Sun will Open Java's Source 584
bckrispi writes "An announcement from Sun spokesman Raghavan Srinivas indicates that, contrary to what we've heard in the past, Java will be Open-sourced. "We haven't worked out how to open-source Java, but at some point it will happen," Srinivas said."
Boon (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks, Sun!
An example of hybrid-source (Score:4, Insightful)
In this article [com.com] in which they promise opening up Solaris, They say:
The uninformed on-lookers will only see the statement "Sun warms to open-source for Solaris" which gives them more points.
Next concerning Java, a few months ago they said [com.com],
Now they are saying [zdnet.com.au]:
Again, the uninformed on-lookers will only see the statement "Sun to open-source Java" which gives them more points.
Summary: They promised to make Solaris become like Java, meanwhile they don't know if at all Java will be open-sourced in this lifetime.
This is what is called hybrid-source: A vapor version of open-source meant only to gain favor with the open-source community and the business world without any active steps or concrete plans to put it in effect.
Re:Boon (Score:5, Insightful)
- If they use the "sharing is not theft" BSD licence, then someone conceivably could take Java, modify it just enough to make it incompatible with the old version, and release their modified version -- let's call it EvilJava because I can't think of anything better -- closed-source. By writing plenty of code that only runs on EvilJava, someone can effectively usurp control of the market -- this, presumably, is the "nightmare scenario" Sun is keenest to avoid.
- If they use the "not sharing is theft" GPL, then nobody can release a closed-source modification. Somebody could conceivably write a "JavaTwoPlus" incompatible with plain old Java, but it would necessarily be GPL. We have to assume that GPL automatically means cross-platform, since there would be nothing to prevent Sun themselves from porting JavaTwoPlus to any other platform for which a version of GCC exists.
- If they go for a Pine-like licence, then nobody will be allowed to release modified binaries to the general public -- whether EvilJava or JavaTwoPlus -- in such a way that they could be confused with the "official" Java. Anyone wishing to create an improved Java would be confined to releasing patches for the source. As wonderful as this looks in theory, it's a nightmare in practice because of the problems it creates for distributors. Some Linux distros already don't include Pine, precisely for fear of running afoul of its licencing terms {You typically have to modify any source package ever so slightly to get it to work with your own distribution; that's what the configure process is about. The actual Pine licence doesn't make it clear that such modification is permitted. Even if the University of Washington turns a blind eye to some distros putting out a patched pine, there is nothing to say that one day it won't start coming down hard on distributors}. Sun presumably wants Java to be distributed widely, so should word the licence very carefully if following this route -- there is a real risk of alienating distributors.
The question boils one of balance between code integrity and the benefits of Open Source. BSD doesn't assure code integrity or cross-platform-ness. Pine-like assures integrity but impacts negatively on distributability. GPL blocks any outright threats to code integrity and cross-platform compatibility -- but potentially leaves Sun with hard work to do.All that being said, if Java has enough functionality already then nobody will really feel the need to add anything else -- which, of course, is where the greatest single threat to cross-platform-ness comes from. Those few who do have special requirements which can best be met through modifications, probably will not be releasing their modified Java versions into the mainstream.
Sun has up to now played the role of a protective parent, shielding the child (Java) from the worst elements of the outside, adult world (closed-source vendors who would take a beautiful product and distort it for their own ends). But children do eventually grow up; and after a point, when they have learned the dangers of the world, it becomes wrong not to set them free into that very world -- for all its dangers, it is still a beautiful place. If Sun has done everything right -- or even done just enough right -- then there is nothing to fear when Java makes the transistion from tightly-reined, closed-source child to well-balanced, Open Source adult with an existence of its own that does not depend on Sun.
eh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:eh (Score:5, Informative)
Tooth Fairy (Score:3, Insightful)
``Anyone who believes a vendor is going to give away hardware under a contract that allows the customer to immediately strip off the software and repurpose it probably still hasn't faced the truth about the Tooth Fairy.''
You mean that he does exist and wrote Linux, together with Santa Claus? [linuxworld.com]
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
People often don't realize how expensive/lucrative Enterprise Support is compared to the cost of H/W and S/w. Companies charge as much as 29-35% of the product cost as support per year and support is never discounted. i.e companies give away s/w and h/w worth a million and charge say 290k per year in support.
