IBM Collaborating With Open Source Java Project

lord_rob the only on writes "According to news.com, IBM has begun participating in the open-source Java project Harmony and intends to contribute code to the initiative, according to a Big Blue executive. At this point, IBM's participation is limited to thoughts on design, but the company has plans to contribute code to the project in the future." From the article: "We really like to see the community get started, and they're still working out the rough edges of what they want to deliver. And we didn't want to disrupt that,"

Eclipse?

[VolciMaster (821873)]

This should line up with their efforts with Eclipse, too. I might get into a little Java programming if the environment were open-source.

Re:Eclipse?

[Rhoon (785258)]

I always thought Eclipse was open source... I could be wrong on that. I do however hope they plan on making the Java Doc inside the code better than Eclipse's piss poor attempt(was there even an attempt?). There wouldn't be a need to write tutorials on how to use the SWT/JFace APIs if the Java Doc was complete... or even there in some cases.

Re:Eclipse?

[LDoggg_ (659725)]

Eclipse is indeed open source.
In fact, fedora core 4 comes with a natively compiled version of eclipse and a 100% open source jvm implementation.
Still needs quite a bit of work, but has definetly come a long way

Re:Eclipse?

[superpulpsicle (533373)]

Need I mention the Eclipse that natively comes with Fedora redhat core4 crashes the OS immediately on execute. So many forums out there cover the hardcore details. To sum it up, Fedora core grows faster than people can test it. It's becoming M$-ish buggy.

Re:Eclipse?

[delire (809063)]

I'll say it again. Fedora will always be buggy, unstable and untested. That is what it was designed to do, serve as a community testing ground for products and services that may or may not make it into the commercially supported enterprise editions.

Redhat themselves are very clear about this on the Fedora project page [redhat.com]

Stop complaining about Fedora and get a tested, 'stable', desktop focussed distribution. Most importantly, stop encouraging those new to Linux to try it.

Re:Eclipse?

[LDoggg_ (659725)]

Crashes the OS?

I have found it to be too buggy to use for java at work, so I'm still doing most development using regular eclipse on top of the Sun jvm.
Never had it crash the entire OS.

Only played a little with the c++ dev environment, so I can't vouch for stablility there.
I am looking forward to trying out native eclipse to do some php development once phpeclipse.sourceforge.net upgrades to the 3.1 eclipse version from 3.0.x

Re:Eclipse?

[LDoggg_ (659725)]

I agree. Fedora splits up java stuff in different places and puts the java executable in /usr/bin. To override this you need to put JAVA_HOME/bin before it in your PATH.
If the whole thing was somewhere like in /usr/local/gpl_jdk then you could just have a symlink for it as /usr/local/java and also have things like /usr/local/jdk1.4 and /usr/local/jdk1.5 in there.
PATH could then just include /usr/local/java/bin and you could easily switch JVMs just by changing the symlink.

Re:Eclipse?

[halivar (535827)]

I might get into a little Java programming if the environment were open-source.

Why wait when Mono is open-source and C# kicks ass? I say this having done both server and GUI Java development for 5 years, and a having been a very vocal detractor of C# at its inception, until I finally tried it out.

Try Mono; I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Eclipse is Open Source

[Nailer (69468)]

And can be built and run on a completely OSS Java stack using GCJ, thanks to the work of a whole bunch of guys at Red Hat.

It ships with Fedora Core 4 as the main IDE and Red Hat sells commercial support for it as Red Hat Developer Suite.

Re:Eclipse?

[bluGill (862)]

I'm a programmer. I've been burned by bugs in my tools before. Sure MOST bugs are my fault, but once in a while I'm pretty sure it is the tool's fault. With open source I can fix those bugs and move one. With closed source I'm at the mercy of vendors who rarely care about my project.

Then too, a lot of documentation is bad. Either it doesn't exist, or the program doesn't work like the docs say. The source code is definitive about what is really going to happen, and I can read it. IF you are not a programmer it doesn't matter because you can't read the source, but I can, so it matters.

Re:Eclipse?

[Mr. Shiny And New (525071)]

The source code for the Java API is available, but not with a Free license. It ships with every JDK. What's not available is the JVM source... at least, also not with a Free license. But I've been programming Java for years and rarely look at the API source, and have never needed the JDK source.

Re:Eclipse?

