (Ivy Bridge) Processors
      D2 instances: Intel Xeon E5-2676v3 (Haswell) processors

      How is that not explicitly spelling out what CPU you are getting in an EC2 instance? The only instance class that they don't explicitly say what you are running on is the absolute cheapest "burstable" T2-class. Every other one is quite explicit.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    38. Re:pure profit by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      87/100 is still a fraction.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    39. Re:pure profit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Stop revealing my rhetorical tricks, please!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    40. Re:pure profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, well I guess the patent system isn't nearly as broken as people make it out to be, then.

    41. Re:pure profit by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Half those patents from the 90s are expired now.

      It only matters what they can hammer Google over the head with in order to try to get a cross-licensing deal on Google's distributed database patents. Oracle doesn't scale, and is facing obsolescence without going distributed.

      Google knows this and frankly it should be incentivized by now to end Oracle, as a terror to the industry.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    42. Re:pure profit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oracle doesn't scale

      When you say 'it doesn't scale' do you mean it isn't hadoop? Because reports are distributed Oracle DB works pretty well......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    43. Re:pure profit by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They have lots of other things, but I suspect the database is the big sell, and people tend to buy things like Peoplesoft because they're already Oracle customers.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    44. Re:pure profit by danomac · · Score: 1

      Your addition patent would fail in any kind of trial and be invalidated... <snip>

      Butbutbut... it's addition on a computer!

  3. starting a class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone that has ever been subjected to damage from java, either programing it or using it, I think we should ask the jury for 20 trillion that seems a fair number,,

    1. Re:starting a class action by infolation · · Score: 1

      I'd pay $9.3 Billion to kill Java.

    2. Re:starting a class action by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 1

      I think it's a fairly low number.
      What incredible crap java is, barf.

    3. Re:starting a class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd pay 20 Billion to kill that shitty Microsoft and their copycat languages like C# - the windows phone of languages.

    4. Re:starting a class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the real crap is your life, your job and your face.

    5. Re:starting a class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd pay $9.3 Billion to kill Java.

      Google could buy Labview from National Instruments, and then open source it. You could make all kinds of somewhat adequate apps without much work. (It could also be made more efficient and scalable.) The drawing becomes the code. Sure it won't run natively on android yet, but they could fix that. (It has windows and some linux support.) It even does automatic multi-threading. Of course the automatic multi-threading is usually less efficient than say a single C# thread, but anyway.

      The real solution is for google to crush Oracle in court... I wonder if microsoft's terms for what they have open sourced of C# are actually friendly to developers on android? A google search for C# and android brings up xamarin. I'm not familiar with that.

    6. Re: starting a class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly is bad about java ?

    7. Re: starting a class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone has probably been writing a reply to this comment since you posted it, trying to list the main things wrong with Java. Once it gets submitted they'll probably have to drop and restore the /. databases and reboot all the servers just to get the site working again.

    8. Re:starting a class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T.H.I.S.

    9. Re: starting a class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly is bad about java ?

      Aside from how it combines the slow development of compiled languages with the slow start-up time and execution of interpreted languages?

      It's also a crap language that does absolutely nothing better than other languages out there. There is literally no valid reason to start a new project using Java instead of anything else. If you're already stuck with a large code-base, you're stuck with the crap language it's written in, but to deliberately lock yourself into that garbage on something new takes a level of stupid that deserves to be punished by ... being forced to fight with Java all day.

      Added to that, we now also have the reason that you're likely to get sued by Oracle if your "Java" usage ever makes money.

    10. Re:starting a class action by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      I don't code in C# nor Java but most of the people who use both Java and C# love C# and hate Java.
      The only real criticism being that it is essentially Windows-only but it seems to open up a little.

      If you want to kill Microsoft, kill it for the MFC, or their EEE variants of the web standards. But I think we should keep C# and Visual Studio.

    11. Re: starting a class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no.

      If you write crap code in Java, it will be slow, but the language is on the order of C level when written properly (e.g. see Colt, which achieved 90% of the performance of optimized FORTRAN code).

    12. Re:starting a class action by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I'd pay $9.3 Billion to kill Oracle.

      FTFY

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    13. Re: starting a class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the gp was right. It's not fast by default. You have to write special code to make it fast.

      What a load of shit.

  4. oracle thinks it can milk coffee by sittingnut · · Score: 3, Funny

    in other news, indonesian, island of java is going to sue both oracle and google.

    and are coffee producers entitled to some that loot too? think of all the coffee that is needed to code. but what about tea?

    1. Re:oracle thinks it can milk coffee by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Google should have paid the $200 million or so initially to license it legally from Sun, instead they played all these games to save a tiny bit of money. Everyone knows how valuable Android is today, and how useful Java is to make Android run. So expect Google to pay $2 to $5 billion.

    2. Re:oracle thinks it can milk coffee by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      back in the day, computers only did upper case.

    3. Re: oracle thinks it can milk coffee by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      My money's on Google losing but only having to pay Larry a dollar.

    4. Re: oracle thinks it can milk coffee by matt_hs · · Score: 1

      Maybe he/she/it is related to e.e. cummings.

  5. Strange signal by lars_boegild_thomsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am fully aware that the law suit is a bit more complex than simply using Java in a product, but I still think that Oracle is sending a weird signals to their existing and potential customers:

    "Feel free to use our products for free but if you get successful we will sue you to get a piece of the cake."

    I miss Sun!

    1. Re:Strange signal by infolation · · Score: 3, Funny

      if you get successful we will sue you to get a piece of the cake

      Estimating about $2.50 for a 300g cake, that's roughly 1.1 million metric tonnes of cake.

    2. Re:Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's the crap Microsoft does. After our IPO, they changed our Windows licensing contract, and left us cash poor for months. We couldn't make payroll a couple of times.

    3. Re:Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the first time that the conditions at the Sun's Java download page for anything else than desktop use were separated and priced as "call us"? Wasn't this before Android even existed?

    4. Re: Strange signal by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sir, please convert your cake figure to Libraries of Congress, or at least a car analogy. Thank you...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:Strange signal by Rozzin · · Score: 1
      --
      -rozzin.
    6. Re:Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's the crap Microsoft does. After our IPO, they changed our Windows licensing contract, and left us cash poor for months. We couldn't make payroll a couple of times.

      For us, it was an "audit" after we got a round of funding from Ignition Partners (founded by former Microsoft execs). They "found" a bunch of violations and demanded we pay the full nondiscount price for everything we had. We had to scale back nearly all of our expansion plans that we the very reason we did the round of funding in the first place! Because of delays to development due to the hit, we lost our three largest customers. I worked 70+ hours a week for over five years for that start-up, so I'm still angry.

    7. Re:Strange signal by Kjella · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Feel free to use our products for free but if you get successful we will sue you to get a piece of the cake."

      Maybe your analogy would work better if Google didn't replace Sun/Oracle's product with their own instead of writing Java applications. If someone took AOSP, reimplemented a ton of the Google Play APIs and shipped a non-Google "Android" phone I wouldn't expect Google to be very happy about that either.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re: Strange signal by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      I'm definitely not anti-Microsoft, I make a living developing with C# and think they make the best development environments. However, if I were starting a business, i definitely would go all open source for the servers.. Today in 2016 that might even be .Net on Linux.

    9. Re:Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that basically what Amazon does with their Fire tablets?

    10. Re: Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is like a shark smelling blood in the water when there's cash at hand. They want it all.

    11. Re:Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moral? Don't (get caught) pirating software. Software publishers are assholes that way.

    12. Re:Strange signal by tsotha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... I still think that Oracle is sending a weird signals to their existing and potential customers

      It is. Even if you're in the right and think you can win you have to think very seriously before doing something like that. Where I work the (not Oracle) database vendor we had used for years started suing its customers - they sued us for millions after recalculating our license fees and arriving at a ridiculous number. So we wrote them out of all our applications and refused to buy anything from them. I'm not sure who won the lawsuit, but in just a handful of years they were out of business.

    13. Re: Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I take it you have never heard of cyanogenmod.

    14. Re:Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you know shit all about Android and even less about the court case. Go google it because you know jack shit.

    15. Re:Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moral? Don't (get caught) pirating software. Software publishers are assholes that way.

      We had an audit less than six months before that, and Microsoft was perfectly fine with us only buying three times as man CALs as we needed. After they heard we had cash, they wanted us to buy ten CALs for every CAL we needed.

    16. Re:Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone took AOSP, reimplemented a ton of the Google Play APIs and shipped a non-Google "Android" phone I wouldn't expect Google to be very happy about that either.

      A non-Google Android phone with Google Play is some kind of logical category error. You can have a non-Google Android phone or you can have a Google Android phone. Play Services is what makes them different. It is possible to take a non-Google device and add Play Services to it, but then it's just a unlicensed Google Android device.

      Most players in this space (yes, there are plenty of companies selling non-Google Android products) want you to use their own services.

    17. Re:Strange signal by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Either you're a troll, or you have no idea about Microsoft audits. You could ask Ernie Ball.

      I'm personally surprised that anyone will still do business with them, but I guess that there are a lot of short-sighted managers.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re: Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had to buy a CAL for every registered user on our web app after an audit because >10% stores files on SharePoint. If we had it to do over again, we would have never considered SharePoint. We make an average of about $40 per year per user so a $30 per user hit really hurt. We ended up laying off over half of our employees.

    19. Re: Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they charge per user or per device? After our audit they wanted per device so we had to pay twice for mobile users.

    20. Re: Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you didn't buy from CDW like my boss did. We paid $49.99 per user!

    21. Re: Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you have no experience with Microsoft. As soon as they hear you get another round of funding, they want more money.

    22. Re: Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. They very often retroactively negotiate if they think there's more money available.

    23. Re: Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For us, they counted each unique IP our users connected from as a different device. For only forty users, we had to buy over two hindered CALs.

    24. Re:Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft, mainly because their company went out of business first.

    25. Re:Strange signal by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Right, and that means make sure that a lawyer has read the EULA for every single piece of software that you run (including all software updates that have a new license). Can't afford that? Maybe that proprietary software has too high a TCO for you and you should look elsewhere.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re: Strange signal by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      You could fill the entire interior of the library of congress with cars and it won't be enough to transport that cake.

    27. Re:Strange signal by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a better analogy is if someone took Android and Google Play services, wrote the whole thing from scratch and kept all of the same API names so that you could run Android apps on on it.

      I would be willing to bet that Google lawyers would have something to say about that.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    28. Re:Strange signal by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      "Feel free to use our products for free but if you get successful we will sue you to get a piece of the cake." I miss Sun!

      Why? Sun initially promised to make Java an open ANSI/ISO standard, which would have avoided all of this nonsense. Then, when Java was well established, they killed the standardization process. They killed it because most reputable standards organizations require a clear disclosure of intellectual property interests and clear disclosure of what license fees users of a standard need to pay, and Sun didn't like that.

      So, Sun created the "community process". They forced people to assign rights to contributes to them. At the same time they pretended that Java was an open platform, even though they retained copyrights and patents. Along the way, they brow beat people into signing license agreements with them, threatened open source Java implementations, bought up commercial third party implementations, and were generally litigious.

      What is happening now with Oracle and Google is a straightforward continuation of Sun's old policies; it's just that you may not have noticed before how evil Sun actually was before now. Java and Java intellectual property has always been at high risk, ever since Java failed to become standardized by one of the standards organizations that

    29. Re: Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep moving them goalpost.

    30. Re:Strange signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google replaced Oracle Java because of an original complaint by Oracle, after Oracle's initial blessing.