Support/services is often the number 1 consideration in purchasing.
So, I would not be surprised if sun's net revnues do not decrese after they opensource all of their s/w, including OS.
Besides, why does Sun want to fix a bug for which there is no revenue tied? Sun might rather fix an obscure bug from a paid customer than fix the most popular bug. By opensourcing Java/ or OS, they will be opening a new maintenance channel for their platform while still making the same service revenues.
In our company, Sun support team is respected and our IS claims it is worth all the cost.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Funny)
replied: "Simple... Volume."
opening questions (Score:3, Insightful)
I will probably be marked troll on this one, but I have to ask:
How in the world can you be split over something like that?
I mean, people will basiclly poke at the code and report you bugs.
Other developers will request tons of features that they will point how easy are to be done.
Everyone will be happy.
It's not as if they are charging people for using the pure java language right now.
However, others, including Sun, believe the main hurdle and concern is the future of the Java brand and compatibility.
So, they are planning to be constantly changing the language then? What are they smoking?
We haven't worked out how to open-source Java -- but at some point it will happen," Srinivas said. However, he noted "it might be today, tomorrow or two years down the road".
Well, you start with a 19$
Re:opening questions (Score:4, Insightful)
I think they're worried about someone forking it. What they ought to do is release the Java code under the GPL but not give up their trademark on the Java name. That way, forked versions can't call themselves Java unless they meet Sun's existing compatibility criteria.
Forking JAVA (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh bull. How many incompatible forks of C++ are there? Not all compilers implement all of the latest ANSI standard but are all working toward compliance as fast as they can lest they lose relevence in the marketplace. Ok, how about Perl? It has been GPL from the start of it's life and there has been exactly ZERO forks. Python? Nope, no evil forks there. How about the granddaddy of them all, C? Yes, but the ANSI standard keeps pulling them all back into line, so it hasn't been a problem. Every time C shows its age the compiler writers start innovating and the good ideas get standaridized.
Sun is still trying to think of a way to make JAVA a cash cow and is afraid that if they Open Source it that when they have the "Ah Ha!" moment that it won'y work because they opened it.
And anyway, the idea of compile once, emulate everywhere is not exactly a great one if you live in the OS/FS world. Won't bother me a bit when Java becomes just another language that GCC compiles to native code and it's bundled libraries are sitting in
Re:opening questions (Score:4, Insightful)
The fear of a fork is what keeps the community split. A truly open source Java would have no restrictions against someone taking Java and extending it in a way that's incompatible with existing Java (remember when Microsoft tried to do that?). It would completely undermine the idea of Java as a stable universally-compatible platform to build on.
Re:opening questions (Score:3, Informative)
Sun has this spooky, almost pathological, fear of forking. I guess you can attribute it to fallout from the proprietary Unix wars of the 80s and 90s. Thing is, those were a direct consequence of proprietary licensing. Everyone took the "historical Unix" code, put it in their own systems, and then chugged along incompatibly, with the new code hidden. The difference with GPL'd code is that if you use it, you have to publish it. So your rivals can c
Re:opening questions (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The most important question: WHY would anyone fork it? Where are the 'hundreds of forks' of Perl and Python?
2. And just who the hell will actually use an incompatible, impopular Java fork, that isn't even legally allowed to be called "Java"?
3. How's forking Java and making it incompatible any different from creating your own language with incompatible but similar Java-like syntax? (other than that under the hood it's based on Sun Java, but nobody cares about that)
Re:Fork (Score:3, Informative)
As for non-commercial forks... this will prevent them. Anyone can write a jvm NOW, there are already open source jvm's. Sun's isn't even the best jvm, but what sun has going for it is that it's the official jvm, that's true no matter what license it's under. If you want a jvm
This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
And at some point I'll somehow figure out how to make a million dollars while sitting at home playing my Playstation, too.
I fail to see how this qualifies as news.
Re:This is news? (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, no one knows who you are, no one cares if you make money, everyone has a playstation, and most people know how to play it.
Does that help put things in perspective?