[evilpenguin (18720)]

There is an open source C#. Take a look at Mono [mono-project.com], which is a completely open source CLR and C# compiler. They have implemented most of .NET (although not the Windows GUI, they have a GTK GUI which also runs on Windows, so you can write C# on *nix and run them on Windows directly).

I have read that Mono is complete enough to run VB ASP.NET applications natively on a *nix box. (But not VB GUI apps since they don't have the Windows GUI classes implemented).

As for "Open Source" bias, it ranges from a politica

Re:Eclipse?

[Pxtl (151020)]

Simple - what happens if the platform goes away? What happens if microsoft moves away from .NET, and you want to move to a new platform (PowerPC for example). Hell, what happens if 20 years from now you find you need an old tool you made in C#? Will it still work? Will there be a compatible .NET run-time for 256-bit computers?

Part of the commercial reason to use opensource is to future-proof yourself against long-term eventualities like this. If Java decides to stop letting you bundle the JVM with your OS, then you can't provide OpenOffice anymore without paying them. If MS stops supporting a platform, then you're screwed if there's an unworkable bug and you're stuck on the platform.

Fundamentally, when you invest labour on designing products and infrastructure based on a closed-license platform, you gain fealty to them. They now control you - they can make you lose the use of the product of your labour. They can stop providing their product, they can refuse to fix un-workaround-able bugs, or they can just go out of business and leave you high and dry.

With opensource, you can lose your support provider, but you can never lose the platform - at worst, you may have to maintain it yourself.

Yes, you may even have a solid, bullet-proof contract with your provider - but what happens when they go out of business?

Do you know how to read?

[brunes69 (86786)]

Simple - what happens if the platform goes away? What happens if microsoft moves away from .NET, and you want to move to a new platform (PowerPC for example).

Who gives a crap - I have never touched the Microsoft .Net runtime. You don't need Microsoft anything to run or use Mono.

Hell, what happens if 20 years from now you find you need an old tool you made in C#? Will it still work? Will there be a compatible .NET run-time for 256-bit computers?

You re-compile Mono for the 256 bit computer?

it is cal

Re:Eclipse?

[A.K.A_Magnet (860822)]

Grandparent said it, he (as well as many) support the Free Software philisophy, it's not the same thing as OpenSource (which is more a label aimed at entreprises).

Each and every free software activist want the opening of ALL source code, no matter if they're actually wanting to have a look at it. As one of many, I don't see any area where I woudln't free my code, but unlike some, I can understand that resources may be non-free (e.g, in a videogame, while the engine should be free, say dual licenced GPL /

Talk about fragmenting the standard...

[jarich (733129)]

Sun's reasoning for not open sourcing Java is that they didn't want to fragment the Java language with competing verions of Java.

Looks like ~not~ open sourcing Java is fragmenting the Java language after all!

Re:Talk about fragmenting the standard...

[ballstothat (893605)]

I completely agree with Sun's stance on not fragmenting their code. While their licensing isn't agreeable, there are millions of java powered items out there. If Java turned into a bunch of different flavors (insert mocha, vanilla, hazelnut joke here), then it would be a headache.

The JRE for Windows XP is already 15.4 MB. If there was 5 different REs that I had to download to use all the Java flavors, that wouldn't be cool.

I feel that Sun's thinking is sound from a business and usefulness perspective, even if it is starting to backfire.

Re:Talk about fragmenting the standard...

[Linus Torvaalds (876626)]

Talk about missing the point!

The person you are replying to was pointing out that Sun's stance causes fragmentation of the Java platform.

Pointing out that Sun not wanting to fragment the Java platform is entirely beside the point. The best thing they could do to avoid fragmentation would be to make their implementation open-source. Anything else, and it will force many people to create new implementations rather than use Sun's.

Re:Talk about fragmenting the standard...

[luiss (217284)]

This project is implementing a Java Virtual Machine. How in the world does this fragment the Java Language any more than let's say Apple or IBM's many JVM implementations?

Now, if Harmony intends to "extend" the Java Language by lets say, adding new keywords, just as Microsoft did with J++ at one point, then you can start worrying about Java Language fragmentation (in which case Sun would not allow Harmony to call itself a Java(TM) Virtual Machine).

No, you're not quite right.