      If your business model is to get people to use your stuff for free and then sue people for using it, you should lose your standing to sue.

      Your analogy would be more appropriate if you take off the Google Play API stuff and Google sued for someone using just AOSP.

    31. Re: Strange signal by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      Only losers, wonks, and junior aides go to the Library. Cool kids go to fundraisers.

    32. Re:Strange signal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The ruling was based partly on finding that Google wasn't using Sun/Oracle's products, but was making its own. The court found that Java and Android were not intended to be interoperable, and that Google therefore should have written its own APIs.

      If Google had been producing its own Java environment that standard Java programs could run in, the ruling might have been much different, and Google might well have won (although not using Google's initial reasoning).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re:Strange signal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Not quite, since the ability to run Android apps is a matter of interoperability. The court found that Google had not shown it intended to have Java programs run on Android, or vice versa, and that they were apparently using the copyrighted APIs as a matter of convenience, not necessity.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:Strange signal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I still think that Oracle is sending a weird [signal] to their existing and potential customers:

      After thinking about that, I started wondering if Oracle had ever not sent a weird signal to their existing and potential customers. Their pricing scheme is legendary in its exploitativeness and lack of clarity, for example.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re:Strange signal by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Google wouldn't sue over it. They've made no threats to do so, even though both Microsoft and Amazon have spoken of creating their own Google Play Services replacement.

      In terms of Google controlling Android, the only thing they've done is insist that their partners - that is, members of the alliance - only ship Google's version of Android. They've never shown any inclination to sue third parties for any use of Android whatsoever.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  6. Google Legal Fund by TooManyNames · · Score: 0

    Much as I'd hate to donate to a huge corporation like Google (and that is what they are, even if they're not as bad as some other corps), this case is bigger than even them, at least, speaking as a developer. Given the split jury before, I'm not sure that they have what it will take to overcome Oracle, and Oracle badly needs to lose this. I'd be happy to contribute to Google's legal defense for this (and only this) case, but I doubt there's a way to do that. If anyone knows otherwise, I'd appreciate being set straight.

    --
    "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
    1. Re:Google Legal Fund by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Second trial always favors the defendant. They knows the plaintiffs strategy and what influenced the jury.

    2. Re:Google Legal Fund by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Keep your money and or give it to the poor. Google has lawyers on retainer for this.

      If you want to show support, then by all means, send them a nice letter.

    3. Re: Google Legal Fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They hardly need your donation. Sometimes I don't think people realize how wealthy Google is.

      Wanna donate? Search with Google... Randomly click some adlinks. Ad power is how Google became the behemoth it is.

    4. Re:Google Legal Fund by msauve · · Score: 1

      "They knows the plaintiffs strategy and what influenced the jury."

      Doesn't exactly the same apply to the plaintiff - that they know the defendant's strategy and what influenced the jury?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Google Legal Fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Much as I'd hate to donate to a huge corporation like Google (and that is what they are, even if they're not as bad as some other corps), this case is bigger than even them, at least, speaking as a developer. Given the split jury before, I'm not sure that they have what it will take to overcome Oracle, and Oracle badly needs to lose this. I'd be happy to contribute to Google's legal defense for this (and only this) case, but I doubt there's a way to do that. If anyone knows otherwise, I'd appreciate being set straight.

      Oracle just wants your money.

      Google wants your money - and then to turn around and sell the details of your life for even more money.

      Dunno why you think they're "not as bad as some other corps". They're a fucking ad agency and destroying your privacy their product. Between AT&T, Exxon, and Google, Google is the one with a private jumbo jet for their executives.

      You like them because they give you free shinys that are really tools Google uses to mine your entire life? "Oooooh!!!! Free SHINY!!!" Gotta wonder what you'd do if you saw a squirrel....

    6. Re:Google Legal Fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donate? How stupid are you?

    7. Re:Google Legal Fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how Fanboism and wishful thinking works, you only see the half that you liked.

    8. Re:Google Legal Fund by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It works both ways, but the Plaintiff's strategy can't really change, they are locked into the arguments they've already made. In civil trials all the evidence that can be presented and all the base arguments and defenses have to be filed to keep the trial as fair as possible. They can certainly fine tune and try to adjust their prior arguments but the best chance for the Plaintiff is to catch the Defendant off guard with a presentation of the evidence that can't be countered effectively. They would have used their best bullets in the first trial and now Google knows what they are and how best to defend against them because of the feedback they got from Jurors of the previous trial.

      It's possible that Oracle could find a new "bullet" to use in this trial that is in line with all their arguments up to the trial but the chances are pretty slim or they would have used it during the first trial. You simply don't hold back on your evidence, you expend all your best attacks. They won't catch Google's lawyers off guard with a refinement of those same arguments.

      It's a statistically known fact that a second trial always favors the defendant, this is true in both Criminal and Civil trials. The criminal trials even have a freer hand to make completely different arguments and propose new motives where in the civil trial they can't argue outside the prior boundaries they established in the run-up to the first trial. This also limits Google because they can't make defenses outside the ones they proposed but they can and will find evidence to blunt Oracles best attacks and that could swing the next trial into their favor.

    9. Re:Google Legal Fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the statement had been "the second trail favours Google, because they already know Oracle's strategy" you might have a point.

      As it is the statement was in the form of a general rule, and there is nothing to indicate any personal investment in the parties at all. It should be fairly trivial to easy to disprove or disprove if you feel that strongly about it, but if you feel that strongly maybe you are a fanboi?

    10. Re:Google Legal Fund by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Owning a private jet makes a corporation evil??

      Golly.

    11. Re:Google Legal Fund by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      It works both ways, but the Plaintiff's strategy can't really change, they are locked into the arguments they've already made. In civil trials all the evidence that can be presented and all the base arguments and defenses have to be filed to keep the trial as fair as possible. They can certainly fine tune and try to adjust their prior arguments but the best chance for the Plaintiff is to catch the Defendant off guard with a presentation of the evidence that can't be countered effectively. They would have used their best bullets in the first trial and now Google knows what they are and how best to defend against them because of the feedback they got from Jurors of the previous trial.

      It's possible that Oracle could find a new "bullet" to use in this trial that is in line with all their arguments up to the trial but the chances are pretty slim or they would have used it during the first trial. You simply don't hold back on your evidence, you expend all your best attacks. They won't catch Google's lawyers off guard with a refinement of those same arguments.

      It's a statistically known fact that a second trial always favors the defendant, this is true in both Criminal and Civil trials. The criminal trials even have a freer hand to make completely different arguments and propose new motives where in the civil trial they can't argue outside the prior boundaries they established in the run-up to the first trial. This also limits Google because they can't make defenses outside the ones they proposed but they can and will find evidence to blunt Oracles best attacks and that could swing the next trial into their favor.

      Or maybe Oracle is just hoping to get a jury that isn't split or actively against them?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    12. Re:Google Legal Fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Owning a private jet makes a corporation evil??

      Golly.

      It's about as perfect an example of corporate excess possible - a JUMBO JET for executives.

      And it's Google that does it.

    13. Re:Google Legal Fund by elwinc · · Score: 1

      > and then to turn around and sell the details of your life for even more money.

      Not exactly. Google's ad model depends on them knowing a whole lot more about your life than anyone else. They don't sell the details of your life, they sell access to you based on their superior knowledge the details of your life, If they sold the details, their knowledge wouldn't be very superior for very long, would it? That's why it actually behooves Google to keep your details secret from their customers and only sell access.

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    14. Re:Google Legal Fund by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except that Oracle won almost everything in the appeal. Their APIs are copyrightable, and Google doesn't have a valid interoperability-type argument. The question sent back to the district court is whether Google's use of the APIs falls under fair use or not. Any other possible success for Google would require an appeal to the Supreme Court.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Nine-point-three billion by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    I mean, if you're going to anchor the negotiating point,

    By all means, Go big.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  8. $9.3billion should be the minimum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...anyone who uses Java should be fined.

    1. Re:$9.3billion should be the minimum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

    2. Re:$9.3billion should be the minimum... by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 1

      Or at least publicly shamed :).

    3. Re:$9.3billion should be the minimum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a Java developer here... freshly graducated from common core u. We need a safe space for him STAT! CALLING ALL COUNSELORS!!!

    4. Re:$9.3billion should be the minimum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be skinned.

  9. ORACLE by wbr1 · · Score: 0
    One Raging Asshole Called Larry Ellison

    Oracle has always had predatory sales and support as well as a culture of greed and rent-seeking.
    One thing is certain though, they rook a hit in the 2000-2001 tech bubble, but in the 2008 recession hardly a nudge. It seems that the shareholders like the way the company is run.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:ORACLE by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2
    2. Re:ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      can someone explain the 27-MAR-15 transaction for Safra Catz:

      27-Mar-15 3,750,000 ORCL Option Exercise at $14.57 per share.
      (Cost of $54,637,500)
      27-Mar-15 3,750,000 ORCL Automatic Sale at $42.62 per share.
      (Proceeds of $159,825,000)

      pretty sweet transaction if you ask me...

    3. Re: ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely an RSU

    4. Re:ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Steve Jobs died, all the Apple-ites cried, "why couldn't it have been Larry?"

  10. Oracle's damages calc right from sales handbook by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    By any reasonable measure the $8.8 billion of damages attributed to Google's profit from Android is beyond obscene and unreasonable. Which means it must have been calculated from the same formula that Oracle uses to rape their database customers with.

    1. Re:Oracle's damages calc right from sales handbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      $9.3 billion sounds about right, actually.

      If you're counting how much Oracle owes Google for keeping Java relevant.

      There are two major reasons anyone gives a shit about Java anymore, particularly after Oracle's gross incompetency with security. One of those reasons is Android. The other is enterprise applications, particularly mainframes. Google's use of Android helps that as well, since it keeps Java from sinking into obscurity as it falls into line as being the next COBOL. And considering what a little shit Oracle is being about all this, if I were a CIO I would very strongly look into a gradual migration away from it. Then again, if I were a CIO, the company in question wouldn't use Oracle products period, considering their attitude and behavior has approximately the same attractiveness as a cross between a drug dealer and cancer.

  11. Why I Do Not Recommend Oracle by sk999 · · Score: 1

    It all sounds so familiar. Why would that be? Oh yes. Oracle is a purveyor of databases software. The SCO Group used to be a purveyor of operating system software. However, it eventually upped its claims against IBM to at least $5 billion. Not far short of Oracle's demand for $9.3 billion. Where is SCO now?

    http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IB...
    "Today SCO is, as the Court is aware, in a LIQUIDATION process ... It started out as a Chapter 11, became a Chapter 7 going back to 2007. These claims are the last, really the only asset remaining of SCO."

    Oracle is threatening to become the new SCO.

    Would you recommend a product from a company that is on a path to Chapter 7?

    1. Re:Why I Do Not Recommend Oracle by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Oracle may or may not go out of business someday, but don't confuse them with SCO.

      SCO was run by idiots and may have been a puppet of Microsoft. Larry may be an asshole, but Oracle is in a competely different league than SCO.