Bah! Tell me when it actually happens! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bah! Tell me when it actually happens! (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering just a month/few months ago Sun was saying no to open sourcing Java, this IS news. It represents a public shift in their coporate strategy. Call it what you will, this is newsworthy.
Re:Bah! Tell me when it actually happens! (Score:3, Insightful)
When they release it, then perhaps the license will cause it to be news, or one sort or another. I.e., it won't necessarily be positive news. Remember, this is the company that came out with the SCCCL license.
Re:Bah! Tell me when it actually happens! (Score:3, Interesting)
faces of a coin (Score:3, Insightful)
I really hope they do open source java. it would let OSS improve the VM. it would make it evolve faster and allow more people to improve it.
ANSI/ISO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ANSI/ISO (Score:4, Funny)
Re:ANSI/ISO (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain to me why we need ANSI or ISO?
A colleague of mine insists that
Explain to me how this is better than the JCP?
The JCP is already slow enough. The last thing Java needs is some bloated organization like ANSI or ISO to get involved.
Do it where it counts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of waiting two years, do it now when it counts most. If Sun feels some degree of uncertainty, then test the waters by open sourcing selective parts of the JDK - especially the parts of the Java libraries that are widely perceived to be neglected.
JMF Comes to Mind (Score:4, Interesting)
Indonesia and the Pacific (Score:5, Funny)
warmest regards,
Juan Valdez
It's just another step towards obsolesence... (Score:5, Funny)
Not really that big (Score:5, Insightful)
I've wondered for a while where Sun makes money from Java, particularly enough to recoup what they spend on it. I can't imagine it affects sales of Solaris boxes that much.
actually, (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be interesting to see what kind of license Sun goes with given their oft-given fear of forking Java. Seems to me that something like the Qt license would be the way to go.
QT license (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not really that big (Score:3, Insightful)
Java for amiga anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember the browsing frustrations I had in my last years on that platform, at one point we were in advance for just about everything possible, then lost to 3d gaming, then 16bits audio, then lost all the cool hacks like running a multi-line BBS routed through both telnet and dialup at the same time without even being a programmer, to being a slow about to die dog exept for playing speedball... Oh well.. better late than never I guess..
Too little, too late. (Score:5, Interesting)
(eg. like dressing up in a Penguin suit while handing SCO a paper bag full of money under the table.)
From a business point of view, what's the point?
Mono is nearing release 1.0 and is a very attractive platform for developers. Releasing Java open source 3 years ago would have screwed Microsoft hard, but now I'm not so sure.
I still think open sourcing is the best strategic move for Sun, but I think they have no clue on how to exploit it. They will probably do something silly like release it under the IBM CPL since that's what their competitors are doing.
The best move for them is obviously to GPL it, and use a Trolltech style licensing model. GNU Classpath [gnu.org] will naturally get in the way. (again, should have did it 3 years ago).
However, the COO, Johnathan Schwartz recently teased in the media that they might release Looking Glass, Sun's new 3D desktop widget toolkit as open source. I've seen it, it looks great.
If they GPL'd that as well, Sun might have a chance at getting a serious revenue stream happening.
I doubt this will happen though. Sun will keep withering out of fear and inertia. It's the nature of the beast.
trolling for mono... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mono is nearing release 1.0 and is a very attractive platform for developers. Releasing Java open source 3 years ago would have screwed Microsoft hard, but now I'm not so sure.
First you ask what's the point, from a business-point-of-view no less. Then you bring up the legal blackhole that is mono?
The point is not basing your development on a technology owned by a ruthless competitor that has promised to squash you.
The point is having a development environment that is equally supported on multiple platforms by the core designers themselves.
The point is not to have the threat of patent suits looming over you for using an unauthorized and patented language/API/Runtime/Whatever-else-they-patented stack.
If they GPL'd that as well, Sun might have a chance at getting a serious revenue stream happening.
Oh yeah, the money just rolls in when companies GPL software, doesn't it.
Ahhh... Only on Slashdot :)
Re:Too little, too late. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun's Java Class Libraries are very nice and full featured, if Java was open-sourced, I'd see Mono and Java merging together quite nicely. Write in whichever language is most comfortable, and call whichever API does the job the best.
I see this as a good solution for Sun which is seeing developers leaving for
Why the hatred against our ally?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't people see the strategic importance of the UNIX world (which includes Linux) holding together and fight against the real enemy?