[by Anonymous Coward]

If you'll look at harmony's website [apache.org], you'll see that they aren't just implementing the Java Virtual Machine as you put it. They are implementing J2SE. J2SE is not just a language. It is a platform.

Platform fragmentation is as, or more important than, language fragmentation*. A language cannot stand alone. You need libraries. Platform fragmentation is what Sun is worried about right now, not language fragmentation. The JVM is not even part of the "open source java" debate, since open source JVMs already exi

Re:Talk about fragmenting the standard...

[Jason Earl (1894)]

No matter how compliant Harmony purports to be it is still going to be different than Sun's JVM. Any sysadmin that has ever had to juggle multiple JVMs can tell you that Sun's Write Once Run Anywhere motto can quickly become Write Once Debug Everywhere.

It's also entirely possible that Harmony won't even try for complete compliance. Don't forget that IBM is still pushing their non-Java SWT instead of Swing. Red Hat already has its own Java stack that's good enough to run most Java Free Software (including Eclipse), but no one is pretending that it's Java.

Sun has stated that it doesn't want to "free" its J2SE stack because it is afraid that source availability would lead to forks. However, no fork of Sun's code is likely to diverge from Sun's fold as much as a completely new Free Software Java-like implementation.

Re:Talk about fragmenting the standard...

[Knome_fan (898727)]

"No matter how compliant Harmony purports to be it is still going to be different than Sun's JVM. Any sysadmin that has ever had to juggle multiple JVMs can tell you that Sun's Write Once Run Anywhere motto can quickly become Write Once Debug Everywhere."

But this is a general problem of having different JVMs. So now also having one that is open source doesn't change the situation in any way.

"It's also entirely possible that Harmony won't even try for complete compliance. Don't forget that IBM is still pus

Re:Talk about fragmenting the standard...

[Knetzar (698216)]

I don't think IBM would try and include SWT instead of Swing, but they might try and include SWT in addition to Swing.

Neat

[by Anonymous Coward]

There's been this interesting and very quiet power struggle within the JCP between Sun and IBM. IBM keeps wanting to assert influence over Java and grow the language/platform in ways that they think would be good. Sun keeps trying to simultaneously

1. keep IBM from taking the language in directions other than Sun wanted to take it in, and
2. make the JCP a democratic and open process whereby any involved company can take the language in any direction they want.

This isn't because Sun is evil or malicious or anything; they're just confused about what they want. They honestly want Java to be an open, democratic standard, and they honestly want to control it.

The "control it" side of things keeps winning, because in the end Sun makes the JVM so they can technically decide what goes in and how it gets distributed.

This is why I think Harmony is interesting. Sun will no longer control the only good JVM, and if Sun can't stay at least as good as Harmony, then Sun will no longer control the primary JVM. This makes the JCP's democratic ideals a lot more attainable because Sun's just lost their biggest degree of control. IBM trying to weigh in on the side of Harmony, given this context, makes a LOT of sense. They can begin to grow the language how THEY wanted again.

This is going to be good for IBM, good for open source, and in the long run good for Sun once they realize that trying to control Java too much isn't really in their best interest.

Re:Neat

[mpcooke3 (306161)]

because in the end Sun makes the JVM

This is something I confess to not really understanding. The IBM java SDK is as good as the Sun one (probably the only other full fast implementation) why don't they release this as open source. I'd always presumed they couldn't open source is due to Java trademark rules but then if harmony is allowed to do it that can't be the reason.

Or does the IBM Java SDK contain code they don't own and they can't be bothered to rewrite it?

Re:Neat

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

A Java implementation comes in two parts. Part 1 is the JVM. Sun have one, IBM have one, and there are a few others. This is the (comparatively) easy part. Part 2 is the huge class library. Java is a platform - people writing Java code expect everything in the class library to be available. Currently (at least, last time I checked) everyone who distributes Java distributes Sun's implementation of the standard class library (possibly modified slightly at the edges for platform integration).

If IBM ha

Re:Neat

[mpcooke3 (306161)]

Thanks, I didn't realise that IBM were redistributing SUNs libs. That would certainly explain the mysterious licensing restrictions!

Re:Neat

[danme (144941)]

>>Sun will no longer control the only good JVM, and if Sun can't stay at least as good as Harmony, then Sun will no longer control the primary JVM.

