Slashdot Mirror
RMS on Java and GPL
EmilEifrem writes "A JavaLobby member asked RMS [?] about his opinion on Java and GPL. Interesting, as always." I think my favorite quote is the intro: "It is strange to argue for ensuring compatibility in Java by keeping implementations non-free. Even if you accept the choice of values
(compatibility above freedom) this idea is based on, which I don't, it simply won't do the job."
Please don't use your +1 bonus to post redundant crap like this.
Heh. +1 bonus. Like Slashdot is D&D or something. We've even got trolls!
I used to be a member of the Javalobby.org, but I found that was too one-sided in favor of Sun Microsystems. To my mind, they are not a very objective group and are far too subserviant to Sun. They WERE IN FAVOR of Sun dropping out of the EMCA and ISO talks, for example - yet paradoxically were against the 3% J2EE Sun licensing fees! So, Java Lobbiers - which is it? Will you continue to blindly support Sun and put up with all the licensing fees associated with that decision or will you all collectively sit on your asses hoping SOMEONE ELSE will provide you with free Java environment and tools instead of assisting GPL'd projects such as Classpath and Kaffe? Considering what Java consultants get paid these days I find your collective apathy to be appauling.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Ah, that'll be the definition of revenue center where revenue is actually expenditure. Sun hasn't made money out of Java.
As for the acceptance of external chnages, go look at the progress on the JCP. This, unlike the open source path involves writing the spec then writing reference implementations, not the other way around.
Oh hang on, we're on Slashdot aren't we... Larry Wall Good, Sun Evil, Fire Hurt Mongo.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
Nope, it just breaks all the existing implementations putting you in the position of constantly upgrading JVMs with features which may also get engineered out. This is something you can't easily do with embedded systems so it would damage Java there. It would make the ubiquity tenuous, and damage the corporate use and goodness knows how screwed up browsers would become.
The GPL only protects skilled technology users; it does not protect consumer users.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
Then you've written no Java and you are pronouncing from ignorance.
I've got plenty of Java code which runs across a wide range of VMs on numerous platforms just by moving the byte code around.
People like you who spread, well FUD is generous, lets call em like they are, lies as just as bad as the lowest of the marketing slime at Redmond.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
Given you have the remarkably large sample of ONE Java program, have you considered that it could be a not well written program? Or are you seriously suggesting people don't write crap code in C?
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
So
[a] You use free web sites as a backup medium and destroy all your own copies.
[b] You arrange no mirrors, or any mirrors only mirror the binary....
[c] No backups? So you're silly.
[d] It should cost you $5000 as a fine for not taking a backup and using free web sites as an exclusive distribution.
Under the GPL, the user with a copy of your source is under *no* compunction to distribute the source code *unless* they are distributing the binary themselves. Go threaten to sue.... using who's money? How much lawyer can you get fot $5000?
If you are going to guard your own interests, you don't do silly things like destroy your own backups and use free web sites as distribution mediums.
The GPL cannot help you in the situation you describe.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
This is _not_ about money.
And yes, it _does_ matter, and it _does_ hurt me.
But I guess you are the blind one.
OG.
As is so often the case, RMS is right on the money. In many ways, what's most surprising is the way Sun have successfully stayed some way ahead of the free implementations in their commercial offering, especially in the class libraries: given what Java has to offer, you'd normally think we'd snap up the chance to create a free implementation. Perhaps dirty tricks like the SCSL have successfully divided us and our efforts.
I look forward very much to the major release of Classpath he mentioned!
--
Xenu loves you!
And I don't doubt what you are saying is true, either. Your corporation has a carefully controlled environment and if Java isn't set up on a computer, you have people to fix that. But the last two letters of WORA stand for Run Anywhere. I didn't say that the computers at your company can't all run the stuff. But most computers don't have a JVM all nicely set up so that they can run Java.
In a controlled corporate environment, Java may be able to approach its ideal. But controlled corporate environments are not "anywhere"! And I'm not just being anal, though maybe I'm not thinking in a corporate manner.
And anyway, with carefully enough written ANSI C you could make something nearly WORA. If you are willing to put the effort into it, many things can be portable. Maybe Java is easier than other solutions this way, maybe not, I wouldn't know. But Java is not such a clear winner as it would have itself be.
Squeak is trully WORA, so it can be done. But Java for one reason or doesn't choose to make that choice.
Sun has not shown itself to be a good supporter of Java even in the realms they champion. If they believe in write-one-run-anywhere, they have not made that a success. Running Java through the browser is a highly substandard and unrobust solution, but at this point few people have the libraries, VM, or whatever else they need to run Java programs any other way. WORA is a complete myth, and Sun's efforts are pathetic in this area, particularly distribution.
As far as standardization, we already know what Sun thinks about that. But even then Sun has the ability to create a defacto standard if they released complete specifications. They haven't. They also haven't released reference code, since code under the SCSL is clearly not usable in this fashion. Even a poorly documented and implemented Free J*va would provide a better basis for standardization.
As far as forking, Java already has forking because Sun licenses Java code to other companies for other purposes. Besides the fact that Java can't be run at all in many environments, the various implementations of Java run it differently. Sure, Sun can reel these implementations back in, but it hasn't. Anyone could reel these implementations back in if Java was Free.
There is one program on my system which uses Java. It was written by professionally employed programmers, crashes constantly, and the GUI has tons of bugs. The GUI is your #1 use of Java and it really isn't functional anyway. My opinion: use Java when an employer asks for it and when you code for money. Use C when you're trying to get something done.
Well, I don't see how commenting on how the headline Quake on Java first makes me think of a computer game and a computer language instead of a place and a natural event is mocking a disaster, but... Hal Duston
Neener-neener-neener
:)
Hal Duston
Hal Duston
Under the GPL, if someone makes a change and distributes it, they must distribute the source code too. Embrace and extend doesn't work any more, it becomes very expensive for no gain.
The software just benefits from the changes.
Deleted
The article is about keeping Java "pure and compatible" and defeating "embrace and extend".
The GPL can perform this function, the BSD license can't.
On the other hand, the GPL license is no good for implementing new universally accepted APIs or features because of it's restrictions.
Look, I use both the GPL and the BSD license, but for different things. The GPL for relatively standalone stuff and the BSD for highly integratable stuff.
This shouldn't be GPL vs BSDL argument anyway though that's my fault I guess for pushing the button.
Deleted
If the forked code is poorer quality lets say, it crashes more often then the maintainer will need to increase the investment to keep it going. If it does have a significant advantage then the features it has can be re-implemented in an acceptable manner.
However I don't see the sense in deliberately forking code to provide incompatability, especially when you know that all the original maintainer has to do to foil your plan is to say yes I'll incorporate the changes. A lot of money and effort down the drain.
Deleted
A lot of people seem to be missing the implications of the requirement to release the source code of any changes.
There have been a couple of articles recently which describe well how the GPL's requirement that source code must also be distributed vastly reduces or removes the forking that everyone is so afraid of. (don't remember the links)
If someone takes a GPL'd product and forks it, they then have to maintain the fork all by themselves, and they have to produce the source for their changes.