    2. Re:Why I Do Not Recommend Oracle by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Personally I think SCO was not run by idiots but by a pair of serial con-artists.
      The lawyer who got most of the SCO money is Darl's brother.
      It wasn't Darl's first run at extracting vast amounts of cash via lawyer from the place he was supposed to be running.

    3. Re:Why I Do Not Recommend Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not recommend their product because it is retardly priced. There are much better and cheaper solutions out there for what they call their strengths.

      It is a late 1980s db with a few late 1990s features being sold at early 1970s prices.

  12. Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oracle likes to boast about Java being installed on so many devices. And people use Java to make Android software. You'd think they'd be thanking Google instead of trying to mug them.

    1. Re:Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by somenickname · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "You know what the trouble is, Brucey? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket." -- Frank Sobotka

    2. Re:Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'they' are a company. Their job is to make money. Google doesn't use Oracle's DB. They use a open source on. Probably NoSQL by now. Anyway, their job is to make money. If a lawsuit can add a few billion to the kitty, that's what they do. It's not like they are pissing off android phone users, who aren't direct customers. There is no down side from their point of view.

    3. Re:Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But that's exactly the problem. Google did NOT use Java. They created their own language that looks almost exactly like Java, but isn't Java. Google did what Microsoft tried to do in the '90s, only Google got away with it.

      And somehow people praise Google where they demonized Microsoft when both did the same shitty thing to Sun.

      Dalvik is not Java. Code written for Java will not run on Android, and vice-versa.

    4. Re:Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor correction: ART is not Java.

      (Android RunTime replaced Dalvik, though both are incompatible with the JVM.)

    5. Re:Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java was already on a close to a billion phones before Google got into the market. Google was just too cheap to pay for a J2ME license like everyone else.

    6. Re:Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Stop spreading misinformation! Android apps use the Java language and the Java API. Just the VM is reimplemented as Dalvik... but the apps are still Java.

      Anyone know why Oracle is not suing for Google's use of the Java language? Are languages not copyrighted?

    7. Re:Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java was supposed to run everywhere. However, during a Java update on Windows XP, oracle pops up a message that says it doesn't support this old OS anymore. Thus, I guess Java no longer should be advertised as "running everywhere". That's what the java VM was supposed to do.

    8. Re:Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I didn't plagiarize that book, I wrote it from scratch. It just happens to have all of the same major plot points and the character names are the same.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    9. Re:Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      But since Google doesn't do evil... well, they must be in the clear.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    10. Re: Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by matt_hs · · Score: 1

      Problem with that example is, on the off-chance that two books were written completely independently with such similarities, without interaction between the two authors, both copyrights would indeed stand. That's not the case with patents however. Two people that invent something similar without interaction, the first person to file a patent wins and the other is SOL.

    11. Re: Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would seem to imply that Oracle has more weight on their side of the argument than Google does.

      I really think that this is negative publicity for Google. They come off as this company who is profiting off of another company's work without compensation.

      I think they should just swallow the bitter medicine and pay Oracle.

    12. Re:Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think they'd be thanking Google instead of trying to mug them.

      And consumers will thank Google as well if Google were to release Nexus phones for $0 or ever $10. Not gonna happen, amirite?

    13. Re:Isn't it good more devices have Java on them? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Google did not just reimplement, they redesigned. Android programs do not run on Java implementations, and vice versa, according to the court, so there are no actual interoperability considerations. Oracle did not object to the use of the language Java, and was willing to compromise on some of the APIs, thinking that they may be necessary to write Java, but Google made something incompatible using copyrighted APIs.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  13. Invalid claim... by kimvette · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Weird... wasn't Java GPL'd at one point (2006-2007)? Oracle does not have a leg to stand on here even if Google were to take the whole stack and redistribute it. They would merely be required to make the source available - which they have done and it has led to derivatives/forks.

    But, as Android is built on a Java _clone_ (Apache Harmony, soon OpenJDK) on top of Linux. Oracle's claim is even weaker.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Invalid claim... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would merely be required to make the source available - which they have done and it has led to derivatives/forks.

      If that was how licensing worked then it would be simple to fork GCC using the MIT license.

    2. Re:Invalid claim... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Weird... wasn't Java GPL'd at one point (2006-2007)?

      And is Google's version GPL'd? I think that's one of the core parts of the argument that enabled this to go to court in the first place.

    3. Re:Invalid claim... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      It is a clean room reimplementation of the Java API, and as such is not really an issue as it has been ruled in court repeatedly that APIs cannot be copyrighted, which only further weakens Oracle's claim. I think the core issue is that Ellison is wanting another tropical island this year and wants Google to foot the bill through a frivolous lawsuit. ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  14. One more reason... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    ...for FLOSS evangelists to convert people to Firebird and PostgreSQL with an ever greater fervor than ever before. And to non-Java languages, of course.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:One more reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like PostgreSQL, I tolerate MySQL when I'm paid to. Never used Firebird, though. What's it like? Easy to install? Easy to use? Better than MySQL? Better than a flat text file?

  15. Java would be non existent on client if not Androi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For years and years Java was mostly a server side technology and from what I've seen, more Java client side projects exist now most likely too the mobile client side Java API development from Android devs. Oracle should be paying Google.

  16. Microsoft unpaid shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should have gone with c# tbh

    1. Re:Microsoft unpaid shill by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is shaking down Android companies harder than Oracle:

      http://arstechnica.com/informa...

      C# would have been a far worse idea. Fewer developers, libraries, little open source support. Built by the only company more evil than Oracle.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Microsoft unpaid shill by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      C# would have been a far worse idea. Fewer developers, libraries, little open source support. Built by the only company more evil than Oracle.

      Surprise! Now you have Xamarin.

      Er, I mean Microsoft Xamarin.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    3. Re:Microsoft unpaid shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I respect Oracle more for actually bringing suit against a heavy hitter like Google rather than lurking in the shadows and threatening the little guy over patents that really exist, honest we just won't tell you what they are.

      It's easy to extract protection money from a company without the resources to fight back.

    4. Re:Microsoft unpaid shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Sun has been "extracting protection money" from the little guys nearly since the beginning. Oracle decided to finally go after the big fish because that's all that's left, and at this point, they don't care about their reputation anymore.

  17. This is what Linus Thinks by Sam36 · · Score: 1
  18. Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by aberglas · · Score: 2

    Why on earth did they copy the Java APIs? Most of them are not particularly good anyway.

    Sure the law on this was a little unclear, which is a good reason to stay right away from it. And so easy to do. Not hard to tweak an Eclipse parser for a similar but different language.

    Maybe it is because Google got rid of all there MBAs and used engineering management?

    1. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      How are APIs copyrightable anyway? Wasn't the whole Compaq lawsuit way back when about building functionality behind an API without changing the API? They wrote a detailed API spec for DOS and then had separate "pure" engineers who knew nothing about the DOS implementation build their own DOS, and thus they had a functionally identical clone of the DOS API such that DOS programs could run on Compaq's new PC clone.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Why on earth did they copy the Java APIs? Most of them are not particularly good anyway.

      I think it was already written that way when they bought the Android company.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No silly imp. Compaq only reverse engineered the BIOS and did a clean-room implementation so that Microsoft DOS would boot on their hardware. It's the BIOS API/spec they dealt with, and they only implemented enough to get it working.

    4. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by glitch! · · Score: 1

      I think your memory is close, but not quite right. I think Compaq cloned the BIOS, not DOS. IBM published the PC BIOS source code (in one of those boxed binders that the PC made standard for years.) There was no reason to clone DOS, since the customer had to buy either PC-DOS or MS-DOS anyway.

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    5. Re: Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They got to leverage all the programmers who were familiar with Java, giving them a much bigger app developer market then they would have normally had.

    6. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why on earth did they copy the Java APIs? Most of them are not particularly good anyway.

      They are not? Wow ... I switched to Java coming from C++ mainly forced to do MFC stuff and related stuff on Windows.

      You must have been working in a research lab that you encountered better APIs than Java's ... where is that? Can I apply for a job there?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      How are APIs copyrightable anyway?
      They are not. In most copyright laws (most countries) it is even explicitly written in the law.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The hard part about what Compaq did was that as you said, IBM published the BIOS source code in commented 8086 assembly language. So many, many of the people capable of and interested in writing that level of code were already 'contaminated' because they'd already read IBM's source code.

      IBM published a lot of source code back then in their manuals. The BIOS extension on the EGA card is also published, along with the BIOS extension on the Hard Drive controller. They were really open about docs for the PC. They even published the schematic diagrams for the floppy drive and the CRT displays.

    9. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In US, this is not at all a given. In fact, this is exactly what this case is all about - and so far the courts have favored the notion that APIs are copyrightable, unfortunately.

      http://readwrite.com/2015/06/2...

    10. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      coming from C++ mainly forced to do MFC stuff and related stuff on Windows.

      Your baseline is so bad that "particularly good" relative to that baseline is really not something to boast of.

      Pretty much anything has better APIs than Java, except for JS, PHP, and possibly C++ (if you disregard Boost).

    11. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you care to name an example?

    12. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Your baseline is so bad that "particularly good" relative to that baseline is really not something to boast of.

      Yes lol. This sort of code makes me feel sad inside:
      INT WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow)
      HANDLE

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Qt, for example. Python standard library.

    14. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > one of those boxed binders

      I miss those. Now, you get a pull out fucking poster that's a quick connect and sales flier. WTF? Am I supposed to hang that on the wall? I want jumper settings, schematics, and the damned source code. I don't even use that stuff any more - but I still want it.

      Err... Actually, I am sort of getting back into programming but my days of hardware hacking are long behind me. I am old, lazy, and retired. I'll just read about the neat projects and have someone sell me the good ones that I like. Yes, yes I am that lazy. On the other hand, my brain is getting mushy. *sighs* So, I've gotta do something. Back to programming it is.

      At any rate, I miss all those manuals. I miss the three ring binders. I think it was Sun, actually, who used the plastic binders with like 25 holes in them. I am pretty sure that was Sun. DEC used to have some nice material that came with 'em. IBM was actually awesome. Later, HP kind of did well - in the server area, and that was nice. I still have a whole bunch of that documentation, all stored away. I should probably ship it to what's his name, Mike? The guy that does all the archiving.

      I should probably ask him, first. I've got all the stuff from the SparcStations I bought, their notebooks, old Digital Alpha boxes, that sort of thing - then the server room was covered in manuals until after they kicked me out of my own server room. It was for the best, the folks I'd hired were better than I. But still... I kind of miss it.

      And I kind of miss the documentation. And the magazines. Sure, there's a giant internet now but I still miss the magazines.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re: Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'll try to make this brief. I've not really coded much of anything since the early 2000s - and nothing on the web since 2007 or so.

      I keep saying "No to Java." Because, well, that's what I keep hearing but, at the same time, it looks like it's not bad if it's done right and I'll be damned if there isn't a library to help me find the ripest blueberries - that I can load onto my toaster. (I have a plan, damn it.)

      I did get a giant ego boost when I was looking at some server logs. Someone in Germany, someone I do not know, called me a "great old one" and linked to the site and said that I was coming back. That made me feel good - and then made me realize that I've got a damned reputation to keep so I'll actually have to be attentive and all that...

      At any rate, I keep going back to Java and looking at it. It sure as hell has changed since my last experience with it - circa 2000. There are libraries for EVERYTHING. Hell, even JavaScript is amazing now. Holy crap!