How does this differ from the incompatible Java framework released years ago by Microsoft? If Harmony takes "the lead" - will it be possible that it can be taken to court by Sun? Or is it simly because of the monopoly market situation that Microsoft is and were in?

Making assumptions

[Geek Dash Boy (69299)]

I was beginning to doubt that Harmony would ever get out of the starting gate, but with IBM cracking the whip, maybe they have a chance.

There has been some backlash over the way the Harmony project is being managed, some of it kinder [pastiche.org] than others [jroller.com].

Personally, I agree with Charles Miller - start the project with some working code. down the road, you may have to refactor, but that's a part of software development.

so?

[ThatGeek (874983)]

"IBM's participation is limited to thoughts on design, but the company likely will contribute code to the project".

I put this through BabelFish's translator. Apparently, this could be taken to mean:

"A big company is going to do little to help out, but is willing to share credit for an open source project."

Me? cynical? Never!

What about GCJ?

[AnuradhaRatnaweera (757812)]

After the FSF call for volunteers [fsf.org], GNU Java compiler / VM has come of age [newsforge.com]. It was reported here [slashdot.org], too. RedHat Fedora Core 4 even includes a native version (doesn't depend on JVM, but runs as a "normal" binary) of Eclipse, compiled with GCJ.

Swing?

[ravenspear (756059)]

GCJ still only provides limited support for Swing. I don't think it can be said that it has "come of age" until that support is there in a form that at least remotely resembles javac.

Re:Swing?

[Jason Earl (1894)]

If you are willing to forgo Swing and use SWT then GCJ is a pretty compelling choice.

And Harmony is?

[gorbachev (512743)]

Some sort of Open Source dating service?

in summary:

[nickos (91443)]

IBM says "this is what we want, now get on with making it for us".

Here we go

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

The Richard Stallmans of the world have long wanted Java to be an open source language, while Sun Microsystems has said that they want to be the single point of control for the language. The biug lawsuit between Sun and Microsoft was about Microsoft making unauthorised changes to the language spec. Through the Java Community Process, Sun has allowed developers at large to make suggestions and improvements to the language if Sun approved of them. Sun controls the specification of the language and the reference JVM implimentation. The battle isn't about the JVM being open source, it's about the language specification. Sun's fear is that by opening the specification, someone's going to say "You know, I've always felt the language should have pointers", and the language will fall into Creeping Featurism the way C++ did. The recent (1.5) introduction of template-like behavior, at the demands of the "more features" crowd is already a step in that direction. No matter how you slice it, it seems we're doomed to a Java with more and more new features (remove run-time array bounds checking for performance, anyone?) and more and more fragmentation.

A question about Java

[bogaboga (793279)]

Can someone inform you why SUN will not allow Linux distros distribute java? I know it about licensing but what is the logic behind this? If I were SUN, the distribution of java could only be good news as this would enable java spread...and this can only be good news...because it definitely helps popularize java and increases the potential for sales of other services based on java.

That is how MS-word became popular since M$ allowed Word to be pirated. The same applied to Windows.

Re:A question about Java

[by Anonymous Coward]

Can someone inform you why SUN will not allow Linux distros distribute java? I know it about licensing but what is the logic behind this?

The last thing Sun wants is Linux distros being competitive. The "let's support Linux" war was lost at Sun a couple of years ago... Java and its licensing is a weapon in that war. Why make it possible for Linux distros to legally distribute Java easily when it would take sales/support money away from OpenSolaris? *That's* why an open source Java is needed... or prefera

Re:A question about Java

[bogaboga (793279)]

> I don't understand why you try to make a connection to spreading java by including it in a distro and spreading windows by pirating it. It's not the same thing. I have java on my linux system and I got legally from Sun's webpage.

The concept was about "spreading" a piece of software...not the concept of pirating vs legally obtaining a software.

But I understand your point and totally agree with it.

Sun, IBM, and Compatibility.

[reporter (666905)]

According to "Sun Lashes Out at Open Source J2SE [vnunet.com]", Sun hates the Harmony project.

Yet, IBM loves it and is now, apparently, committing to it. Once IBM backs an open-source product (e.g. Linux) and ships it to customers, then IBM ensures that the product performs flawlessly. Who can doubt that IBM is a significant contributor to the high-reliability of today's Linux build? The strength of IBM is its commitment to its customers.