Note, the BSD license doesn't give this protection. The ability to keep the source closed means it can be worthwhile forking the code and maintaining it yourself. The BSD license is useful in other ways.
Deleted
gcc did fork, remember egcs? but it is a perfect example for stallman's argument. they eventually merged back together.
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
--
And Justice for None
Do you understand the implications of free software? Licencing something under the GPL implies unlimited technical changes. Hell, I could grab the source to a piece of free software, completely obfuscate and break it, and re-release it as something else.
Of course, no one will dare use it because it holds no merit against the 'better' original package.
If you ask me, the the SCSL is no better than the original QPL, which RMS also denounced. So why are java-heads willing to accept the SCSL? If anything, the SCSL has proven to be slimier than the QPL, because Sun has demonstrated their will with this whole Blackdown fiasco.
The licence may be the focus of this discussion, but the ill-sentiment I have for Sun is not entirely over the bad taste that the SCSL leaves in my mouth. The worst part is what Sun has demonstrated they _will_ do given the opportunity (blackdown) with little to no 'community' consultation.
Sun COMMUNITY source licence.
My arse.
Slashdot has IBM's permission to use the IBM logo. Indeed, as a result of working on this issue just over a year ago, I became IBM's "representative" to slashdot -- my favorite job responsibility.
dave
The Java "compiler" part has been implemented (I helped write it), and is available under a license approved by the Open Source Initiative. The source can be found at: http://ibm.com/developerworks/opensource.
dave
I remember reading the interview with Bill Joy in Linux Magazine a couple months ago, which included discussion of his views on the SCSL vs. GPL licenses. It's been a while since I read it, but I'll summarize as well as I can remember. He stressed the importance of compatibility -- that open protocols and formats are more important than open source code. It's a good point: the most important factor for improving the computing environment for everybody, as well as for preventing monopolistic lock-in effects, is interoperability. As long as the communications protocols, file formats, etc., used by an application are open standards, anyone can make a similar application that uses the same standards, and the applications will be able to work together (share documents, etc.). The actual source code of the original implementation is not necessary. Especially for something like a language implementation, it is essential for all versions to be compatible.
He went further, claiming that the best way to ensure this is for it to be required by the license, and for there to be an authority in charge of making sure that all implementations live up to this requirement. (Sun, of course, volunteers to perform this function.) He considers this an advantage of the SCSL over the GPL, since with the GPL there is nothing to prevent people from making divergent, incompatible implementations, which would lead to a big mess, in which interoperability would suffer.
The counter-argument, of course, is that since the GPL requires modifications to be free, any sufficiently-appealing enhancements in one implementation would be incorporated back into the other versions, keeping them compatible, and enhancements that are not sufficiently appealing would not be a problem anyway, since they would simply be ignored. It was hard to tell whether he failed to get this, or he understood it but did not agree. There were a few comments that seemed to miss the point a bit, but generally it seemed to be the other way. He seemed to believe that the freedom for people to re-integrate each other's changes would not be sufficient, and that there would end up being versions with at least small, subtle incompatibilities, and this would be unacceptable, since even small inconsistencies would be sufficient to turn "write once, run anywhere" into "write once, test/debug/modify everywhere". I don't really know: it does seem to be a valid concern, but then again, you could counter that it's sort of like that already, and that GPL projects do seem to hang together remarkably well in general.
On the other hand, I like RMS's point that "you cannot close them off by denying yourself freedom, any more than you can hide by covering your eyes." That is, even with Sun's licensing policy as it is, nothing stops Microsoft (for example) from making their own version completely from scratch, breaking compatibility by adding their proprietary extensions, and using their weight to push it against Sun's (and other Sun-approved) versions. All Sun could do is stop them from using the trademark. Other than that, the requirement of doing it from scratch would make such an effort more difficult, but not prevent it.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
I doubt RMS wants to destroy Java compatibility. He understands standards, he's been using them for quite some time.
His point, I think, is that companies _will_ market systems which are incompatible, or contain extensions. It's going to happen, because there are companies who can afford to do so, and for whom there would be a benefit. The SCSL is not going to prevent this.
What opening up the Java source would do would be to enable users to make core java compatible with the inevitable incompatibilies. This wouldn't destroy the presence of standards, or even Sun's control over the Java name using conformance tests. But it would help the users work with proprietary extensions _and_ enable useful work to be done.
Look at TeX. The code is open. But to be called TeX, it needs to pass the trip test. As a result of this, we've had substantial third-party (commercial and non-commercial) development done: PDF generation, incremental display, built-in PS interpreters. Would these things have happenned if TeX were as tightly controlled as Java? And have users been hurt? Hardly.
.. there was both commercial gain to be made from the adding of lock-in "features" and the opportunity to keep changes secret. If they had been GPLed then any nifty features of a forked version would have just been back-ported into the main source-tree.
By changing GPL software it's impossible to get a monopoly lock on a market. It may be possible to screw up the standard, or drag it in odd directions, but there's little to be gained there - especially since a re-standardized version can easily be made and distributed.
Funny, I don't see IBM, Red Hat, or Corel complaining when news articles about them contain their logos, do you?
I did not use my Bastard Tongue +1.... check the stats..... I did, however, roll a natural 20 and lop your head off.
I don't know about JavaYou(tm), but JavaMe(tm) thinks that if we(c) just got rid of these trademarks, we(c) would have noproblem.com creating a Free Software(tm) version of Java(tm)(r)(c) which would run perfectly.
We're all human, and we all make mistakes.
It is particularly difficult to be objective when one has made a career largely out of being an ideologue. This is not to say that RMS isn't right about a lot of things, merely to say that it can sometimes be very hard to see outside the box, even when the box is labelled "FREEDOM".
As for the disposition of Java, I's like to see Sun and ECMA make nicey-nicey for the benefit of the language/platform, at least for now. I don't think in this case that GPL is an instant solution -- unless and until there's a standard promulgated by a recognized non-corporate entity, or a maintainer with the stature of Linus T., I think we'd run the risk of seeing Java splintered, forked, whatever.
Pardon me, just my 2 centibucks.
Thanks.
Zontar The Mindless,
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"Well duh, if they're putting thousands of hours into it, they must be stupid to want to be paid to do so."
And this is supposed to be part of an argument *for* the *BSD licenses...?
The answer, of course, is:
"No, they give it away, because they are so altruistic that the only thing they ask for is the same altruism back."
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
And GNU C++ didn't become a reasonably complete C++ compiler years after good commercial implementations were already out there
That's funny. Taking into account that C++ just became a standard, and I still have to see a compiler that implements all the standard library properly.
IMO GCC C++ is one of the better implementations out there that we got faster than many commercial ones (I used all the current versions of Visual Studio, Borland's stuff, KAI and a bunch others..)
Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Huh? How's then my GCC 2.95 code runs faster then
VS6.0 (around 4% faster on PIII, it's a heavy duty simulation library) and support more of all the STL features features I need? Besides being able to compile it for the SPARC and AIX farms with no problems. - Unlike MSVC.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Yeah, maybe I am not on the cutting edge of feature use.. As I have to reuse old C libraries,
nice STL style creeps in slowly. What is a shme IMO.
Still, considering multiplatform support of the g++ it kicks commercial butt pretty hard....
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
I read through the 20 or so comments at JavaLobby. most were against a GPLed Java clone because the GPL allows forking. forking destroys Java's write-once-run-anywhere (WORA) property.
Yes, that explains why the Linux kernel has forked so many times. Oh wait, it hasn't! Gee, what could be going on?
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Open sourcing java and removing the standardization process would aggravate the embrace and extend problem that they are already facing from microsoft
Who said anything about the removing the standardization process? You seem to be a little bit confused about this. What we're hearing now is a lot of key groups expressing intentions to get together and proceed with Java Standardization whether or not Sun cooperates. This could ony be good for Java. As other posters have stated in this thread, we have to keep both Microsoft and Sun from playing their little twisted corporate games, now that we've all been kind enough to consider adopting Java as a standard platform for business computing.
I'd like to make it clear that for years I was an enthusiastic supporter of Sun's stewardship of the Java standard - and this was based on mainly on the quality of the api designs and documentation - but now I, like many others, am pretty much disenchanted with Sun and tend to lump them together with Microsoft in terms of the self-interested games they play.
Sun has to let go of their baby and let it grow up. There chances of being able to win this fight are exactly zero, and the longer it goes on, the more it hurts java. Billg must be very happy about this.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Perhaps Joe Blow Quake Player doesn't care about compatibility, but for any decent MIS department, compatibility and standardization are the foremost concern, because that's the single largest thing you can do to reduce costs.
This is a big reason that Windows and MS Office has been forced onto virtually every corporate desktop. By going with one vendor's end-to-end standard, you radically reduce compatibility problems, and lower costs significantly in the short term. The reason they aren't worried about Unix users' ability to read MS Word docs or IE web sites or Lotus Notes e-mail is because the easiest solution they have is to get rid of Unix.
Now, I'm worried that I might be misread - I'm not advocating a MS or any heterogenous solution by any means. In fact, I tend to agree with the pedantic system analysts that in the long term the solution is open XML document formats and open network protocols. However, that wheel hasn't been entirely invented yet, so in the short term, I sympathize with people's pragmatic concerns.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Maybe, but what if, oh say M$ pumped out a perl implementatio,...
Read the linked article. Stallman addresses your concern directly. He even uses Microsoft as the example case.
Essentially he says it's not a problem because MS's Perl would still be open source, so users' could just fork it back to standard Perl, or take MS's additions and add those to standard Perl. (However, I'm not real familiar with the Artistic Licence, so perhaps MS could close the source. Stallman is of course advocating the GPL.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Many argue that the only reason RMS wants to free Java is so he can fork it. That's rubbish
In fact his point is exactly the opposite. He argues that if (say) Microsoft forked GNU-Java, users could either fork it right back, or take Microsoft's improvements and roll them into other implementations. The result is more compatibility and more features.
Although the folks at javalobby probably don't want to hear it, Java is going to fork eventually. Pretty soon IBM and MS and everyone else is just going to give up on Sun and sell their own version of Sun-"compatible" HotBrownLiquid. If the compatible versions are open source, everyone is better off than if there are proprietary forks.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Furthermore, it's suprising how many Slashdot readers seem to be missing the entire point of reverse-engineering Unix -- Software is supposed to be source compatible with any Unix system.
Indeed, leaving all of the politics aside, one of the biggest real-world freedoms granted by an Open Source Unix platform is that you are not tied to specific hardware, a specific vendor, or even a specific OS kernel. It shouldn't matter if you are running any given Linux or any given BSD OS, because the cost of migrating between them is relatively low.
Instead, around here, it's always Linux versus BSD versus Solaris versus the world. Which I find odd, because considering the tiny market share Unix has on the desktop and low-end servers, it would seem that Unix as a platform should be advocated, not necessarily any specific implementation. The message to the NT-using rest of the world is getting drowned out in the noise of the fraternal politics.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Most of the pro-nonfree posters there Just Don't Get It.
Opening up Java won't destroy the language. If anything it will make sure Java remains compatible across platforms by keeping the standard out of the hands of a single company (whether it be Microsoft or Sun).
Many argue that the only reason RMS wants to free Java is so he can fork it. That's rubbish. The point of a free workalike implementation is to guarantee compatibility irrespective of a single company's shareholders' views.
Take a look at the relationship between Mesa and OpenGL for an example. Although the Mesa project cannot use the word "OpenGL" (big deal), the project is most notable for the fact that it is for all intents and purposes API-compatible with OpenGL. I don't think we'd see Mesa diverging from OpenGL if it wants to maintain its base of develpoers and users.
________________________________
I don't get it. People have bastardized HTML, but more and more you see a trend towards the standard. Conversely, the standard gets richer. I also fail to understand your point about gcc. It has never compiled C++ comments when you turn on `-ansi'.
That doesn't mean adding enhancements is always bad - it's a double edged sword.
Wait, now I understand, Abigail! As long as it's not PERL that's being enhanced, it is just plain wrong! Evil, evil standards-hating mongrels!
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
He has declared that users have four basic freedoms (don't like this? What do you think the Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independance are?). These freedoms happen to be:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
Stallman and all his followers (myself included) have decided that users need to have these rights, and that these rights should apply to all software. Thus we will demand those rights. These demands preclude any IP laws and rights. Period. On a most basic level we do not agree with IP. The fact that they own the trademark is ok, that is fine, but the liscence is just slimy, and as such, there needs to be a replacement, and Sun is at fault and deserves a good sound tongue lashing from Stallman.
Remember, just because it's legal doesn't mean it is good.
Oh yeah, go read over the "why we exist" section on www.gnu.org. It might help you to understand what we stand for.
Jeff
There really is nothing wrong with calling for a boycott. You don't like it, don't participate, but what Amazon.com did was a Very Bad Thing(tm) (hehheh.. sorry, harkening to other debates on this article). What Stallman is doing is the same things as any other political leader has done for any other movement. Ghandi, MLK, both Women's Rights movements, and many many many others. These are common and proven tactics, and I think he's doing what's best for the Free Software Foundation and the movement. Sometimes it is better not to sit back and just be meek; sometimes you need to be outspoken and active to make things change. Stallman is doing this, and I think it is needed. Some companies and people aren't going to be "sold" by a pitch for the GPL. Sun already knows the pitch well (see: SCSL), and they aren't going to change anymore than they have.
Jeff
Jeff
Not relevant, allow me to explain. Stallman and all his followers are not concerned with Sun's bottom line, at least not primarily, now it isn't that we are against money, just it isn't top priority. This is more about user's rights and having a working technology that fulfils it's stated goals (already been discussed how Perl does a better job than Java at being WORA).
At this point, Sun would have to change their business plan, but that's their problem. Show me the (Free) source.