      PHP? Still huge. HTML5? Getting there. CSS3? WTF? I'm not even sure I got CSS1 as anything other than to skip adding it all manually - I could just chuck it into a side-loaded site.css, header.css, footer.css, logged_in.css, etc... They're using CSS to position stuff now. But I still see tables being used.

      I got Visual Source Code installed on my Linux box. I felt dirty but it's actually quite nice. I've got to check a few more features but I might default to it as I really prefer to program in plain text. Your OOP, SOAP, XAML, and XML confuses me! And that was back then!

      So, yeah, I look at what's got the ecosystem and I keep coming back to Java. I'm going to end up letting a lot of people down if I go Java instead of C/C++. Fortunately, I have forgotten all of C/C++ (I could probably get the includes right and then pull the variables and make me a fancy Hello World - in a couple of weeks.)

      I bought a ton of stuff on Python. I'm gonna give that shit away. I bought video, DVDs, lessons, books, and I started and I realized how much the language made no sense to me.

      I'm gonna be stuck with Java.

      Oh, it gets worse. I *like* PHP. No, really, I do. It *is* my go-to web language. I gotta figure out this AJAX-y stuff. I hate JavaScript with a passion. It's almost as much chicken scratch as Perl and, honestly, Perl holds a near and dear place in my heart.

      However, things are moving forwards. URL to suffer the humiliating wrath is available. The framework is there and I'm a ass so I'm purposely laying it down on WordPress. Yup. I've got a point to prove. The framework is awful but I think I might be able to tighten it up some. I have no idea how well they'll respond to pushing up stream by someone who really doesn't actually give too shit.

      Sorry to rant but, it might be nearly impossible for anyone here to relate. Depending on how you measure, I'm coming in from an ~16 year to ~9 year hiatus. So much has changed. So much.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    16. Re: Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're no coder junky. Quit delusing yourself. You're a scriptkiddie lib/framework leech! Code /.'ers like (you can't manage to do that yourself) had you eat your words https://science.slashdot.org/c... and you ran when confronted on it. Nobody speaks well of anything you do. You don't have anything worth speaking well of! You needle others off topic like the troll scum you are. Stick to sticking yourself with those heroin needles.

    17. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You must have been working in a research lab that you encountered better APIs than Java's

      Smalltalk and Objective-C were already in widespread commercial use at the time Java appeared. Java's APIs are actually derived from them, but because of Java's limitations, Java's libraries ended up not working as well as the originals. There were plenty of other commercial libraries, compilers, and frameworks around.

      Java succeeded not because of the quality of its APIs (which people understood to be poor even back then), but because (1) it promised to deliver applets and sandboxing, and (2) Sun had promised to make Java a free and open standard while the alternatives were costly and proprietary. Sun ultimately failed to deliver on both points.

      Can I apply for a job there?

      You can try, but you probably shouldn't get your hopes up.

    18. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, if you pick SmallTalk as an example (I have no idea about Objective-C) then basically everything else like C, Ada, Pascal is a counter example ... actually we would need to go to platforms and not languages, then we would say: basically everything in the Windows ecosystem, is a counter example for Java having bad APIs.
      The only none Java APIs I'm aware of that really make sense is Qt.
      I find your argument completely misplaced. Java is a very fine example of sound design. Considering the way and time how it got developed and considering where it is now, it is an exceptional good one.

      Talking about SmallTalk, I doubt you can compare APIs of languages that are so fundamentally different in a reasonable way.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re:Amazing that Google left themselves vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talking about SmallTalk, I doubt you can compare APIs of languages that are so fundamentally different in a reasonable way.

      It's called "Smalltalk". And it's not surprising that you "doubt" that, since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

  19. Google should fix this by using GPL Java by jonwil · · Score: 2

    Java is available under a GPL + exceptions license. Google should take this GPL code and use it as a base for a new VM. Make whatever changes are required to make it slot in place of their current VM (something the GPL explicitly allows them to do) and start shipping it. The "classpath exception" in the Java license would allow them to keep other stuff (such as Google Play Services, the Google store and all the Google apps) closed source whilst still being in compliance with the license attached to the open source Java code.

    Yes it will cost a chunk of money to do all the rewrites and stuff but it would mean Oracle has no ability to claim they violated the copyright of the various Java APIs (since the code that implements those APIs in the new VM would be a derived work of the GPL Java source code (where the license explicitly gives you all the rights under copyright law you would need regardless of whether APIs are actually copyrightable or not)

    1. Re:Google should fix this by using GPL Java by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      Java is available under a GPL + exceptions license. Google should take this GPL code and use it as a base for a new VM.

      They have switched to that now. Amazing how quickly they followed your advice. :)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Google should fix this by using GPL Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there is also OpenJDK, which is LGPL. Google is switching to that now to get out of these problems.

      As it turns out, OpenJDK is also mainly made by Oracle, but with many contributions from others too. Basically, the Java copycats abandoned their more or less compatible copies to join Oracle for a unified and free (LGPL) Java.

    3. Re:Google should fix this by using GPL Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oracle will probably still attempt an SCO style lawsuit until they're bankrupt

  20. What about IBM . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a lot of IBM software based on Java . . . ? Like, anything with the name WebSphere on it . . . ? What is going to happen when Oracle tries to shake down IBM . . . ?

    Oracle ain't no SCO . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      IBM paid Sun/Oracle to license the technology, they have no worries.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem wasn't that Google used Java to program (like IBM does), that's fine and free to do. The Java license allows anyone to write code using Java, without any restrictions. The problem also wasn't re-implementing Java (like Apache Harmony): anyone is free to do that under the terms of the GPL.

      The problem is that Google re-implemented Java, and tried to release it under different terms than the GPL. Since it is a derivative work, Google needed to follow the terms of the license. Since they tried to release it under BSD (I think that's the license the used), they are now being sued.

      The only question remaining is whether their implementation was a fair use or not. My guess is it will be found not to be, but who knows with a jury trial.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re: What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBMer here. There has been some kind of Sun/IBM licensing deal for ages now (probably dates back to the late 90s) for Java. IBM has their own JVM which is packaged with Websphere and other products (we do not ship Sun/Oracle JVMs and pretty sure it is against our business construct guidelines to download the Sun/Oracle version -- I know I never have).

    4. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem isn't that Google did that...

      The problem is Google originally did that with Sun's blessing... who was then bought out by Oracle... now Oracle is suing for something the original patent owner gave permission for.

    5. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      I don't think it really matters. Win or lose, the court battle will go through appeals for years and years. Look how long the SCO trial took before it was finally dead and buried.

      Even if Oracle gets every cent they've asked for, by the time it's reached a final settlement and all appeals have been exhausted, the only ones that will see any of that money will be Oracle's lawyers.

    6. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What? Java was not released under the GPL at the time, and reimplementations are not derivative works.

    7. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In common English one might say that a clean-room re-implementation is derivative, but in the context of copyright law 'derivative work' is fairly specific and this doesn't apply.

      You won't find many lawyers willing to argue that re-implementation is bound by the license of the original work. It goes against decades of industry best practice. The clean-room process was specifically developed to provide a legal way to bypass licenses you don't like!

    8. Re: What about IBM . . . ? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember there was some clause on their download page that it could only be used on IBM branded hardware.

      Which was a pity as testing one's product with J9, jamvm, harmony etc might reveal hitherto problems related to ambiguities in the Java spec. (of which I found a few in my own code when testing with classpath)

    9. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google used Apache Harmony (as it is Apache licensed). Actually, clean room re-implementations were not considered to break the copyright (but never legally challenged) until now and something using the same API as fair use because of interoperability. If Oracle wins this then it has a much greater implications as suddenly programs like samba, wine, even parts of the linux kernel could be seen to break various (proprietary) copyrights.

    10. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Sun agreed at the time. Fuck Oracle.

    11. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-implementing something does not result in a derivative work. (See: Linux, ReactOS.)

    12. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      orcale's lawyers are in house

    13. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Lawyers charge a lot of money, but for a case like this you'd expect on the order of $100million, not something in the billions; even though its a long case.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is Google originally did that with Sun's blessing..

      If by 'blessing' you mean they got a written or verbal contract giving them permission, then no, you're wrong. Some people at Sun might have been happy about it, but without a contract, 'happiness' doesn't matter.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      reimplementations are not derivative works.

      They are definitely derivative works. If you re-implement it in the correct way, then you can have a fair use defense, but it's still a derivative work in that case.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      And they take home paychecks.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    17. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      In common English one might say that a clean-room re-implementation is derivative, but in the context of copyright law 'derivative work' is fairly specific and this doesn't apply.

      It's still a derivative work. Clean-room implementation is an example of a fair-use defense, but Google didn't do a clean-room implementation, and they didn't do it for interoperability. I'm really interested in seeing what their defense is, actually.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whether it is or is not, an API should not be copyrightable, since it is more like a database than a work of fiction, and there are a limited number of ways to express it.

    19. Re: What about IBM . . . ? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Didn't they simply use the harmony libraries as a base which were presumably Apache licenced?

    20. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Whether it is or is not, an API should not be copyrightable,

      But it is, so for that to change will take an act of legislation.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re: What about IBM . . . ? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Having tested j9 on a major application you'd also run into places where the code relied accidentally on implementation details of a JVM.

    22. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A "reimplementation" is (usually) not a derived work.

      And if it was: doing so and releasing it under GPL would not "prevent" anything. You can not "copy" something infringing copyright and then releasing it under GPL and say: "look but it is GPL, it is not an infringement!"

      The only question remaining is whether their implementation was a fair use or not.
      Actually not. "Fair use" is a term that describes exceptions from "copyright infringement". E.g. you commit an obvious "copyright infringement" but do it because of "educational purpose", then it is no longer punishable as "infringement" but considered an exception called "fair use".

      As far as I would "judge" if I was in a jury, the Google case is not even an infringement, it is an independent development for most of it and a transliteration of the standard libraries that are OSS/GPL from SUNs byte code into Dalvik Bytecode.

      The only case Oracle "could have" is that Google is using the brand "Java" ... however I'm pretty sure the Oracle lawyers have found a much more sneaky way to argue why their "copyright" got infringed.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Clean-room implementation is an example of a fair-use defense
      First of all: a "clean room implementation" is not a derived work. So: copy right does not even apply!!!
      Secondly: as copyright does not apply, it is not a "fair use" defense, as that term is described and defined in "copy right law" which does not apply for this situation.

      BTW: when the JVM-specification was published, SUN declared it an open standard and challenged the public to implement their own variations. On that base I probably would start a defense.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re: What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, Java is not licensed under GPL. Secondly, this isn't about what license Google licensed their implementation under. This is purely about copyright over the Java API itself.

    25. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      the only ones that will see any of that money will be Oracle's lawyers
      Which are likely employees of Oracle and only get a salary plus a bonus for winning.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re: What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Didn't they simply use the harmony libraries as a base which were presumably Apache licenced?

      That's a good point, I just checked, and Harmony is Apache-licensed, not GPL. The way they got around it was by doing a clean-room implementation for interoperability purposes. This is allowed as fair use (Sony vs Connectix). (Incidentally, Sun explicitly allowed interoperability as long as it's compatible with their Java: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_... )

      Google is likely going to try a fair use defense based on interoperability (probably other defenses as well). That isn't likely to work, see this: http://www.natlawreview.com/ar...