What is interesting is that, from a business perspective, there is no need for Harmony to be fully compliant with Sun's closed Java standards. The route to divergence is to (1) define a new language called "Harmony", (2) place it with a standards body, (3) maintain full compatibility with only the current version of Java (in order to support all of IBM's current customers and developers) but deliberately diverge from compatibility for future versions of Java, (4) arrange for IBM to jettison use of future versions of Java and to fully utilize Harmony, (5) generously borrow the best concepts from Java while ensuring that the word "Java" is never used (in order to avoid a lawsuit), and (6) build support for Harmony in GCC. This strategy could work.

C# is a ripoff of Java and is quite popular.

There is nothing magical about the Java name. Just consistently use the name, "Harmony", on this proposed Java variant. Everyone will know that "Harmony" is Java -- plus additional stuff. Even if "Harmony" is only 98% compatible with future versions of Java, "Harmony" could grab the software development if the open-source community backs it.

Re:Sun, IBM, and Compatibility.

[braindead (33893)]

What is interesting is that, from a business perspective, there is no need for Harmony to be fully compliant with Sun's closed Java standards. The route to divergence is...

I think that full compliance is important. There's a world of difference between getting people to use a new VM for an existing language, and proposing a new language.

If Harmony is a fork of Java, then I want nothing to do with it.

Harmony

[kevin_conaway (585204)]

And for those of us who don't read the article and don't know what Harmony is:

Harmony [apache.org] is the Apache Foundations project to create an open source edition of Java SE (Standard Edition).

Cue SCO

[jdavidb (449077)]

Good. This way a few years from now, SCO, or whoever else has bought the rights to the decrepit old proprietary UNIX I mean Java codebase can sue IBM for allegedly contributing code they didn't have the rights to to Harmony.

I mean, nobody could build a Java virtual machine without copying code, right? That would be an impossible superhuman feat!

Bad sign for Sun

[0xABADC0DA (867955)]

I think this is a very bad sign for Sun, because it sound to me like IBM hedging its bets for what might happen if Sun is bought out or sells Java. IBM's java virtual machine is based on Sun code, so if Sun sells the rights to Java then IBM is beholden to somebody else (maybe even Microsoft, who would buy Sun just to finally kill Java). As sad as it is to say, I think IBM sees the writing on the wall that Sun just doesn't seem like the reliable bet these days.

Re:IBM could create Harmony overnight

[psykocrime (61037)]

IBM already has a complete JDK which actually used to be much better than Sun's in terms of efficiency etc. (not sure how it compares right now). They could just release the whole thing as F/OSS under the new JCP rules, and create Harmony overnight. Why have they not done this yet?

Because IBM's JDK wasn't written from scratch. It's based, to some degree, on Sun's code. I don't know how much Sun code is in IBM's JDK, or the exact details of the license between Sun and IBM, but I know IBM's JDK is subject to Sun licensing.

Re:IBM could create Harmony overnight

[dudeman2 (88399)]

I believe you are correct, IBM's JDK was not a clean-room implementation - it owes a lot to Sun's JDK. IBM is bound by their licensing agreements with Sun, and the IBM developers that worked with Sun JDK source code are likely 'tainted' enough so that they cannot now work on a clean room implementation.

Re:IBM could create Harmony overnight

[TerrapinOrange (805326)]

IBM's JVM is based on Sun's. They may be able to contribute bits and pieces, but certainly not the whole thing.

Re:IBM could create Harmony overnight

[Dan Berlin (682091)]

This isn't true anymore. The old JVM was based on sun's code. The new one is completely cleanroom.

answering my own question

[ChristTrekker (91442)]

Once I found the Harmony site from someone else's post (hint: it's in the Apache incubator, not a full-fledged project yet), I saw this in the FAQ:

13) Does this compete with Kaffe and Classpath?

People from Kaffe and Classpath are helping start this project! Their experience in the open source VM and class library is invaluable, and they bring problems that the larger architecture community discussion can help solve.

We will have an implementation under the Apache License, but we think of this as comp

Re:harmony / kaffe

[psykocrime (61037)]

You mean both Classpath and Kaffe will be relicensed under the APL?

I don't think that's a "given" at this point, but some of the people who are involved with both Classpath and Kaffe, have expressed support for, and interest in, Harmony. Whether that will extend to those projects actually offering their code to Harmony or not, is still up in the air, AFAIK.