Jeff
Sun releases Java under the BSD liscence (hmm, now where did I get that...).
M$ grabs the source, plays a little game called "Embrace and Extend." Calls their product "COOL." Then, they market it (binary only) as a "Better Java than Java."
Sun get's fscked, hard. M$ get's away with it, totally.
In the current arena, and with the Java product there are players who do not give a flying monkey turd about the community (at the moment, Sun included). This is a situation where the community needs to be enforced.
I care more about the user's rights than the developer's, and that is my underlying assumption. My best shot at yours is that you care about the developer's rights, which would say, "M$ is fine in this situation." Flame me if I have my head up my arse.
Jeff
No idea what you are talking about. I never said anything about "illegal being bad" and I most certainly did not say that the "IP laws are my God." I have no qualms about my mp3 collection.
I really don't know why I bothered with this. Oh well.
Jeff
Did he work with Kernighan and Ritchie? If so, I don't think we can rely on him for a disinterested opinion on liscensing issues. Java will crush their petty C like the bug that we all know it is!
It took Emacs decades to mature. And GNU C++ didn't become a reasonably complete C++ compiler years after good commercial implementations were already out there. Mature C/C++-based GUI toolkits took a few years to come out after mature commercial C/C++ GUI toolkits. Same for free, mature, powerful UNIX-like kernels.
It will take Mozilla quite some time to catch up with Internet Explorer in terms of features and stability. And free versions of Java will likely take years to catch up with Sun Java in terms of features and performance.
And I think there is nothing wrong with that. While it is nice when free software actually is first (and it sometimes is), the utility and importance of free software isn't diminished by coming out later.
Always interesting to get feedback from RMS. This one is real good. Java is a major player in the future of alternative operating systems by giving programmers the ability to code once for many platforms. Java is good, but the license issue is a real problem. As long as the Java license does not conform to free software standards, we will never have a guarantee that we will still be able to use it freely tommorow.
First Toast
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
It's called Jikes, but remember, he did say "the compiler part". The library is something else. There are a couple of open source projects going on to replace the Java libaries, but I don't remember what they're called, or know how far they've gotten.
You could try looking for "classpath" in the list of projects at the FSF, but I don't really remember.
Another option is to start looking at http://www.gjt.org/ and see what you come up with.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The amusing/apalling thing is that given what the stock market has been doing recently that might work!
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
This is evidence of the competing closed-source products and the business practices that drive them, not of a failure on the part of the marketplace to
demand compatibility. The users have no *power* to enforce compatibility if the source is closed. If the source to both browsers were open, I think
RMS would say that the incompatibilities and extensions would be written out or merged. In any case, his point is that the lack of freedom for the
users creates an environment where such incompatibilities can arise.
Sort of like the source code compatibility between linux and *BSD, or between apps written for KDE and GNOME, right? Absolutely... everything in OSS is compatible...
Because some of the changes people would like to make to Java, such as Generic types, are not able to be compiled to Java compatible bytecode.
The point of a free workalike implementation is to guarantee compatibility irrespective of a single company's shareholders' views.
Like the compatibility between Linux/*BSD/every other Unix or the compatibility between KDE and GNOME?
The fact is that WORA is a reality NOW for Java, and those of us who develop in Java don't want to see that stop. Sun is not the only company developing Java. IBM puts more money and people into Java than Sun, and builds better JVM's too, and for a LOT of platforms.
I would have no problem with opening the Java source code for bug fixes, etc, as long as we're guaranteed that anything called "Java" will be compatible. In fact, this is exactly what Sun is doing with the J2SE. As of Feb 1, 2000, the source code will be available with no royalties, etc attached, just compatibility constraints, so go crazy with it and wow us with your super-cool JVM.... nothing could make me happier.
What's going on is that everyone in the linux kernel development community has wanted the same thing, a better Kernel, a better Linux, and for Linux to take over the world.... at least, that is, so far...
What happens when MSLinux comes out? MS will no doubt fork the kernel. They'll add in all kinds of things that Linus and crew will no doubt think is crap, but they'll be able to sell a lot of copies of MSLinux (hell, they might give away free CDs and books!) and get a lot of Linux marketshare because, hey, they're M$ and everyone's heard of them.... they might add a proprietary GUI on top and chuck out X-win...
now you'd have ISV's making apps for MSLinux that aren't compatible with any other Linux. They might do it subtly and slowly, so discrepancies slowly build up, and fracture the Linux market.
The problem here is that the GPL and OSS has never faced this kind of large-scale opposition from a foe willing to fork and sacrifice compatibility. Java has faced such a foe in the first round with M$, and it's still standing.
What happens for Linux when MSLinux comes out? Will it stay together? Will Linus and all be forced to add M$ patches to the kernel to stay MSLinux compatible?
Well, I don't know what you're doing wrong, but it's definitely you, not Java. The level of WORA is incredible in Java, especially considering it's such a full-featured language. I mean really, how's the multi-thread support in Perl? Java is a real, OO language, not a scripting language, and it's the best thing around for cross platform development.
If you really want to see what the Java developer community thinks of these issues, check out some of the discussions that went on in JavaLobby last week:
/., but for those of us who love Java and use it, there's no going back, so we're trying to make the best of what we've got, and what we can get.
Java and GPL
WORA scorecard
CVS for Java2 Standard Edition - Do You Want It?
I know that for some reason, it's not "cool" to like Java on
I read through the 20 or so comments at JavaLobby. most were against a GPLed Java clone because the GPL allows forking. forking destroys Java's write-once-run-anywhere (WORA) property. these commentators at JavaLobby value WORA over freedom. the best single comment is here. (scrolling up and down brings you to the other 19 or so comments.)
Since I was the one who moderated it up to Insightful, let me tell you.
RMS makes the suggestion that GPL'ing at least one Java implementation will allow unlimited compatibility now and forever. After all, if Microsoft changes their JVM or class library, we can just change ours, right? By this same token, if MS changes their OS, why don't we change any of our free OSes to be compatible? Because it's a lot of diffucult work, that's why. Same goes for any other moderatly-complicated software project.
The original poster (rightly) criticized RMS's simplistic viewpoint. He made valid points in rebuttal. That, my friend, is Insightful.
Just because we agree with the Free Software/Open Source view does not mean that we have to blindly follow or agree with RMS's every word. Demagougery has no place here.
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
So /. posters shouldn't be allowed to disagree with Stallman simply because your opinion of him is so great? When posts criticizing Stallman, Linus, ESR and the rest with valid points are considered flamebait, then Slashdot will finally have passed the point of no return. I still maintain that post is insightful, and other moderators seem to agree with me.
How are moderators "elites"? Anyone with positive karma can be a moderator. Make a few quality posts and you might be one yourself tomorrow. Then you can moderate as you see fit.
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
But going beyond the standards can be counterproductive as well. Look at HTML for a prime example. I've also run into cases were I wanted to compile software that claimed to be compilable by "any ANSI compliant compiler", but forgot to mention "as long as the compiler is gcc". It's usually trivial things, (like C++ style comments for instance), but still.