      The court also discounted Google’s interoperability arguments on the basis that there was no evidence of the existence of any apps written in Java and running on the Android platform. Rather, the court emphasized that Google’s desire was to capitalize on the fact that programmers already trained in Java’s APIs in order to accelerate its development process.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re: What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      First off, Java is not licensed under GPL.

      Look up openJDK.

      This is purely about copyright over the Java API itself.

      The Java API is copyrighted. That has already been appealed to the Supreme Court, and now the case has been sent back down to a lower court to test Google's fair-use defense.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      a "clean room implementation" is not a derived work.

      Why do you think that? I'm interested in your legal reasoning (or references to legal reasoning).

      BTW: when the JVM-specification was published, SUN declared it an open standard and challenged the public to implement their own variations

      I think you're referring to this license, which doesn't apply in Google's case because their version of Java is not even close to meeting the requirements of that license.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you think that? I'm interested in your legal reasoning (or references to legal reasoning).

      Because copyright law defines what a "derived work" is.

      A clean room implementation is an independent implementation of some specification. As specifications are not covered by copyright law (the law explicitly says so) multiple implementation of such a specifications are not a derived works of each other. And as the "origin", the specification, is not copy-right-able, it can't be a derived work of the specification by definition.

      The primary work, from which the specification probably was "derived" is not related to the implementations of that specification. Not related "under copyright law". Obviously "intellectually" they are related.

      The core argument for understanding what a derived work is, is always: "does the derived work "incorporate" pieces of the original work?" If not: it is not derived.

      Unfortunately there where some misguided rulings in the USA that declared linking to dynamic linked libraries a derived work of those libraries. No idea what the status about that is right now. In my (and Europe's) interpretation a DLL has an interface which is an API/specification, so that the implementation can be replaced and hence the client using that API/DLL is not derived from the DLL. (If it was static linked the library would be part of the code and hence the whole executable would be a derived work of that library)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    30. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For this to be true, APIs must be copyrightable. Which is obvious bullshit, regardless of what the courts may say on the matter.

    31. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Troll

      Which is obvious bullshit, regardless of what the courts may say on the matter.

      The subtlety of your thought and cleverness of your argument here impresses me. Like, who could argue with such depth of reasoning?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was not an argument, merely a point. And it's as subtle as the situation requires, which is to say, not at all.

      The notion that APIs are copyrightable is bullshit, because APIs describe what is done, not how it is done. It is unfortunate that we have courts in this country that are unable to comprehend that simple fact, and everyone in the industry should make every effort to counter that - because copyrightable APIs represent a major threat to innovation and interoperability for all of us.

      What is the license for ISO C APIs? I don't recall any special verbiage to that effect in the Standard, and by itself that document is copyrighted by ISO. What if they decide to enforce that copyright against implementations? What if ECMA does the same for JavaScript?

    33. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      As specifications are not covered by copyright law (the law explicitly says so)

      The law doesn't say that (at least in the US). Here is what the law says:

      “[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle or discovery, regardless of the form in which it isembodied in such work.”

      In applying it to source code, the courts first divide the code into 'creative' and 'functional' parts. If there is more than one way to do something, it's basically creative. (see the altai case)
      Then the court throws away the 'functional' parts, and uses the remaining parts to compare with the infringing program.

      Even Google admits that there is some creativity involved in making an API. For example, the creators could put a max() function into java.lang.math, or it could have put it into java.math.integers. There is creativity in naming the libraries. There is even creativity in the decisions of what is included in the library, and what is excluded.

      The circuit court made a very readable and well-reasoned decision, I think you would enjoy reading it. Frankly though, if the merest scribble on a piece of paper can be copyrighted, then it makes sense that an API can be copyrighted.

      Incidentally, the "clean room" issue doesn't apply in this case because Google didn't do a clean room copy. That shouldn't matter to the ultimate decision, though.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      You need to distinguish between using an API and copying an API.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    35. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Everything that I said above was about copying (i.e. reimplementing) an API. That should not fall under copyright, ever. Otherwise, interoperability is dead.

    36. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That should not fall under copyright, ever. Otherwise, interoperability is dead.

      This is pure ignorance. It's like you don't even know about "fair use."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    37. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it was: doing so and releasing it under GPL would not "prevent" anything. You can not "copy" something infringing copyright and then releasing it under GPL and say: "look but it is GPL, it is not an infringement!"

      The reference implementation of the Java Runtime and Development kit the OpenJDK is licensed under the GPL. Google could have based android and the dalvik runtime on it or even claimed that their code was roughly based on it and they would have been fine - if they had used the GPL for that.

      it is an independent development for most of it and a transliteration of the standard libraries that are OSS/GPL from SUNs byte code into Dalvik Bytecode.

      So an independent transliteration of GPL code to an incompatible license ( the Apache license ). Hey what would RMS think if I transliterated GCC back to C ( it is currently written in C++ ) and released it under the Apache License? I am sure he will agree with your point and give me the go ahead.

      Also the android standard library is not even a transliteration, Google refused to implement parts of the standard library and replaced them with their own incompatible APIs - see the Microsoft lawsuit how that kind of misuse of the Java trademark ends.

    38. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I do know about it. I also know that it's a defense, not a license. You can still be sued, and you could still be on the hook for legal expenses. It's enough to create a substantial chill, especially for open source.

    39. Re: What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > existence of any apps written in Java and running on the Android platform

      What insane argument is that? That's like saying there are no Windows apps running on Linux without using WINE, so there is no interoperability argument for writing WINE.
      Or saying "there is no way to play DVDs on Linux thus there is no interoperability argument for playing DVDs on Linux".
      Idiotic circular argument that effectively claims interoperability doesn't exist, because either it already runs on some system so it's not an interoperability issue or it doesn't yet run on some system and thus it's not an interoperability issue either.

    40. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by BigZee · · Score: 1

      Is this significantly different to MS and J++? I realise that MS would have had a non-open license but does this amount to the same issue?

    41. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire static/dynamic link situation is one of convenience for legality or security.

      If I develop a MMORPG and it contains LGPL components, I'm still fricken releasing it as a compiled static game client, because the god damn hackers will use any non-staticly linked DLL as an injection method. Cost of doing business here is to NOT use viral GPL/LGPL or any license that requires licencing the project under the same license. All BSD-like licenses do not require disclosure of the modifications to the code, and as such are safe to use.

      On the other hand, if I develop an application that has no value to the public if it's hacked (eg a free mobile game with no "freemium currency") , then the hacker is only cheating themselves, and possibly pirating the game, or distributing malware inside the third party library that I didn't staticly compile. That is why Apple's policy is the way it is. The GPL and LGPL can not be used in software that connects to the internet AND requires connection integrity. As much as linux zealots think they have the moral high ground, they don't. The BSD license is the moral high ground, with the PD (eg Public Domain) licenses have no moral ground at all. Commercial licenses may be evil, but they are all that keeps commercial use of free software in check.

      Most security holes in software, exist, not because the code isn't available, but rather because there is no way to tell the OS to checksum the interface and not to load libraries. The principle source of hacks in games, and malware is because code injection is allowed by creating "wrapper" layers that intercept instructions. Google could have written it's own wrapper over Java and none of this would have ever have gone to court.

      But then again, Java is a terrible language and Google should have just used C to begin with, as I don't know a single developer who likes Java.

    42. Re: What about IBM . . . ? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      What insane argument is that? That's like saying there are no Windows apps running on Linux without using WINE, so there is no interoperability argument for writing WINE.

      No, it's like saying that there are no Windows apps running on Linux using WINE, which would be false. Android Java does not implement any of the defined subsets of the Java standard library and so you can not take an unmodified Java program and run it on Android. They could have made a case that there are Java libraries that are used on both Android and J2SE implementations, but that would have required that they explain libraries to a non-technical court.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    43. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The code will be relocatable. Just replace the relocation table entry pointing to the function in the static-linked library with the address of a new piece of code, and append that new code to the .text segment. A decent static linker will do this automatically if you link in a new library with the same functions.

    44. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The J++ case was more complex, there were patent issues and trademark issues as well. Theoretically (as far as I can tell) MS could have used a fair-use defense to deal with the copyright issues, but they would have still had trademark and patent issues, and in any case they settled instead of letting it go to trial.

      Microsoft eventually did lose the follow-up case, which was over patents used in the JVM. Oracle tried to use the patents against Google, but Google counter-sued with their own patents, and eventually it was found that the patents either were not particularly valid or countered each other out.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    45. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You can be sued for anything, so that's not something new.
      This current case will be very interesting in terms of clarifying the meaning of "fair use," especially as applied to source code.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    46. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert on salary and compensation, but I'd guess that a $9B legal windfall would not be completely devoured by whatever paychecks these guys take home. Unless the trial goes on for about 1,000 years.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    47. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I think of "get X's blessing" as usually an informal process where they say "go ahead, just don't pull any funny business or we'll have to consider imposing official restrictions."

      Maybe that impression is wrong.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    48. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      You can't implement an API without copying it.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    49. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      It's simply not that that APIs only describe what is done; not how it is done.
      By in large, APIs do inform huge parts of the implementation.
      There is differentiation in terms of APIs and the choice of APIs is a huge part in the success of a product.
      Heck, in many cases, people choose a product based on the best API and not neccessarily the best implementation.

      There are cases where you can draw this big gap between the API and it's implementation.
      For example, you have an API with to search a container for an element and then fill in the search with some implementation of search.

      But that is not the case for all the API for something as large as Java; much less any library out there. There is a huge spectrum out there.

      Should APIs be copyrightable? Just as much as anything else. There might be a higher bar, but APIs can certainly be unique, well designed, innovative...

    50. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      I don't know, Scott McNealy testified against them in the trial, so if he did give them a blessing, he certainly had a change of heart. Of course, money can do that, but I don't know if Oracle paid them.

      The reports I read said that Sun didn't like Google stealing Java, they tried to get licensing money, but when negotiations broke down, they just dropped the issue. There is no doubt that internally they Iiked Java being used more, and I think that's what the GGP was referring to, but I don't think that is the same as a blessing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    51. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The notion that APIs are copyrightable is bullshit, because APIs describe what is done, not how it is done

      That is the argument against patenting an API, but not against copyrighting it.

    52. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by gnupun · · Score: 1

      The notion that APIs are copyrightable is bullshit, because APIs describe what is done, not how it is done.

      If that were true, there would be only ONE set of APIs for any specific area of computing. But there are dozens if not hundreds such API sets. The subtle reality is that APIs describe not only what is to be done, but also how (to some extent) and what other classes/objects are needed to perform a task.

      The combination of these things make API design a creative effort and as such should be copyrightable.

    53. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by 'blessing' you mean they got a written or verbal contract giving them permission, then no, you're wrong. Some people at Sun might have been happy about it, but without a contract, 'happiness' doesn't matter.

      When the CEO praises Android on his official company blog and then later testifies in the case *for* Google, that's a pretty strong blessing.

      http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/26/2977858/former-sun-ceo-jonathan-schwartz-testifies-for-google-oracle-trial

    54. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      APIs are creative, but they serve a functional purpose. In general, copyright law is not for stopping people from doing something practical that happens to require copying something.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    55. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Is it copyrightable? We won't know that until the legal fighting dies down.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    56. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The decision takes some time to read. I'm going to pick out what I thought the most significant part.