I do have my concenrs regarding Suns recent "peace" with the enemy, maybe we can no longer rely on SUN, but at least one must acknowledge what SUN has done for the UNIX community.
The lack of historical perspective and irrationalism of many of the SUN haters is shocking to me. It almost makes me think that the enemy has sent inflitrators on slashdot with the purpose to spread division and internal struggle inside the UNIX world.
Why it might take some time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Inevitibly, in large organizations with large projects, some manager attempts to (and often succeeds in) shortcutting the development time by licensing or purchasing some outside code or technology. I would be surprised if Sun's implementation of Java was completely developed in house and/or completely owned without exception by Sun. They have to vet all the code and modules to be certian that they have the right to release Java. I doubt they'll release the unencumbered parts before it's all ready.
Further, there are likely to be patent and legal encumberances to the code which may prevent immediate release. It could even be that people along the line have said, "I'll patent this technique later, for right now it's a trade secret." There may yet be code in there which they can capitalize off of by patenting, while allowing for usage within java without charge.
And, of course, they have to make sure the company lawyers and accountants are satisfied with whatever terms they release it under. They may even wait until the SCO thing blows over if they really want to use the GPL (Unlikely).
So don't hold your breath. The ideal outcome would make one able to compile it for platforms which it does not yet run on natively and stable.
-Adam
It IS hard to open source java.... (Score:5, Informative)
encryption is compatible with open source (Score:3, Informative)
Sun Benefits? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, i'm sure they know this, and that's why it's not being released now, and it probably never will be, unless they somehow conjure up a way to release the source and retain complete control of it.
jvm (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun is giving the VM away as it is, It would be nice to have it gpl compatable so it can be used right after an install.
What's the problem, exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Is it really that important to be able to distribute the built binaries for people? Without paying Sun for it, that is?
Re:Good thing for FreeBSD (Score:3, Interesting)
Worst. Solution. Ever.
(granted, it is a solution, but it sure blows)
Re:What's the problem, exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
"open sourcing" java doesn't really excite me too much... but, along the same lines as what you are saying, making it "free" (as in freedom) and GPL compatible would be a tremendous step, and i might actually start to learn some java! open sourcing somethign does not necessarily imply th freedoms that we are used to in the GNU and BSD worlds, despite all of those applications falling undert the open source umbrella (i consider open source tp be the supersets of all licenses which allow you to see the source code... but do not necessarily grant you the freedom to use it).
java or the JVM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Opensourcing can only help java. It will definetly spread its adoption to be standard on many linuxes.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Java will be open source! Never! Sometime! (Score:4, Insightful)
If I didn't know better, it would seem that Sun is flailing pretty badly at this point.
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:3, Insightful)
Me neither. Where the hell is the value in their company? Solaris doesn't have the greatest market share, and I see Java as their biggest strength. They want to give it away why? Don't they have a responsibility to the shareholders?
People run all kinds of Microsoft-made technologies and don't gripe. What's with the shitstorm about Java not being open source?
Who cares?
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:5, Insightful)
AS far as running microsoft and liking it? Thats because it is there. Most people won't even look under the hood and care, with java, people are going out ang getting it so they know what is there and more of the people using it are the ones that would bitch about microsoft. The difference is the amount visible to the public. Microsofts users would have more that didn't care where java users would have more that did care.
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:5, Insightful)
They do it by selling software services.
Sun: "We'll sell you software stuff and services."
Customer: "OK - what will it be written in?"
Sun: "Java"
Customer: "Cool - we already use java, its free, and we can use your software anywhere."
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:5, Insightful)
IF they release it under the GPL, I see this making the open-source world a lot friendlier to Java. IF thy release it under a GPL licence, then KDE/GNOME will integrate java more closely(I.E. standardize).
I think the smartest move would be for Sun to relase Java's source under the plain old GPL, but not let any implementation use the Java trademark unless it meets their criteria( so they can keep Java from fragmenting)
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, not the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
I don't believe you. Do those distros ship without Perl and Apache, which are both not GPL licensed?
IF they release it under the GPL, I see this making the open-source world a lot friendlier to Java.