Having development tools add enhancements beyond the standards make it harder to develop programs that are standard compliant - as often things like compilers are the only means the developer is aware off that tests for compliance. (Yes, I am aware of the -ansi switch of gcc. gcc isn't the point, adding enhancements is).
That doesn't mean adding enhancements is always bad - it's a double edged sword.
-- Abigail
I can't say that I agree:
For example, the assertion that "putting users in control" (that is, opening the source, preferably under the GPL) is the best way to assure continued compatibility. I am no philosopher of science, but it seems to me that putting users in control and allowing code forking is to encourage incompatibility. Witness the fate of the BSD's - originally compatible due to their shared code base in BSD4.4, presently incompatible due to different directions in development. And that over a relatively short time span.
BSD is no different than Linux, if not better. Currently there are countless distributions out there for linux, and 3 bsd distributions. "Putting users in control" allows for a larger pool of programmers to participate. When this occurs features can be implimented much faster.
For example, the assertion that "putting users in control" (that is, opening the source, preferably under the GPL) is the best way to assure continued compatibility. I am no philosopher of science, but it seems to me that putting users in control and allowing code forking is to encourage incompatibility. Witness the fate of the BSD's - originally compatible due to their shared code base in BSD4.4, presently incompatible due to different directions in development. And that over a relatively short time span.
For the compatibility id say you are right. What I 'm going to take the con on is about the J2EE specification. If the model is followed there shouldn't be a problem.
Justen Stepka
If sun don't want to release their implementation as open source then that's up to them, they have the freedom to choose under what conditions they provide their work to us, but how could they stop us form implementing the language ourselves and releasing it open source.
I would imagine the compiler would be fairly difficult but it is a nice regular language so shouldn't be impossibly hard and the libraries are a perfect open source project as anyone can contribute different parts.
I can't believe there isn't a project like this already. Is there one that I missed?
Sig is taking a break!
How is BSD "forever free"?
Let's say I have program P licensed under BSD. People contribute code, P excels at it's job, time marches on. People get hit by buses (meaning they leave P-development for whatever reason). Eventually company C has the last remaining copy of P. P is still good, so C compiles it and sells the binaries but keeps the source secret. Uh-oh, P is no longer free.
If P was GPL'd this would not have happened.
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I can see why so many people hate you. Talk about viral. First, my statement are not FUD. Why? Because 1) they are fact and 2) they are not marketing related.
Second, just why can't the BSD license be withdrawn from P? Since "[t]he source is available for you to do whatsover you please with it", what's to stop me from take large (not to say full) portions and incorporate them into my own, non-free application?
And before you respond with comments about "FUD" or how stupid or lame I am, why not go back and copy my example into your next reply? That will make it easier to respond to the actual issues.
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
OK, I am programmer A, I wrote program P under the BSD license. Company C took my code, added some killer features F and released PF under a proprietary license. How was I hurt?
1) Money: I was selling P before, but now everyone buys PF. And I can't add F to P because I have no source code. C benefitted from me, but I didn't benefit in return. Unequal "contract".
2) Respect: Since BSD no longer has the "advertisement clause" (IIRC) no one knows that PF is based on P. *I* may not even know it. Suddenly P is just a "freeware version" of PF. And a shoddy one, because it lacks F.
3) Livelihood/fun: Because of 1 and 2 I no longer want to work on P.
4) Ethics/Morals: We all agree that libre code is a good thing, right? Well here I went and took us down a path that turned P (BSD'd) into PF (proprietary). Whoops, sorry everyone.
In any case, I'm not saying you shouldn't use the BSD (although personally I think it is foolish). What I'm saying is that:
a) Code under the BSD is not "forever free" (your original claim) because it takes no steps to help future iterations. It is only free for it's own lifetime.
b) The GPL does not suffer from that flaw.
c) Despite your inflammatory sloganeering, the GPL is not "viral". It is cooperative.
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
man youre a stupid idiot. there will be no Micro$hit Linux, Unix or anything because of micro$hits binding agreements with SCO...they cant ever compete in the unix market directly.
:-)
Better check your sources before you call somebody a stupid idiot, buddy... true, Microsoft's agreement with SCO prohibits them from directly competing in the UNIX market. However... "GNU's Not Unix"... "Linux is a UNIX-like operating system"... etc, etc...
Linux is not *officially* a version of UNIX, and so therefore Microsoft can sell it if they want to. I think they won't, though, until it's too late - right now the company just doesn't have the mindset to participate in Open Source successfully, and when (and if) they do try, it'll be once they realize they stand no chance against OSS software. By this point it'll be too little, too late, and Microsoft will go the way of... err... I think I'm too young to remember any significant companies going under, so never mind
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
-Linus Torvalds
If GNU/Linux submitted itself for Unix(tm) certification, wouldn't it have to become GIU/Linux ? (GIU Is Unix) :-)
> WORA is a complete myth
Sheesh, how, then, is it that we have 200 000 lines of Java code at our company that runs just fine on Solaris, Windows and Linux? Not a single line of code needs to be changed between these environments?
What you are spreading is FUD. I dispise you for that!
> how do you explain the fact that projects like GCC, GDB, and the Linux kernel have not forked?
Could it be because noone *wanted* to fork them?
The situation for Java is *so* much different, since there is (A) someone that really really wants to fork Java (Microsoft), and (B) the company that wants to fork Java has the distribution channels to drown everything else.
Remember the battle between Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer? Microsoft wanted to split the browser market, if not totally own it. What they did was to create an incompatible product and then put it on all new machines on the planet? What happened? Now they own 65% of the market. An open source version of Netscape wouldn't have saved the situation, since what mattered was that someone else wanted an incompatible product and had the distribution channels to make it flood the world!
The GPL is constantly concerned that someone, somewhere might be coding for profit instead of giving away their labours.
Nobody can logically advocate the BSD license, yet think the only way to benefit from software development is to restrict copying and usage. If you believed that, you'd use a closed license.
I also think that it is logically inconsitent for BSD license advocates to criticize GPL advocates, although the opposite is not true.
Let's start with the GPL position. The GPL advocate thinks software should be free -- always with no exceptions. The restrictions of the GPL are not restrictions at all if you believe this -- its an illusion, mere legal flummery. People should be free to do what they will, because they should be free, not because the license says so. Likewise the "freedoms" of the BSD license are equally meaningless. The freedom to make free software proprietary is a freedom to do what no right thinking person would consider doing.
Now the BSD advocate on the other hand thinks that free software is a good thing, but there are legitimate reasons to have closed licenses (otherwise, the freedom to make closed forks would be pointless). So far I am with them, but to criticize GPL on the basis that it is insufficiently free makes no sense, if it is perfectly OK to take software someone has given you and make a derived work that is completely restricted.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
For pity's sake, GCC wasn't enough? No GCC, no Linux. Period. Never would have happened.
Bison wasn't enough? How man free languages like PHP would exist without Bison? No Bison, and either the developers would waste a lot of time reinventing the wheel, or we'd be stuck with a bunch of recursive descent parsers.
