User: tromey

There is no controversy

On: OpenOffice 2.0 Criticized on Use of Java

The press always likes to talk about controversies and conflicts, but in this case there really isn't one.

OO.o helped out getting rid of non-portable java constructs in their code.

Red Hat hackers and other fixed some gcj and classpath bugs revealed by OO.o.

Now it all works.

Much easier than it seems

On: Java Fallout: OO.o 2.0 and the FOSS Community

Apparently mere mention of "java" makes people go insane.

OO.o 2.0 is already working on free JVMs. FC4 is shipping this, along with Eclipse, Tomcat, and a ton of other stuff. We've got jonas running as well, just not quite ready to ship.

Free Java Developer's Perspective

On: Sun's Simon Phipps Answers ESR On Java

Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time
implementing Free Java:

It would be convenient if Sun released all their
source under a free or open license. That would
be a huge help, it would really speed things along.

It isn't really necessary, however. The necessary
parts are much smaller.

First, access to the TCK would be very useful.
To my knowledge no free implementation has ever
been run against the TCK; Sun has not ever made
it available under terms acceptable to free
software developers. (E.g., requiring a Sun
license or otherwise making us give up our
"cleanroom" status is not acceptable.)

Second, allowing Free Java developers to participate
in the JCP would be nice. My understanding
is that there are still legal barriers making
this inadvisable.

Finally, it would be useful if Sun recognized
the reality of free software development,
namely that we are likely to have to subset
the platform temporarily, simply due to lack
of manpower to implement the whole thing in
one big release.

Generally speaking, Sun has done a pretty good
job of stewardship, and things move closer to
openness every year. There's just a few short
steps remaining.

Some gcj facts

On: Java Native Compilation Examined

Some facts about gcj and the IBM article.

• They tested an old version of gcj. gcj 3.1 beats the Sun and IBM JDKs on SciMark. It also wins on the "primes" test once you change it to use int and not long; this is a known gcc weakness.
• In general we haven't done a lot of performance tuning. There is still a lot of room for us to improve.
• You can see a much better (IMHO) comparison of gcj with other VMs here.
• Contrary to what one poster said, my understanding is that gcj has better I/O performance than the Sun JDK.
• It is true that gcj is missing AWT (though much progress has been made on that front recent, we still aren't there) and some other things. However, it is still useful for many things.