Open-source != Free. A significant group of people prefers a BSD-like license over the GPL. A GPL-compatible BSD-like license will be usable by both GPL and non-GPL programmers. Most programming language implementations do not use the GPL, and that is probably for a good reason:
Python - BSD-like license
Perl - Artistic
Gcc - GPL (but glibc is LGPL!)
Zope - BSD-like
Php - BSD-like
Scheme - BSD-like
Ada - Artistic
Eiffel - BSD-like
TCL/TK - BSD-like
Furthermore, the GPL may be a serious problem for Sun. Not all Java code is necessarily copyrighted by them. They might have licensed some code from others. With a BSD-like license, they can just keep those parts with their original license. A GPLed Java would require relicensing, which Sun cannot do. Another problem may be patents. Sun owns quite a few Java-related patents and the GPL requires them to give everyone a free license to those patents. That would allow MS to use those patents in their software and even to build another evil Java clone, but then, Sun wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Another patent problem may be that third party patents cannot be used in GPLed software (even though Sun can license it). So Sun might not be able to include some functionality in a GPLed Java.
Re:No, not the GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
You are aware that Java is not written in Java? One issue is open sourcing the Runtime Enviornment source code which is java code, the other issue is opening the Virtual Machine which is not. Everyone has been griping about the VM code.
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:5, Informative)
GCJ - SWT Gui (Score:4, Informative)
Create native, cross-platform GUI applications, revisited [ibm.com]
Not compile once, run everywhere, maybe write once, compile everywhere, but that is Java, GPLd with a GUI.
You're not thinking. (Score:5, Insightful)
Open sourcing java wouldn't really hurt them, and god knows java could use it.
Re:You're not thinking. (Score:3, Funny)
Actually since god has never used a computer and wouldn't give a shit about Java, and since he's a figment of your imagination anyway, he actually doesn't know that Java could do with being open sourced. Hard to believe, I know. But that's the truth of it.
Re:You're not thinking. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
Is Java suffering at all due to lack of demand?
No.
Is the Java licencing restricting its implementation on different platforms?
No.
Is Java on Linux suffering as a result of this licencing?
No - Linux is one of the main deployment platforms for Java.
Is the demand for Java in the job market decreasing?
No.
I fully support open sourcing Java, but it does not take much understanding of the IT industry to realise that Java certainly doesn't need open sourcing - its phenomenally successful.
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:5, Funny)
Uh? I thought the whole purpose of this site was to gripe about microsoft products.
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:5, Interesting)
By a strange set of circumstances I found myself, a little over a year ago, sitting in a small room with RMS and a standard-issue complement of corporate Win32 support slaves. A FOSS missionary had brought us all together.
I've been a GNU/Linux user since 1997. At home I am now exclusively a G/L user. Am gunning for that at work.
Yet, when RMS told the gathered geeks and semi-interested bystanders (and I paraphrase) I think one should be willing to use inferior free software instead of superior closed software (/paraphrase) I thought Bull fucking shit.
That was before SCO filed suit. That was before I paid enough attention to what's going down in the patent realm. That was before Redhat sold out freedom for whatever it is they think they're getting in exchange for freedom. (The money ain't worth it, guys. You know in your souls -- if you haven't sold them -- that it ain't.)
I was running Redhat then. I'm running Debian now. It's inferior in many respects. It's maddening in many respects. It's free. I'm free.
People who have more chops than I compile their own custom kernels and their own sets of GNU & other FOSS. That's not just freeom. That's power. That's one future that any user is free to choose.
I'm so grateful to those who code in the name of freedom. I am writing this to you on a computer that's as free as I know how to make it, because of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds and thousands of like-minded coders.
If, in order to stay free, I have to sign an effing affidavit every time I log on, I will do it.
And I know the coders who believe in what they have taught me to believe in will take the time to certify their code. It's a *very* small price for freedom.