Not to denigrate fetchmail, but you cannot compare it in importance to these; perhaps the only thing that comes close is Perl, or perhaps the Linux kernel. If you have worked on anything even remotely as important I'd be very surprised to hear it.
I'm not sure exactly which projects RMS is working on these days, but if we decided to retire from coding entirely he'd still be a giant in my book. Exactly when can a man start resting on his laurels?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The "ecological niche" didn't exist to be filled yet. GCC created the niche.
I know this seems strange to people these days, but way back in the eighties you routinely got Unix boxen with no development tools at all. The development tools were very expensive add ons.
Maybe Linus could have scraped together the dough and used MKC or Borland C. Would it have taken off with out free developent tools?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Well, your position is certainly an interesting one.
If I understand your point, to deny somebody the opportunity to do something immoral is in itself immoral, because it denies them the chance to choose the side of the angels, as it were. Having been raised RC, I feel some sympathy with this point of view, but I think you have to be careful about how far you apply it. Do you leave your door unlocked so as not to deny the potential burglar the path of virtue?
In reality, under GPL, downstream recipients really still have to make the choice whether abide by the license or not. The license simply makes clear what the intent of the developer is. If you release software under BSDL with the intent that the software remain forever free, you are at least sending some conflicting messages.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Sure, everyone knows that. But would it have gone beyond a small circle of hobbyists without gcc? How about without all the other utilities that use gcc for porting to Linux (perl, apache etc.)?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
cos there are very few software developers who understand the smalltalk language at all. most of us can do C, C++ or Java. Besides, smalltalk is about the most unfriendly language ever developed -- even modula-2 would be a better choice since its pascal like.
I, at least, have been listening to the BSD advocates on Slashdot. They may seem to be a minority but they are getting their message across. From them, I know, that what you say about BSD is completely false. Not only are the BSD's compatible with each other, they are also compatible with Linux, since any BSD can run any other BSD's programs, as well as Linux binaries.
What evidence? The evidence is that I have never once had a problem compiling the very same program between both OpenBSD/Sparc and FreeBSD/Intel. Am I just lucky? Are you just unlucky? Are you really sure about what you just said? Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, and hterefore everything keeps coming out right--or maybe your statement needs retraction or amplification.
I fully agree with Stallman in this issue. Sun created a license to bind everyone who liked the idea of the Java language and use it.
It's interesting to see that Sun saw the great success and power of the GPL and open-source model and perverted the idea mantaining the mark of free.
We can remember this words of Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Is laziness so sweet as to be purchased at the price of the chains of a perverted license? We must follow the idea of Mr. Stallman and create our own version of the Java language GPL'd of course!
"Learning, learning, learning - that is the secret of jewish survival" -- Ahad A'Ham
RMS does much better when he describes the philosophical and technical issues behind his positions. As it is, this article is full of unsupported assertions, questionable facts, and general gobbledygook.
For example, the assertion that "putting users in control" (that is, opening the source, preferably under the GPL) is the best way to assure continued compatibility. I am no philosopher of science, but it seems to me that putting users in control and allowing code forking is to encourage incompatibility. Witness the fate of the BSD's - originally compatible due to their shared code base in BSD4.4, presently incompatible due to different directions in development. And that over a relatively short time span.
Another example, his trust in the market to favour a Java-compatible implementation. As such things go, I doubt that the market would favour any such thing. The most popular pieces of software, word processors and web browsers, are perpetually crippled with respect to backwards and forwards compatibility, much less interoperability. What the market favours is price, availability, and support. Compatibility, it seems, has been left by the wayside. This may be short-sighted, and I believe it is, but RMS may be giving us, as an industry, much too much credit here.
I can only hope that he didn't intend this piece of correspondence for publication. As is the case with many visionaries (and I have no doubt that he is a visionary), he needs to tone down his message to sell it to the masses. Right now, I doubt that anyone is any more sold on open source, and a golden opportunity wasted.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
They run them through binary emulation. By the same token, you could say that Linux on x86 is compatible with old atari systems, merely because an emulator exists. It's clearly not so.
BSD advocates on a public discussion forum are all well and good, but look at the documentation, even the most basic documentation, before you make an assertion. From the OpenBSD FAQ:
1.1 - What is OpenBSD?
The [7]OpenBSD project produces a freely available, multi-platform 4.4BSD-based UNIX-like operating system. Our efforts place emphasis on portability, standardization, correctness, and security. [8]OpenBSD supports binary emulation of most binaries from SVR4 (Solaris),FreeBSD, Linux, BSDI, SunOS, and HPUX.
Oh, and I use OpenBSD as well as Linux. Nice try.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
I disagree.
;-). I don't think that they'd incorporate architectural changes which come from outside their core group (it seems that they've rejected all proposals so far) and the SCSL makes a mockery of open source.
Larry's keeping tight hold of perl (as perl; you're free to reuse anything to do with perl so long as you don't call it perl) for the sake of perl. He trusts his own judgement, in other words, but he's always amenable to new arguments.
Sun, on the other hand, is keeping tight hold of Java as a revenue centre. The good of the application as a functional and usable piece of work comes second, or sometimes not at all, if I can borrow from Austin Powers
I would feel hurt, both emotionally and professionally, if I'd taken Sun's goodwill at face value, like the Blackdown team did. Despite their occasional gesture towards open source, they're Just Another Corporation at heart.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
I don't buy this. Please, you accuse RMS to FUD against Java. Why don't you state where he does this? What do you call FUD here? Is criticizing the position of SUN FUD? Is calling to support a GPL'ed Version of Java FUD? Enlighten me!
Maybe, but what if, oh say M$ pumped out a perl implementatio, added a bunch of keywords, elminated most of the standard modules (replacing them with their own, Windows-specific ones). Then called the product Perl and started selling it heavily.
Of course, we could keep could using 'Wall-style' perl, but I'm sure there would be one or two angry voices voices in the perl community.
In a way, having one strong company with the resources to duke it out with M$ in court was a good thing. It prevent M$ from once again usurping someone else's technology.
Dana
It probably is. It was also illegal to violate Sun's license agreement and claim that their product was Java. But the did.
Does LW have the cash to battle Microsoft's legal department in court?
Dana
I don't think is too worried about other people implementing Java. It's a secondary concern. What there are really scared off (amongst other things) is people changing the language.
M$, for instance, added new keywords to J++ because they didn't like anonymous inner classes. (Apparently, Sun tried the Delegate keyword that M$ added in an early version and didn't like it). On Javalobby this summer, there was a long debate about someone who had created a pre-processor and was trying to add Generic types to the language.
Yes, open source would allow new features to be added quickly, but it's different when you add features to software. Having a bunch of people adding cool new features, or their favourite things from other languages, will break the language specification.
I'm sure Larry Wall keeps a fairly tight fist over what new keywords (not APIs or libraries) are added to Perl, and that is what Sun is trying to do with Java. (That, and make a lot of money...)