      Google claimed that the APIs were uncopyrightable because they were necessary for interoperability. The Circuit Court found some problems with the reasoning (the APIs are definitely copyrightable, although infringement can be justified if necessary for operations), but their most interesting finding is that Google was not using the Java APIs for interoperability. Google was not arguing that standard Java programs would be run under Dalvik, or Android programs would be run as standard Java programs, although they mentioned the possibility. The Circuit Court ruled that Google was using the Java APIs in order to provide a familiar library environment for Android developers, and could have created its own APIs for the library functionality and told Android developers to use that. This neatly dodges the usual interoperability concerns, and (AIUI) will not create a precedent that says that infringement is not justified given true interoperability concerns.

      The ruling decided that Google might be able to claim that the APIs were fair use, and that had not been sufficiently resolved. Fair use requires findings of fact, and the jury was split on those. Therefore, it's still arguable that API copying may be done as a matter of fair use.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    57. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Your other comment was quite a bit deeper than this one, so I'm going to guess you understand by now that they are copyrightable, but there may still be a fair use defense.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    58. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Another thing I thought was interesting about the case is they didn't rule on the copyrightability of the language itself, rather the entire case revolves around some APIs.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    59. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Courts are usually very reluctant to rule on more than they need to. Since Oracle wasn't arguing anything about the language, the court didn't have to rule.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    60. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I'm thinking of the bunches of articles we had like this one. My current thinking is that languages are not copyrightable.

      Another question is who owns the C standard libraries, and can they sue anyone? I don't really know the answer to that one.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    61. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The court decision seemed to talk about stuff that can be copyrighted, but which It started by saying APIs can be copyrighted, and then spent some time considering if this is one of those things that can be infringed on legally. I'd suspect a language can be copyrighted, but the copyright might not be enforceable under any reasonable circumstances. I'm not a lawyer, I don't precisely remember the court's reasoning, and I think the fine details slid off my brain without sinking in.

      I have no idea who, if anyone, owns the C standard libraries, but I don't think the court's reasoning on Java vs. Android (that the programs are not interchangeable) would apply. I'm not going to worry about it until I have to, and then I'm finding me a real lawyer.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    62. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Well keep reading court cases like that, and soon you'll be a copyright genius!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    63. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting legal fees and court costs. The court's time isn't free; in fact, it's quite costly for anything not resolved with an hour or less of the court's time. They might not get to keep as much of the $9B as you seem to think. Surely, yes, they'll get to keep some of it, but will it be more than the $7.4B they paid for Sun? Honestly, I doubt it, especially after taxes (some portion of that $9B is punitive and, therefore, taxable).

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    64. Re:What about IBM . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The notion that APIs are copyrightable is bullshit, because APIs describe what is done, not how it is done

      That is the argument against patenting an API, but not against copyrighting it.

      Correct. The argument against copyrighting an API, IMHO, is that it is a collection of facts about a substantial creative work - much like a library card catalog or database of journal abstracts.

  21. Wouldn't buy Oracle, but they have $170 billion by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I haven't purchased from Oracle and I don't plan to. Besides this case, I just don't think the cost/benefit ratio is there.

    Some will say that you have to pay big bucks if you have a lot of data or a lot of transactions, but Facebook used MySQL (aka MariaDB) to scale pretty large, and they now use Hadoop and Presto to process more than a terabyte each day.

    If open source databases handle Facebook and Google , I think they'll be enough for my needs.

    That said, Oracle has $170 billion, based on market valuation. It seems they are quite a way from bankruptcy.

    1. Re:Wouldn't buy Oracle, but they have $170 billion by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If open source databases handle Facebook and Google , I think they'll be enough for my needs.

      Facebook is run on NoSQL databases (Cassandra I believe). In other words: non relational databases.
      Oracle is a relational database.

      So the power and scaling has nothing to do of "closed sources" aka professionals versus "open source" aka hobbyists.

      Googles "appstore" is also run originally by NoSQL databases, no idea if they offer true relational ones now.

      However many people scale MySQL/MariaSQL "in the cloud" ... that would be a better argument for you :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  22. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Agreed, but the problem is that there is no alternative statically-typed ("compile-y") language out there that seems ready in terms of being road-tested and not too different from other common production languages.

    C# is too MS-tied with a similar legal-greed risk, and C++ is too low-level to replace Java and C#.

    Object Pascal? Ada? too complex. Eiffel? too much like Pascal such that you might as well go Pascal.

    Python, Ruby, Php, etc. are dynamic languages. They have their place, but for certain classes of applications you need a static/strict typed language.

    Object-Fortran? :-) I dunno
       

  23. The lesson here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Java is not free to use in any large-scale software project. Serious developers should avoid it at all costs.

  24. Java is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Java expired in 1999

  25. Couldn't Microsoft also sue Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Couldn't Microsoft also sue anyone that tried to copy its big APIs, such as Win32, and DirectX? Couldn't Nintendo sue the creators of SNES9x?

    1. Re:Couldn't Microsoft also sue Wine? by robbiedo · · Score: 2

      Wine doesn't have any money.

  26. Oracle should pay damages by ooloorie · · Score: 0, Troll

    Java is such a p.o.s. that Oracle should pay damages for inflicting it upon the world.

    1. Re:Oracle should pay damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut it, you useless pig.

    2. Re:Oracle should pay damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful? Really?

      Looks like the monkeys got mod points today.

    3. Re:Oracle should pay damages by wildstoo · · Score: 2

      While you're talking crap about Java being a POS, I will say that for many people their first introduction to Java would have been in the late 1990s as a browser plugin, running a shitty applet, which would go something like:

      1. Click on link to page with applet
      2. Webpage stops responding
      3. JVM rumbles to life in the background for several minutes slowly devouring all RAM
      4. Eventually a weird looking applet appears with menus and styling completely different from host OS
      5. Applet runs like shit

      Obviously, this has little to do with Java as a technology or a language, but for "casual" users the impression probably stuck.

    4. Re:Oracle should pay damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work with Java every day, and it never ceases to amaze me how bad and poorly designed it is. Total garbage. Oracle would be doing the world a favor if it forces Google to scrap it from Android. In fact, most improvements in Android are a result of removing parts of java and xml from the system.

    5. Re:Oracle should pay damages by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      While you're talking crap about Java being a POS,

      No, you're simply ignorant of good language design. Java's design is full of problems that a competent language designer could have avoided even in the 1990's: covariant arrays, type erasure, floating point semantics, lack of value types, slow FFI, string handling, bloated libraries, numerous holes in the type system, badly designed concurrency primitives, multiple failed attempts at creating a UI toolkit, and on and on.

  27. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Alomex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    C# is too MS-tied with a similar legal-greed risk

    Actually C# had already a freer license by the early 2000s. I distinctly remember pointing this out and people dismissing my concerns with Java since back then Sun was one of the good guys.

    C++ is too low-level to replace Java and C#.

    Modern, core C++ is about as high level as Java and without the JVM overhead. Read up on it. The C++ core as proposed by Bjarne has a good chance of becoming the Java replacement.

  28. And thus we see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the end of the Java language.

  29. I'm not an Oracle fan but... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    in their defense, if they had not bought SUN where would SUN be today? In the Tech trash heap, along with Digital Equipment and others. SUN had a lot of assets - great hardware, intellectual property, etc - but they couldn't sell anything.

    Oracle, to their credit, recognized this and bought them up. For what seems now like a bargain price. They realized that they had a great database product but didn't have the enterprise applications to go with it. So they bought PeopleSoft and JD Edwards and some other pieces. With SUN they got the hardware and middleware to round it out. Now they have the whole stack.

    Oracle was late to the game in Cloud but their combined assets allowed them to ramp up rather quickly. You better believe that Workday and Salesforce are looking over their collective shoulders. Oracle is gaining fast on them and they have the money to outlast either of them.

    1. Re:I'm not an Oracle fan but... by labnet · · Score: 1

      I think the issue for oracle, is they are losing the trust of the IT industry.

      --
      46137
    2. Re:I'm not an Oracle fan but... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      They are a bad joke. "Unbreakable Linux" "Unbreakeable Database", Java... how many frickin' times do we have to patch java. They don't even fix the underlying problem, they just band aid or scotch tape it. That's why the same old problems - (Apu from the Simpsons) come again!

      I work on one of their Exadata systems. A RedHat knock off OS. They didn't even bother to remove /etc/redhat-release file. A clear violation of that license. Then to patch it, you have to have one of their patch sets. Yea, good luck with that. Even if you have premium support. Then when 5:00 Friday comes - please call back Monday, we're otta here! No kidding.

      Almost as bad as Microsoft. Wish I was at their SF party though. I bet that rocked!

  30. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Go(lang)

  31. Oracle doesn't have a leg to stand on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google didn't use java. Google used an API. An API cannot by copyrighted. End of discussion.

  32. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seem like your complaint is there isn't anything Java-y enough that isn't Java. Maybe just write-off that skill investment and move on?

  33. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern, core C++ is about as high level as Java and without the JVM overhead. Read up on it.

    C++ has pointers. Bzzt, Disqualified

  34. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fortran 2003 does support object oriented programming. The difficult part is it only interfaces with C/C++. But you can write your function wrappers in Fortran and compile to an object file.

  35. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Good points.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  36. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by HiThere · · Score: 1

    The problem with Object-Pascal is poor documentation. Also, it has poor unicode support.

    Ada is less complex than C++ (calling it more complex used to be true before the STL). But it's default strings are fixed length, and different lengths of fixed length strings can't be compared. And it's difficult to flex in other ways. I like lots of things about it, but for my purposes it's too rigid in too many places.

    Eiffel? That's hardly like Pascal at all. But there's only one version that's still doing much development, the documentation is poor. (They've got it, but access is on-line and slow.) I'm not real familiar with the current releases.

    You left out D and Vala. Vala is either too undocumented or too undeveloped, I can't tell which.
    OTOH, D would be a good choice. It's a low level as you want, but it's also fairly high level if that's what you want. And it handles unicode well. It's problem is a lack easily used libraries (you need to link them in via their C API, and do various parameter translations).

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  37. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by HiThere · · Score: 1

    It's not the having pointers, it's not being able to avoid them or detect them. I believe that ALL compiler languages have pointers, but many can isolate them, and detect user access to them.

    Pointers are fine, and can allow you to do things that are clumsy without them. Not being able to tell the difference between a pointer and an integer is unacceptable. (Well, more to the point, not being able to write code where all the pointer manipulation is provably done via system routines is what's unacceptable. Which you actually can do in C/C++ if you don't use arrays or output parameters. But that's too limited.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  38. Re: Oracle's damages calc right from sales handboo by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Java is the defacto standard for enterprise applications. The vulnerabilities rarely affect how most Java is actually used, they almost exclusively effect the browser plugin and the security manager. They (or really sun) should have made the browser plugin opt in a decade ago.

  39. Re: Wouldn't buy Oracle, but they have $170 billio by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Didn't Facebook use Cassandra?

  40. Android going forward by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    I'm looking forward to when Google finally decides to discontinue supporting Java.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Android going forward by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I remember the Objective C toolchain was included on a version of Slackware I used to run in 1995. Maybe Google should switch to Objective C.