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:3, Insightful)
This "They won't accept patches unless the copyright is assigned to them" is just the price of doing business in the US. Mostly to have copyrights clear and avoid SCO-like messes. Even if SCO claim is completely without merit (and that I believe so), you need to prove it.
or, as someone said sometimes around 50 BCE said, "the wife of Julius Caesar doesn't only need to be honest" -
Open source, public source, or shared source? (Score:3, Insightful)
Allowing their users access to the source to Solaris-- even if the license is "poisoned" to prevent it from being mixed with GPLed code-- would help Sun's users. They would be able to adapt the OS to strange fine-tuned uses and arcane hardware, or more easily debug kernel plugins. A shop that might otherwise have gone "well, we like solaris, but we don't want to be limited to sparc and x86, so we'll
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:4, Insightful)
Java to be successful in the long term needs to be standarized and opened like C has been!
Re:Yeah, by IBM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Java is Sun. While that probably doesn't mean all that much to most people, it does to Sun and everyone whose spent the time and money to certify there apps as J2EE Certified. Sun would have to be smoking some really good stuff to think that giving that up would be a good thing. Java and C were made for very different reasons, C was to be the prefered language for Unix development, so it was stupid not to have it open and standardized as Unix went down the same path, Java was always concieved as something that Sun would keep, leverage it and open it enough that it would be used, but still Sun would have control.
Re:Benefits? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bug fixing, performance enhancements, porting to more platforms, inclusion in free software only (assuming thay release it under a free software liscence rather than just an open source one) distributions [read: debian] to name just a few of the advantages.
Also, if it's free more people are likley to use it for developing free software
Compile once, run anywhere (even a fedora box) (Score:5, Insightful)
It will certainly increase its adoption, especially in the open source world, thus fulfilling its original purpose: write once, run anywhere.
-jim
Re:Benefits? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not much of an announcement (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Java is not open-sourced and falls out of use like most closed standards eventually do.
2. Java is released as open-source and they lose control of it.
3. Java is released under a pussyfoot-shared-source-with-lots-of-restrictions
Overall, it doesn't look like Sun can win with this.
Re:Not much of an announcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun own's the java brandname and wants to exploit that, that is there asset. If you want proof, look at the sun java desktop which has not the slightest thing to do with java.
If turned over to the open source crowd java will be powerful and popular in no time. That means the word java will be used all the time, making sun's brand more powerful.
Re:Not much of an announcement (Score:5, Insightful)
There is enough OSS built around Java to keep it alive in the OSS community and popularity as a whole is right across the board.
They do have real concerns about losing control. Usually, without too much hassle, Java can live up to its write once, (test and then) run everywhere. Will this be so if there are forked projects?
It would be great to get the OSS community in on improving Java but I can see why Sun want to remain in control.
Re:Not much of an announcement (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder, with something as big as the whole Java world is right now, if you're not right.
Take an OS, for example. Look at the difference between OS X and Linux. Linux is going in every which direction but has more potential than just about anything on the planet.
Apple, however, took Free BSD and put a super nice wrapper on it. They've got managers who keep developers focused and executive officers who keep managers focused. Often, the open source community has a very narrow and selfish view when it comes to certain things. Like, why make software easy to install, like OS X? No need- any Linux user (present or future) is smart enough to compile his own software, resolve dependencies, etc.
A person has to ask- could the OSS community ever have produced a gem like OS X? Could it have produced Java? OSS has the skillset, some of the sharpest folks on the planet. But who is keeping them coordinated? Who is the CEO with a single, cohesive vision?
Don't get me wrong on OSS here. It has produced cool, big things like the Linux Kernel, Gnome, KDE, XFree86, etc., etc. All wonderful pieces of a puzzle that just doesn't seem to fit together quite as well as they need to when it comes to building a complete OS platform.
Re:Not much of an announcement (Score:4, Insightful)
1996 called. They wanted to know why you're compiling from scratch as opposed to using a distribution and its package manager. (*cough* Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Connectiva, Slackware, hell even Gentoo *cough*)
Re:Not much of an announcement (Score:5, Interesting)
Sigh... don't give me stupid stereotypes like that. I've been working for more than 2 years on the autopackage project [autopackage.org], which is exactly trying to make Linux software installation easier. I've put many man hours into the project and you come up with a dumb stereotype!? I'm very insulted! I'm sure all the people who put a lot of efford into GNOME and KDE would feel the same way too.
I swear, if Linux ever fails on the desktop, it'll be because people like you keep insulting developers with dumb stereotypes.