Dana
As long as the Java license does not conform to free software standards, we will never have a guarantee that we will still be able to use it freely tommorow
;) It is pretty easy to change anything tomorrow
On the other hand, noone can guarantee that we will be able to use Java freely tomorrow it comes with GPL or alike either
gcc, g++, glibc and Linux have all moved in the direction of standards, either real or de facto. Free software often adds enhancements beyond the standards, but it rarely violates them. It would be counterproductive to do it.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
That's:
#pragma POSIX_ME_HARDER baby
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Shock? No, We'd die of old age. Everyone would try to get the world's first frag in Quake/Java, and some of us would never give up..
Putting my +1 to good use; Overriding a moderator.
.sig: Now legally binding!
I know I'm coming into the discussion late, but the thing I keep seeing from both camps are that...
1. Sun doesn't want to corupt the language.
2. Open Source is the best way to go for stable implementation.
That's great! As long as Sun makes some attempt for a stable, ANSI-ifed specification of Java, then who cares who implements it?! Let Sun have control of the Language Specification. Let the Open Source writers implement it. After all, isn't that how C and C++ came about?
Hey, there. The guy *is* right. Open-source has benefits for developers, but indeed, not for users.
If you want them to start using Linux, you should first start with finding out what they actually want.
Yep, that is the key issue: What do those masses of non-developer users out there want?
Changing the language is not necessarily a bad thing. There's a lot of work going on that adds or changes features in existing languages, trying to make it a better language for a specific purpose. The main thing is that you don't try and market it as the original language.
Make it downwardly compatible, if you can, so that any specification of the new language is a subset of the original, and the only problems you have are when you try and port something to the new.
And if you add new features to the language, make sure people know your code won't run with anyone else's compiler.
And in the case of java, no matter what the input language looks like, or what compiler you use, if you get Sun compatible bytecode out of it, what real difference does it make?
...going on over at JavaLobby, which is where I believe this was first posted.
Check out the jakarta project for a real world example of a large scale Java project that runs on many different platforms/JVMs.
WORA is a myth. I've yet to a Java program of complexity greater than "Hello World" run the same way on two different VMs. Currently perl is more WORA than Java is.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
First, I loved programming C for DOS,
then I loved programming C++ for *NIX,
then I hated programming C for *NIX,
then I hated programming C++ for Windows.
Now I love programming Java and I couldn't care less what platform I program for.
I have the right to make a profit? cool.
I declare that I am doing you a service by
replying to you. I have a RIGHT to make a
profit.
Please contact me about where I can send you my
bill. To make it truely my right to profit, I
will charge you $10,000 for this reply.
I also have some rocks I would like to sell. If
you don't buy them then you are violating my
right to profit.
I am charging $1000 each for the smooth rocks
and $500 each for the brown rocks.
Please place your order now or you will be hearing
from my lawyer.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Stalinist socialism is an oxymoron.
Socialism is a system where the workers own the
means for producing goods and hold political
power
Stalins system was a system where workers did
the work for producing goods, but stalin held all
the power.
hardly equivalent. GPL is a very socialist idea.
The workers (coders) do the work, they share in
the product of the work (the code). Whoever does
the work makes the decisions (holds the power)
and of course anyone who needs the code, then
shares in the fruits of their labor.
nice system...be nice if all industries worked
that way.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
How this AC's little rant hasn't been moderated down to "Flamebait", I don't know...
Anyhow, think of it this way. I'm not a big Java person, but some of my close friends are, and already I've seen evidence of some nasty incompatibility problems as one moves across platforms. With a proprietary implementation of Java, there is no way to get a guaranteed fix-- you're simply at the mercy of the people who made the implementation (here, Sun). But if you find a problem with a free software implementation, well, you just ask the folks who wrote it, and if they're not willing to fix it, you fix it yourself. Or you persuade a friend to do it. Or you persuade some guy on IRC to do it. Whatever. The point is that proprietary software makes you completely dependent on somebody else, whose motives are not compatibility and quality but profit and more profit. It makes you powerless, and thus, it's a Bad Thing(TM).
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
One thing to bee aware of. RMS takes one extreme end of the argument whereas Sun will take the opposite. In the end we'll find, like every other argument, the resolution will lie in the middle. Kinda like a bell curve.
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
That, however, was an entire different world of computing. In those days no individual could ever own an entire computer, and the software was a far smaller proportion of the cost of purchasing/leasing and operating a computer.
If you're going to refer to that as the "good old days" you'd better get ready for people who suffered through those days to pound you into the dust with their walkers and canes.
An infinite amount of zero is still zero. ESR has 'credibility' for a small group of randomly bunched-together ideologues. His writing and analysis don't stand up at to real Peer Review. He's an intellectual midget whose 'act' only works when he can dominate the entire stage.
Peer review, incidentally, is an academic tradition that implies a cost-of-entry to get onto the review board (Academic credentials, earned standing in an intellectual community.) Credibility that dilettantes and misfits like ESR and just about any other "hacker" I can think of can't earn by merely sitting down in the computer lab in the basement of the Physics building and plonking away at code.
The "peer review" process in Computer Science involves intellectual giants like Andrew Tannenbaum and Donald Knuth, and many other people who devote many years to real research. Eric just ain't it.
Actually, Linus used Minix, and Minix includes it's own C compiler which is completely non-GNU in nature.
Actually, the "everyone belongs to everyone else" philosopy implied in the GNU concept of software is more Huxleyan (i.e. "Brave New World") than Orwellian.
You're forgetting that almost the only thing Scott McNealy has going for him in life is that he's a skilled businessman and a hockey player.
He has almost no intellectual weight at all when it comes to technical matters. But RMS would be a big red streak on the floor in a matter of seconds.
One of the poster boys of 'implicit standards' software is the GNU C compiler.
It "complies" with the standards where it sees fit (it 'embraces' the standard), and it thumbs it's nose at the standards where the GCC maintainers figure they can do better than the standards (it 'extends' the standard).
Embrace and Extend.
You bring up an important point that few Free Software people ever really understand.
The high quality of proprietary software products like IE are based on their commercial success. The quality is "do or die" and if it dies, nothing remains.
The high quality of 'free' software, on the other hand, is based on however much time people feel like working on the code. The quality is "do, or 'later, man; pass the bong, willya'."
Why is the above marked flaimbait! It's the guy's honest opinion. Whether you agree with it or not is another matter, but not your right to moderate it down!
No, you're wrong: here's why:
Stallin's socialism was mandated, required. You had no choice. Not to mention that punishment for standing up to him meant death.
GPL is voluntary. You don't like it, don't use it (and you won't die).
Indeed, this is where I have a problem with RMS trying to sell it as perfect for everything. It's not. It's wonderful if you want to do it. If you don't, don't. But I'm starting to get the feeling that RMS is going down a slippery slope of "everything GPL good, everything else bad".
I truly admire what RMS has done in the past. Emacs, GPL (truly a thing of beauty), and the entire GNU project in general.
/. postings are any evidence, there are thousands of RMS followers that will jump to action over anything he says. That scares me, especially now that he's showing signs of using his power in a hardcore political fashion, rather than selling GPL on the strengths of truth an beauty.