    2. Re:Android going forward by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      I remember the Objective C toolchain was included on a version of Slackware I used to run in 1995. Maybe Google should switch to Objective C.

      i don't know if you are a masochist or a sadist but you are definitely one of the two.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Android going forward by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Switching to Swift might make sense. Of course, Google also has Go.

  41. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that ALL compiler languages have pointers, but many can isolate them, and detect user access to them.

    these things are not pointers, they are references or access points, but you digress, this is about C++

    C++ still has pointers that you can't get rid of. bzzt. get the hook, it's outa here

  42. Facebook uses three DBMS, Hadoop, MySQL, Cassandra by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Facebook uses three database management systems, Hadoop, MySQL, and Cassandra. One thing they use Hadoop for is backups of their MySQL.

  43. They used to. Now Apple does by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Facebook doesn't use Cassandra much anymore:
    http://www.wired.com/2014/08/d...

    They have three database management systems, Hadoop, MySQL, and Cassandra. One thing they use Hadoop for is backups of their MySQL.

  44. Ps, Cassandra mostly replaced by Presto (SQL) by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Facebook doesn't use Cassandra much anymore. They their Cassandra DB helped jumpstart the NoSQL craze, Facebook soon realized they were wrong - Codd and Date had it right the first time, with the relational model. Now mostly Facebook uses Apache Presto, an SQL query processor that uses Hadoop as storage (much like MariaDB uses various storage engines). Another thing they use Hadoop for is to store backups of their MySQL/MariaDB databases.

    So yeah you said four sentences and two are factually incorrect, making the third and fourth sound rather silly. Facebook uses relational databases AND they are open source.

    Apple uses Cassandra a bit, though.

    1. Re:Ps, Cassandra mostly replaced by Presto (SQL) by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I was not aware that facebook migrated away from Cassandra. They used to be a show case for it.

      an SQL query processor that uses Hadoop as storage That does not really make sense.
      As I could figure on short notice, the data in the MySQL databases is processed periodically and transformed into Hadoop based data storages.

      Also your comment seems more to aim for the "data analysis" part of Facebook and not the storage of user data. It makes no sense, regardless how you cluster, to store the user data, their posts, in an SQL data base.

      But I think I google a bit around next days and research how they operate now, it is an interesting topic!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  45. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C# has pointers you can't get rid of. Although you can manage them.

    I take it you see "no pointers" as a feature in Java, not a bug?

  46. Well, Android wouldn't have gone anywhere w/o Java by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Android would have died without the write-once run-badly-everywhere aspects of Java. Google could have written its own, but it chose to copy Java's APIs.

    It's not like there were a lot of multi-platform options out there. Tk/TCL?

    Time to pay up, google. Your technical debt is calling.

  47. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Agreed, but the problem is that there is no alternative statically-typed ("compile-y") language out there that seems ready in terms of being road-tested

    There are lots of those

    >and not too different from other common production languages.

    That is not a worthy goal. The common production languages invariably suck in a *design* sense.

    >C# is too MS-tied with a similar legal-greed risk, and C++ is too low-level to replace Java and C#.

    I agree, although I think the risk in .NET is a little less than Java, if only for the patent pledge on *subsets* of .NET.

    >Object Pascal? Ada? too complex.

    If Object Pascal and Ada are too complex, you should rethink your career in programming. Pascal's use was teaching programming to rookies. Both were created by experienced language designers that actually knew what they are doing (as opposed to certain others *cough* C *cough*) and thus are consistent and simple.

    >Eiffel? too much like Pascal such that you might as well go Pascal.

    How is Eiffel like Pascal? O_o

    >Python, Ruby, Php, etc. are dynamic languages. They have their place, but for certain classes of applications you need a static/strict typed language.

    You can compile Python to native executables - whatever good that does.

    Nobody should use Php for anything.

  48. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    [not too different from other common production languages.] That is not a worthy goal. The common production languages invariably suck in a *design* sense.

    There are a lot of "interesting" languages, but the industry seems to like Java and C# overall. Whether that's "good" or "rational" perhaps is highly debatable, but it seems they struck the right chord in the industry as a preferred tool. I'm not here to debate the "ideal" language from a purely language design standpoint.

    If Object Pascal and Ada are too complex...

    I meant only Ada, not Pascal. Complexity is a common complaint against Ada. If you want to label the complainers as "dumb", that's fine, but again I'm talking about what the industry seems to want, not the ideal way to be.

    You can compile Python to native executables...

    But they still lack the strong typing. The up-front type and reference verification done by compilers is one of the top selling points of compilers, arguably more than speed.

  49. a non-Google "Android" phone by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Android is open source. There actually are non-google Android phones.

  50. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Well, more to the point, not being able to write code where all the pointer manipulation is provably done via system routines is what's unacceptable.

    Well, wrong. The reason for using pointer manipulation at all is speed - it is a bit faster than merely meddling with array indexes. Therefore you DON'T do that in "system routines", because calling a "system routine" (or calling anything at all) is slower than using array indexes.

    Software has work to do, and we want the work done ASAP. So we use fast code - including pointer manipulation. Pointers are not hard, pointers are not dangerous - and any problem you get with pointers can be debugged.

    So stop pretending that "pointers are bad". If your program crash and you cannot figure it out, you're too stupid for the work.

    Now, lets hope google ditch java as a result of this - android running on C/C++ would be faster. The shittier apps might crash themselves but so what? Memory protection ensures that apps only crash themselves - not the OS, not the device. People will simply ditch crashing apps the way they already ditch boring games and resource-hog apps.

  51. MySQL/Maria sits atop DB2, CSV, or other storage by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > an SQL query processor that uses Hadoop as storage That does not really make sense.

    Would it make more sense to say "an SQL query processor which uses ext3 as storage"? The SQL side needs to get and put bytes. Some ways to get and put bytes include:
    ext3
    NFS
    SMB
    S3
    Hadoop
    DB2
    Some other relational database.

    MySQL/Maria is a SQL client, a library, a SQL parser, a query optimizer, an a network server. MySQL is NOT a data-storage format. Rather, MySQL stores data in any of many available storage engines. One storage engine you are probably familiar with is DB2, one of the best known key-value stores (which also has it's own relational front-end). MySQL can also use CSV to store it's data, deferate to another relational database, or any number of other storage engines, documented here:

    https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refm...

    It may seem strange that MySQL would use key-value storage or anything other than some custom-made binary format, but if you think about it even if MySQL had it's own required file format, that format lives on ext3, or ext4, or ReiserFS, or ... MySQL doesn't know how it's actually stored. After the filesystem does whatever it does with the data, it's eventually stored in arbitrary flash cells, or phonograph^H^H^H^H^H^H disk tracks, or somewhere else, and MySQL doesn't know which chunk of data ends up where. MySQL chooses to abstract away storage one level higher than the filesystem - it has no required file format. It calls get() and put(), whatever is doing the storage handles things from there.

    Presto (https://prestodb.io/) is similar. Presto handles SQL queries. Presto can get it's data bytes from Hadoop to be stored, and can send bytes to Hadoop, just as you might imagine it sending bytes to a disk file.

    By using Hadoop as the underlying storage, Facebook can use multiple front ends. Just as a plain text file can be read and changed by Notepad.exe, vim, or MS Word, a Hadoop data store can be accessed from a SQL front end like Presto, as a file system, via MapReduce, or other methods. They can use the right tool for each specific job, with the same underlying data being accessed.

  52. Microsoft Android? by khz6955 · · Score: 1

    It is my understanding that Microsoft owns Android, else why is it extorting revenue out of the hardware manufacturers.

  53. Re:Well, Android wouldn't have gone anywhere w/o J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got it wrong. The Startup that created Android was founded by clueless people that just knew the useless technology they learnt from university. That's why Android ended with the awful choices of XML, Java, and Linux.

    Google merely bought that startup, and then forced some of the most brilliant people in the world to waste their precious time maintaining that mess of a platform that doesn't even let you implement a MVC design.

  54. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Which you actually can do in C/C++ if you don't use arrays or output

    C/C++ isn't a language. You can't do output parameters in C without pointers. You can pass by reference in C++ and therefore do output parameters without pointers. Also, C++11 made almost all uses of output parameters unnecessary.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  55. Fuck Off Oracle. You Are Drunk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Java is an open standard of language. Everybody can use it.

    What Oracle owns is JVM. Google does NOT use this in Android.

    Fuck Off Oracle. You Are Drunk.

  56. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Alomex · · Score: 1

    C++ has pointers. Bzzt, Disqualified

    You really need to read up on C++ core. It deprecates several constructs and adds several safety mechanisms (owner, not_null) some of which are superior to Java in terms of potential errors.

  57. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    c++:
    - Reflection?
    - Platform independent binaries?
    - Garbage collection?
    - Clunky unnecessary header files.
    - Parser unfriendly (to say the least) grammar.

    Conclusion;
    - c++ has no chance whatsoever to replace Java.
    - Probably "Go" is one strong candidate.

  58. One really wonders by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Did anyone from Sun or current Oracle say "So, we had something like that in our hands and wasted it down to bundling ask.com toolbars." when they see anyone with Android in hand? It isn't like Xerox, they never wanted to sell computers or desktops. This must be way more worse than Xerox since they admit their business arm never wanted to sell computers.

    As an end user, I saw the potential in Java when I run Think Free office, in Java 1.1 or 2 ages or IBM doing mp4 decoding in browser applet. How could Sun miss it.

  59. Why not just buy Oracle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oracle is asking about 1/10 of it's own value in damages. Why doesn't Google just buy a majority share. It's more money but then they get:

    1: The ability to fire Ellison.
    2: All Oracles assets including Java, Solaris and SPARC M7.

    1. Re:Why not just buy Oracle? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Those silly guys at the FTC sometimes frown on major purchases that allows them to control major sectors of the market.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  60. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Alomex · · Score: 1

    - Platform independent binaries?

    Java doesn't have them either.

    - Garbage collection?

    Yup, if you stick to C++ core and use the owner facility you get better garbage collection than Java.

    - Parser unfriendly (to say the least) grammar.

    Oh puleeeze. No developer cares about this. You are grasping for straws.

  61. Re:Well, Android wouldn't have gone anywhere w/o J by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    They could have used the CIL.

  62. Is anyone going to use Java again on a product? by Punto · · Score: 1

    I hope not, the decision to force java ruined what could have been a great platform. I realize it's not that simple, but google could be spinning this as "if you use java, expect a lawsuit when your product is successful"

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    1. Re:Is anyone going to use Java again on a product? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      It's sort of like napalm. Once it's on you, it burns and burns and burns and it's a bitch to get off of you. Weblogic/Jboss/Tomcat... good luck not using Java unless you want to spend big to get rid of it. Takes quite a fire department to put that fire out.

      Then there is always what seems like the java patch of the week. Seems like it's always a critical.

  63. Re:Well, Android wouldn't have gone anywhere w/o J by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

    That makes 0 sense.

    Once Google bought the start up and saw the "crap" that was the OS.... why would they choose to continue on that path instead of scrapping it for something better? It's not like Android had any traction at that time. There are plenty of smart people at Google, I have to believe that they chose to go forward with the Java route for a good reason.

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  64. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Java has pointers, too; it just doesn't let you mess around with them as much and calls them something different. It's like saying a language doesn't have GOTO...maybe technically accurate, but once it gets compiled basically all logic is jumps when you go down far enough.