"A person has to ask- could the OSS community ever have produced a gem like OS X? Could it have produced Java? OSS has the skillset, some of the sharpest folks on the planet."
Yeah. How about Mono? Everybody who has tried
"But who is keeping them coordinated? Who is the CEO with a single, cohesive vision?"
How about the project maintainer? The BSDs has a clear visiion of what it's supposed to be. Inkscape's maintainer has a clear vision of the future. There are good and bad maintainers, but there are also good and bad CEOs. Don't act like corporate control is some kind of bliss.
Don't fear the fork (Score:5, Interesting)
These are just some examples of what Open Source Java could bring, and why forking is good.
----------
Create a WAP [chiralsoftware.net] server
Re:Don't fear the fork (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't fear the fork (Score:3, Insightful)
This is EXACTLY what MS did with Visual J++ and their own JRE. This is exactly what Sun fears about open sourcing Java.
If you want a KDE specific version of JAVA, create the appropriate Plug-in/Replacement classes for the AWT/Swing. The current JAVA jre spec DOES indead allow that. Or if you are particularly brave, create new packages such as org.kde.*. The advantag
Re:Not much of an announcement (Score:3, Insightful)
If I may:
gcj, kaffee, jikes, etc. (I don't remember all the one's that I encountered.) Notice, though, that c, c++, Fortran, python, and Ruby (among others) haven't forked. At most there are dialects with extensions to the core language, or differing libraries. Well, unless you consider Objective C to be an incompatible fork rather than a separate language.
Re:Not much of an announcement (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not what Sun wants.
Re:Not much of an announcement (Score:3, Insightful)
Wha..? Java is not a closed standard. See the Java Community Process [jcp.org]. Sun's implementation is closed. I disagree that "most" closed standards fall out of use. Many survive.
2. Java is released as open-source and they lose control of it.
Well, the Linux kernal is open-source and yet Linus maintains quite a lot of control over it. No doubt Sun's people would still have a lot of control because they're the most famili
Closed standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Outside the IT world you have a point. But name ONE major IT standard that is still relevant that is a) closed and b) not a microsoft 'standard'. I exclude MS because they are a convicted monopolist and have certain unfair influences on the marketplace that has permitted them to maintain closed standards for a little longer than everyone else.
Networking standards are the obvious example where closed has been the kiss of death. Closed information services were crushed by the Internet, all non-IP network protocols are now in legact maintaince mode. How many email systems are left other than SMTP/POP/IMAP? Instant messaging is the one holdout because Jabber couldn't get their act together to the point where every ISP became expected to host a Jabber locator server just like they host a mail/dns/news/etc server.
File protocols are rapidly converting to open, with the notable exception of MIcrosoft and their Office formats. A host of closed graphics formats fell to GIF, JPEG and PNG. The myriad audio and video formats have all but collapsed to WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGG. Even the MS standards are fairly open (for MS tech) with the exception of rights restricted flavors of WMV. MP3 and MPEG are artifacts of a day when RAND licensing was considered open.
JAVA must open or face a decline. It is the only current language with any real restrictions on implementations. Anyone is free to write a C compiler, and many do in school. Anyone if free to rewrite Perl, but would be daft to try.
Even worse, with the current situation Linux distributors can't include a JVM (Sun's or IBM's) in their collection, even those who are willing to bundle closed apps, so no JAVA app can ever be a core app in the Linux or BSD worlds, and considering the state of affairs in Windows land it isn't likely to happen there either. That Sun can't see that widespread, unfettered distribution of the runtime is a plus for all Java advocates doesn't bode well for a real Open Source release of the JDK.
But anyway, JAVA the language probably has a future but JAVA the emulator/VM really doesn't. Sun can slow the evolution down through skilled lawyering but native compilation similar to what GCC is now doing is the future, one where JAVA is just another language and source gets compiled to native code and depends on the normal system libraries.
The only reason for the emulator was to allow closed source apps to be semi portable, but as closed source becomes less of an issue there will be less and less reason to pay the emulation penalty of the JVM. In the Open Source world portability is achieved with GNU autoconf, not by compiling all code to run on a mythical platform which is then emulated on whatever host it happens to be running on today.