However, I sincerely wish that he'd stop the FUD. As a visionary, I believe that he has a responsibility to try and be above the rest of us -- to be clear, calm, a master of self control, a Jesus figure if you will. But lately he has been doing what I consider "mean" things: calling for a boycott of Amazon, throwing FUD up against Java.
Now, whether Amazon or Sun deserve it is besides the point. He should be taken a more careful, thoughtful position.
Maybe it's that I'm starting to get the sense of hatered coming from him lately, and that saddens me. I'd much rather see a person that I'm following be gentler, calmer. Instead, he's becoming political and using his power to hurt.
Case in point is the Amazon lawsuit. Now, first, I HATE that Amazon is sueing over it's one click patent. However, they do have a legal right to enforce their (crappy) patent. The right way for this to fall out is in the court system. I hope they lose. But RMS's call for boycott really bothers me -- I'd much rather that he'd reiterated his stance on the enforcement of patents and stated that he was disturbed by the Amazon lawsuit.
I'm also worried that there are too many blind RMS followers out there. If
With regards to java, it seems that sun has every right to do with it as they please. The wrote it, they have a copyright on it. I wish that RMS would say things like "I really wish that sun would GPL Java, but of course it's their right to do what they wish and I respect that".
Contrary to what many seem to feel here, TELLING companies to GPL things and boycotting them when they don't is NOT truth and beauty. Asking them calmly and with an understanding ear for why they may seem put off by the notion of giving away their IP is the right way to go about it, IMNSHO.
Well, sorry for running off at the mouth. This whole turn of events just makes me sad.
Icon for Java actually looks like slop-pail -- anyone has better image?
Watch out now! You know the number! I can hear them meeces comin, oh yes I said, I can hear them meeces comin, ohoo-oh yeah! Them meeces are a comin down the road!!! -- A deranged, sickened, Jimi Hendrix wanna-be :)
:)
Please dont hurt me
Dilbert: I have become one with my computer. It is a feeling of ecstacy... the blend of logic and emotion. I have reached...
"As long as Sun uses a license that does not permit unlimited technical changes, it will remain unacceptable, and we will keep on building our replacement."
This is the very reason I would object to Sun releasing any of their code. I do not want anyone changing the Java implementation or APIs. I do not want broken but GPL'd packages. I want all of the functionality that Sun has given me, and I want the massive head start they have. I want them to have sole control because there's only "one" of them making changes to the code, not 1000 crack-addled monkeys thinking up "neat" extensions to the language that breaks software.
Oh, another thing :
"So I suggest you start planning for a world in which you, the users of Java, maintain compatibility where you want it through your own free choice, rather than by asking Sun to impose it."
It is best to assume the user is an idiot. This keeps your programs sane, and gives a sane interface to the user. I'll admit to being both a user and an idiot.
The last time I checked, Sun sure didn't charge anything to use their compiler or classes or virtual machines... And they didn't even ask us to help them develop anything. Quite nice of them. They are entitled to their property, and they've been nice enough to make the end tools free. Heck, a lot of people go out and buy compilers! And operating systems! They must be mad! Er, or perhaps those are just opinions in your pocket...
Though the points I'm making are valid: closed (or very tight) control of standards is important to software, and that while it is possible for a user to monkey around with open source software, large projects (such as this) are impossible for any one person to play with and reasonably use.
I can monkey around with the code to Linux, but I wouldn't want to try to fix or change something potentially important in it. It's not worth my time. I think the open source advocates make a mistake in claiming that as beneficial.
I think we can agree that more people use java (applets on web or applications) than use linux. I would propose that there is a proportionally smaller group that would want to fiddle with the guts of Java (not write programs in it) than the numerous people who have supported Linux, and created quite a nifty operating system. One whose growth and modification is tightly controlled.
I think that anyone outside of Sun, or groups not working in close support with Sun are wasting their time on a GPL'd java-like language if they intend it to replace Java. It's great if they want to noodle around with it as a hobbyist, but naive to try and replace it, simply because it hasn't got a license you like.
I am glad that someone like RMS exists. He says a lot of things that need to be said. I even agree that open sourcing the java standard library might be a good thing and the JVM for that matter. However by not charging for them they might not be able to adequately fund their testing process or survive in the face of the rest of their business model crumbling.
My objection was to the blanket statement made at the conclusion of his point of view article that java should permit unlimited technical changes.
Java's future is rocky enough as it is without worrying about 2 dozen incompatible environments (having both the Sun and MS schools of thought is bad enough)
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
Now I love open source and free software as much as the next guy, and while Sun's decision to pull Java out of the standardization process kind of pissed on my cornflakes, I can take it in stride.
But whats with RMS's insistance that open source will fix every ill known to man? Open sourcing java and removing the standardization process would aggravate the embrace and extend problem that they are already facing from microsoft.
Every little embedded java implementor would go off and add little extensions to improve their implementation and it would fragment into a ton of insular groups each convinced that their way is the right way, like early c compilers.
Java's licensing is all about maintaining a portable compatible development environment. I agree their methodology is a little flawed, but throwing standardization to the wind is not IMNSHO a good policy.
If you want to implement your non-Sun 'java' implementation, go ahead, just don't call it 'Java' and you can change until your heart's content.
I suppose open sourcing java itself wouldn't be all that bad from a bug-fix standpoint, but RMS's call for 'permitting unlimited technical changes' is opening a can of worms that Sun (understandably) would rather keep well sealed.
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
A couple of years ago some Swedish guys implemented a basic quake engine in pure java, as an applet. You could walk around dm2 with a reasonable framerate, and they promised you'd get proper gameplay, including weapons and other players, in the next release - but I belive ID made them cease-and-desist, as they were using ID's textures, maps and models.
I can't get the darn thing to work through the firewall, but (if you have a JIT enabled) take a look at :
http://hem.passagen.se/carebear/fraggame.htm
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
-------------------------
-------------------------
"People ask FAQs all the time". - David Allen
I like how he can write a single page analysis of a situation that pretty much wraps his opinion up without a lot of filler or posturing.
Not that I wouldn't mind seeing RMS go up against Bill Joy or Scott McNealy in person.
Dress 'em in gasmasks and jock straps, and tour them with wrestlemania. Winner fights Bill Gates at the end of the tour.
I'd pay to see that.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
RMS was asked, and he answered. In a single, clearly worded page.
As others have said, without RMS, there would be...well, apple and microsoft.
Insightful. Of course, but only in the sense that "Moderators are competent". Moderation has always been wrong, it was a mistake.
It splintered off a group of elites, and isolated/removed a lot of quality posts.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Step 1) Take one of the current GPL Java implementations (Kaffe, Japhar, etc).
Step 2) Rename the implementation to "JLinux++"
Step 3) Advertise it as a Linux-friendly J*v*-alike.
Step 4) IPO (Linux baby! Yeah!)
Step 5) Take the $5 billion in capital from step 4 and buy Sun.
Step 6) Put the Java trademark on your implementation and forget Sun ever existed.