    Heck, there's even java.lang.NullPointerException.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  65. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    C# is too MS-tied with a similar legal-greed risk

    There is no evidence of that. C# has been standardized by standards organizations and unlike Sun/Oracle, Microsoft has made public legal commitments not to sue. If Sun/Oracle had done the same thing, Oracle couldn't be suing over Java now. Furthermore, there are several open source implementations of C#, some of which don't even use the .NET runtime. C# also lacks several of the serious technical deficiencies of Java, but it's similar enough so that many popular Java packages get ported over quickly.

  66. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    So stop pretending that "pointers are bad". If your program crash and you cannot figure it out, you're too stupid for the work.

    Well, there's sloppy or bad programmers out there whether you want that to be the case or not. Languages can protect them from themselves to some degree at the expense of speed/resources by avoiding pointer or pointer-like constructs. That's often considered the more economical choice for domain-specific and custom applications. You can't reboot the human race.

  67. Next by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Oracle seeks ownership of all ponies

  68. Lary Ellison by pebear · · Score: 1

    Why? Because Larry Ellison is not a greedy and corrupt enough of a pig right now. He is trying to become a greedier pig. I say we all dump Java and kick it to the curb.

    --
    Paul E. Bahre
  69. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go Lang.

  70. Not as big as the UNIX system call interface by emil · · Score: 1

    In my printed copy of the Lions Commentary on the kernel for the 6th edition of the UNIX operating system, prominent notices of AT&T copyright are near the title pages. In the PDF online, I see "Circulation of this document is restricted to holders of a license for the UNIX software system from Western Electric."

    If an API is subject to copyright, then fork(), wait(), open(), and the rest of the happy family of UNIX system calls is thus owned by Bell Labs -> Lucent -> Alcatel -> Nokia.

    Nokia has the power to demand 10x Oracle's judgement if this stands.

  71. Re:Well, Android wouldn't have gone anywhere w/o J by erapert · · Score: 1

    Once Google bought the start up and saw the "crap" that was the OS.... why would they choose to continue on that path instead of scrapping it for something better?

    Isn't that what Chrome OS was supposed to be?

  72. You are the one that is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are the one spreading misinformation. Android programs may be mostly source-compatible with Java, but the compiled programs are absolutely NOT. You cannot take a program from Android and run it in any JVM. You cannot take any Java classes and run them on Android without using a compiler to recompile them (just like source gets compiled). The fact that the source is similar does not make them result in the same executables.

    People like you are the problem. Do you also think C and C++ are the same language? I thought that too, until I went to college and learned how languages work. You cannot run Dalvik/ART code on a JVM any more than you can link a C program against a C++ library.

    1. Re:You are the one that is wrong. by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Android programs may be mostly source-compatible with Java, but the compiled programs are absolutely NOT. You cannot take a program from Android and run it in any JVM.

      Nice try, Google shill. I can create a compiler that takes standard C files and generates non-standard .obj/.lib/.dll/.o files that don't inter-operate with any other compiler/linker. My compiler is still a C compiler even though it not compatible with other C compilers/linkers/runtimes.

      Google needs to discard the "information wants to be free" mantra. That saying is only suitable for cheap-o pirates, not multi-billion corps.

    2. Re:You are the one that is wrong. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Your C compiler IS compatible with other C compilers. If we take a normal C program, and feed it into your compiler and also gcc, both will compile it and come out with incompatible object files. Try taking a normal C++ program and run it through two different C++ compilers and you'll almost certainly get incompatible object files, so there's no difference there.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:You are the one that is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, Google shill. I can create a compiler that takes standard C files and generates non-standard .obj/.lib/.dll/.o files that don't inter-operate with any other compiler/linker. My compiler is still a C compiler even though it not compatible with other C compilers/linkers/runtimes.

      Not the same - Dalvik (and now ART) use different bytecodes for their executables, they have to translate Java bytecodes to their native code, not just a different executable format.

      And no, programming languages are generally not copyrighted.

    4. Re:You are the one that is wrong. by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Not the same - Dalvik (and now ART) use different bytecodes for their executables, they have to translate Java bytecodes to their native code, not just a different executable format.

      So just because Dalvik converts Java source into register-based bytecode whereas the default Java bytecode is stack-based (FORTH-like), that means Dalvik is something completely different from Java? Sorry, I don't think so because the various concepts of references, packages, GC, interfaces, single-parent inheritance etc. are directly copied from Java. Despite the implementation differences, Dalvik is still a derivative of Sun/Oracle's Java.

    5. Re:You are the one that is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So just because Dalvik converts Java source into register-based bytecode whereas the default Java bytecode is stack-based (FORTH-like), that means Dalvik is something completely different from Java?

      Uh, yes. I believe you're smart enough to know the difference between a source language and a target language. Or do you think x86 and ARM assembly are the same, just because C compilers exist for both?

      I'm sorry, what was the point you were trying to make? The source language being Java is not in dispute.

    6. Re:You are the one that is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite the implementation differences, Dalvik is still a derivative of Sun/Oracle's Java.

      Just like Clang is a derivative of GCC because they both compile C and C++.

  73. I'm studying Java by execthis · · Score: 1

    I actually happen to be taking a Java course right now and this news - well it makes me not really want to take Java seriously as a language from now on nor basically want to use anything associated with Oracle, Inc..

    One of my main motivations for taking the course was to be able to study Android programming later. I would like to ask you guys a question: Outside of Java, is there any other route to Android programming? My understanding is that Java and Android are inexorably intertwined. I also use custom ROMs and know that when you hear that a ROM is "deodexed" that it means the Java byte code has not been compiled for the apps. It seems like Java pretty much = Android.

    Or is there some other way to do Android without Java?

  74. Re:MySQL/Maria sits atop DB2, CSV, or other storag by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    What would make more sense is to say: the company uses Hadoop for large scale data processing. And use MySQL on that same data for querying. Which I doubt.

    That MySQL can use Hadoop, raises the question: for what?
    As a block storage like a file in a file system? Or is there some mapping between 'datatypes' stored in Hadoop to MySQL types?

    I assume they use Hadoop only as an infinite block device for MySQL.

    But thanx for explaining no brainers ;)

    Anyway I will research that next WE as it is an interesting topic.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  75. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I'm sort of rusty on C++, and I'd forgotten that reference parameters could be output parameters. But if those reference parameters are arrays, then you still don't know that pointer manipulation isn't going on.

    I can accept that C++11 makes explicit use of pointers usually unnecessary. (I don't know it's true, but I can accept it.) But the implementation of arrays is such that you can't prove that implicit manipulation of pointers by the user isn't happening if you have arrays. C++ has many features that could be used to eliminate pointer problems, but it's inheritance from prior versions means that you can't know what's happening.
    P.S.: In every case a global analysis could certainly show whether dubious practices were happening, so I'm talking about local analysis, where you can't know whether an input integer is or is not a pointer, and you can't know how an output integer is going to be used. This is a problem of "strict typing" or some such, which many languages allow, and some languages allow in all except a few specially marked routines.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  76. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by HiThere · · Score: 1

    That was a reasonable argument in the old days, but these days compiler optimizers are, or should be, better than any except a very few programmers who have made a study of system dependent microcode. And that kind of stuff is better handled in assembler, since it's not portable across CPU versions anyway.

    I'm not pretending pointers are bad, I'm stating that pointers are senselessly dangerous, and there are better ways. Of course, if the code you're writing is only a page or two long, this isn't a good argument. If you're writing very much code and you depend on yourself never having a fencepost error, or failing to free memory, then I consider that you're in the wrong job. Everyone makes mistakes, and tools that prevent or catch those mistakes are extremely desirable. C and C++ are notorious for memory leaks, array bounds overruns, and many other classes of error that can be automatically prevented with proper language design.

    That said, there are cases where C is the appropriate language. (I'm not certain about C++.) Sometimes a sharp knife is the best tool...but it's still dangerous.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  77. it's Presto (sql) that uses Hadoop for storage by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The SQL front end used by Facebook that uses Hadoop is Presto.

    I brought up MySQL as a comparison to explain it since you'd be more likely to have some familiarity with MySQL storage engines.

    > he company uses Hadoop for large scale data processing.
    > And use MySQL on that same data for querying. Which I doubt.

    I'm not sure where they're currently using MYsql - they used to use it for everything. They use Presto SQL for ad-hoc and lower-concurrency queries over petabytes of data. As an example, suppose they want to know what percentage of users have read, but not posted, in the last 7 days, or the median number of photos posted by people with more than 50 friends. Those types of queries are a good match to be expressed relationally, in SQL. On the other hand, "get the user's profile picture " is a very simple operation run tens of millions of times per day. That's a good candidate to optimize by taking the one-time expense of coding direct access, skipping any flexible query engine.

    > That MySQL can use Hadoop, raises the question: for what?
    As a block storage like a file in a file system? Or is there some mapping between 'datatypes' stored in Hadoop to MySQL types?

    MySQL (and Presto) use it somewhere in between a dumb block device and a the strongly-typed datum that the SQL side uses (which may have triggers, domains, etc attached). Typically, the backend provides primarily a key-value store (storing rows), and often indexing. So the storage engine stores rows, rather than bytes (simple) or complex types like datetime and ip_address . That's the typical primary job of the storage engine - MySQL can use very dumb storage engines and very smart storage engines.

  78. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    But if those reference parameters are arrays, then you still don't know that pointer manipulation isn't going on.

    There's little reason to use raw pointers for awways though. Mostly it would be a std::vector passed by reference. There's some pointer manipulaton going on internally, but in user code there isn't any.

    But the implementation of arrays is such that you can't prove that implicit manipulation of pointers by the user isn't happening if you have arrays.

    Indeed, implicit pointer manipulation is certainly happening. That's how std::vector works internally. However, one can put a lot of effort into engineering the library to be bug-free, so that mitigates it a lot.

    C++ has many features that could be used to eliminate pointer problems, but it's inheritance from prior versions means that you can't know what's happening.

    Yep. Blessing and a curse, that one is.

    where you can't know whether an input integer is or is not a pointer,

    How so? Integers and pointers are separate types. It's possible to cast one to the other, but you have to be pretty explicit about it.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  79. Oracle sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I learned a lot in the past 15 years of my career, I'm at a point now where I want nothing to do with Oracle.

    Their support is one of the worst ones around. Tickets average around 3-4+ weeks and multiple escalations before they respond. Every newer version of their app takes that much longer to install. Want ODI and OBIEE, there are two Weblogics for that. Oh and patching now takes that much more to do. Wish Oracle could just provide an auto update where we can select the update and not have to fuck around with env variables (and that's if you don't need to specify another version of the JDK).

    I dislike Java and want it to go the way of Flash. It is slow on just about every browser that I have used since 2000. Apps are written on version of it and then you have issues with it if you are on a newer version.

    Next job that I look for will have nothing to deal with Oracle products (at least that I will be responsible for).

    1. Re:Oracle sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me, ever since Oracle bought Sun and decided that screwing over OpenSolaris users was a good way to get them to buy from Oracle.

  80. Re:One more reason... [OSS] by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Re: How so? Integers and pointers are separate types. It's possible to cast one to the other, but you have to be pretty explicit about it.

    That's true for a global analysis, but in a local analysis you don't know that the integer passed in isn't really a pointer or that the integer passed out won't be used as a pointer.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  81. I don't get it by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Google is NOT selling Android;