Autoconf? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, which platform do you use - it wouldn't be Linux x86 which pretty much all gnu software has already been ported to would it? Autoconf is good at getting things mostly right, but there are still various tweaks to get something running on a platform it hasn't been built for before (I know
All the Java I've written seems to run fine without modification under MacOSX, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris
If autoconf is the route to native portability, I think I'll stick with the current JVM model and get some work done, thanks you.
Re:No reason to open-source Sun's Java implementat (Score:4, Interesting)
My point is, a free, forkable implementation of Java will happen -- with or without support from Sun. If free software people could use Sun's classes, the risk of having incompatible versions of Java (because of subtle differences in implementations or because some classes haven't been implemented yet) would be lower than it is now.
Besides, having a complete and free Java environment perhaps could keep some free software developers away from C#/.Net
Re:Is Microsoft Behind This? (Score:3, Funny)
Well, you said it first...
Re:Wow, this is huge news! (Score:5, Insightful)
1-There are numerous examples of open source programming languages that have remained centralized and unfragmented, like Perl and Python.
2-Because java depends on a uniform standard and VM, any attempts to split off or fork the source tree will die miserably due to a lack of compatibility with the massive pool of existing code and classes.
3-In fact, there is actually LESS chance of fragmentation when Java lies in the hands of the public, first because it means that no one will start up a competing "openjava", a venture that would almost certainly lead to incompatibilities, and second because, as the example of the death of xfree86 shows, too much central and absolute control over software by a small group will inevitably anger developers and users alike, leading them to search for an alternative.
Honestly, this is slashdot. You people should have more faith in OSS.
Two corrections (Score:5, Interesting)
Say, isn't "OpenJava" called
As for control by the public - Java is already controlled by the public at large through the JCP [jcp.org]. I do think opening the source could get some people more fired up about some things though, as the JCP can be rather slow.
Re:Wow, this is huge news! (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming this is for real, Java needn't become fragmented at all. For one thing, Sun could choose one of the sourc
Re:Wow, this is huge news! (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, more fragmented than it already is with Sun, Microsoft, Apple, Kaffe, gcj, Latte, Jikes, and so on and so forth all providing their own implementations?
``One of the really nice things about java is that despite a few problems, it's very portable.''
Oh yes. About as portable as C, Python, Fortran, ADA, Pascal, Common LISP, Scheme, PHP, Ocaml and a plethora of other languages.
``I've never personally had a problem moving my code from one machine to another.''
You lucky bastard. You must never have moved your code developed with a modern Sun JDK to a machine using Microsoft's VM. Or an old (1.0.x or 1.1.x) Sun JVM, for that matter. Or tried running AWT code on pretty much any of the open source JVMs, which are kind of your only choice if your machine is not x86, PowerPC or SPARC, or the operating system is anyting besides GNU/Linux, Solaris, Mac OS, OS X, or Windows.
Java is a dream that never came true:
1. Write once, run everywhere is a myth, because you need a good VM and class libraries, which are only available for a few platforms.
2. The official distribution is bloated to the top and runs slow even with JIT compilation. Java programs use lots of memory. This makes Java unnatractive even if you can guaratee it will work on your target system.
3. GUIs in Java are a nightmare. AWT can be a bitch to code for, lacking many useful components. Swing uses "pure Java" widgets, which are slow and don't fit well with the native widgets on your system. SWT ought to be better, but is not included in the distribution, so if you want it, you need more bloat.
4. High performance apps are out. GUI apps are a nightmare. What's left? Simple command line utilities? Nah, much better written in a different language. Whomever heard of multi-second startup time for hello world, and BufferedReader in = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in)); before you can do something useful with standard input?
Oh yeah, it runs on cellphones. At least, the very much scaled down J2ME does. But don't expect good performance, and don't expect software written for some cellphone to run on yours. It's the same story again.
Java has failed.
Re:Wow, this is huge news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It will be beneficial to Java in the long term. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It will be beneficial to Java in the long term. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two dangers to this:
1) Incompatible forks. Java is supposed to be "write once, run anywhere". Different implementations of a common standard can be good. Diverging language features can't be.
2) At heart (without the class libraries) Java is still a small, simple, clean, readable, easy to learn language. Enough well-meaning enhancements, and it could end up looking like perl. Ugg.