Red Hat Plans Open Source Java 422
sthiyaga writes "According to a ComputerWire article, Red Hat is in discussions with Sun about launching an open source version of the Java platform. 'There's always been an interest in an open source implementation of Java developed in a clean room that adheres to the Java standards,' Szulik told ComputerWire. 'We're in discussions with Sun. We'd like to do this with their support.'"
Much needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Much needed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Much needed (Score:3, Informative)
This reference of
Again, I'm probably talking out of my arse, though...
Re:Much needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Much needed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Much needed (Score:5, Insightful)
2)
3)
- It has a much faster graphics interface, while maintaining a robust graphics toolkit.
- It has a better messaging mechanism (Events/Delegates are a GODSEND and are the single most useful thing in the framework)
- It interoperates quickly and pretty thoroughly with current COM APIs, and wraps up nicely for use in non-.NET apps
- The Studio environment is faster to work with and has a more mature debugger than any Java IDE I've seen, including Netbeans
- ADO.NET is pretty nicely done, and things like DataAdapters parellel structures I always end up writing in Java anyway.
Anyway, the runtime filesize argument is just crap. The java guys need to get that GUI speed up to par or
Re:Much needed (Score:5, Informative)
vs 47.3 on my workstation). And it does more stuff -- a lot of the add-on packages for Java, including all of their J2EE crap, parellels
I am guessing you are stating that Java has more stuff since
CD is trivial, and most Windows Update and XP users have it already.
I have XP and had to download the
What's cool about
This is covered by JDO in Java. Theres also a really nice opensource reporting library call JasperReports. Along with that theres iReports which is an opensource IDE for creating JasperReports.
3)
- It has a much faster graphics interface, while maintaining a robust graphics toolkit.
See the SWT project. It uses native graphics rendering and widgets in Java.
- It interoperates quickly and pretty thoroughly with current COM APIs, and wraps up nicely for use in non-.NET apps
SWT has OLE/ActiveX support.
- The Studio environment is faster to work with and has a more mature debugger than any Java IDE I've seen, including Netbeans
Eclipse project works real well. Its very fast (again, uses SWT to render widgets) and has a very mature debugger.
- ADO.NET is pretty nicely done, and things like DataAdapters parellel structures I always end up writing in Java anyway.
Its JDO in Java world.
Anyway, the runtime filesize argument is just crap. The java guys need to get that GUI speed up to par or
Yes, check out Eclipse (www.eclipse.org). I have been using SWT in combination with GCJ to create native windows applications that dust anything created in VB (though C/C++ apps are a couple milliseconds quicker).
Eight months ago I'd have never said this, but Java isn't my favorite language anymore. C# is.
I liked
And even association with the vile and repugnant Microsoft isn't enough to sour it.
I think both Microsoft and Sun suck at being at the helm of both languages. Borland does a better job with C/C++ over Microsoft and IBM does better work with Java compared to Sun.
Re:Much needed (Score:4, Insightful)
It has a better messaging mechanism (Events/Delegates are a GODSEND and are the single most useful thing in the framework)
The event mechanism is good but delegates suck ass. Here's why:
1) Delegates are slower than interfaces (they're really just classes with an Invoke method and object+function pointers which requires two levels of indirection).
2) Delegates break OO. Suddenly you have something that works differently from other clases for no real benefit.
3) Anonymous inner classes allow you to define the function close to where its used. With delegates you can have a method body pages away from where it is registered with the event. And the method often has very little to do with the class that contains it. Anonymous methods in V2 are a good start but you still need anonymous innner classes (implementing IComparer for example -- which is an interface and not a delegate!).
Now, events are good. Having the "event" keyword and automatic wiring is useful. But there is no reason why the "event" keyword couldn't work with interface types instead of delegate types. Having worked extensively with delegates I've gotta say that they simply complicate the type system.
Re:Much needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever try a Factory method? I thought at first that's w
Re:Much needed (Score:3, Informative)
So with delegates they are bad because a programmer could write unclear code by putting the delegated function definition well away from where the delegate is initalised? This is as compared to the horrible unreadable code you'll find if you put "anonymous inner class java" into google. If you had to create 10 such inner classes would you advocate putting this code all in one initialisation function (such that it is very big), or would you create 10 seperate initialiser functions that the first calls (such
Re:Much needed (Score:2, Informative)
.NET is MS's latest development platform.
At it's heart it is meant to be a way for various programming languages and protocols to communicate with each other and work together.
The main problem is (of course) that to truly become platform independant MS would have to release a large amount of the code that runs it.
Microsft'sRe:Much needed (Score:3, Insightful)
And that means ALL the api's, not just the end-user ones, but the internal communications ones as well.
If MS does that, then
Re:Much needed (Score:3, Insightful)
I can tell you what it is not [oracle.com].
eh, not likely (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:eh, not likely (Score:2, Funny)
Surely the reader can determine what the letters 'FO' stand for in the license acronym...
Re:eh, not likely (Score:3, Interesting)
Enlighten me.
Re:eh, not likely (Score:2)
Many of us develop on Linux/Windows and deploy on Linux/UNIX. Why would anyone EVER risk screwing that up with MS software?
The problem is that MS wouldn't have a strong selling point to use their version of Java with a fully open version as well as Blackdown, Suns own and IBMs which are all free to d/l as needed.
Re:eh, not likely (Score:2)
That's the point of copyleft (Score:5, Insightful)
If Java were open-source, Microsoft could take it, deliver it as they saw fit and drive a definition of Java that was divergent from the one that the community wanted to be compatible.
Assume that Microsoft would have called this divergent platform "J++".
If the Java platform were open-source and under a license similar to that of X11, what you quoted would be the case. On the other hand, if the Java platform were open-source and copylefted, Microsoft would have to publish the source code of its J++ platform.
Re:Much needed (Score:2)
Re:Much needed (Score:2)
Microsoft learned a tough lesson (Score:5, Interesting)
Native Java (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Native Java (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Native Java (Score:3, Informative)
The whole point of Swing was to eliminate native peers - all Swing needs is a 2D frame buffer. In theory, you could have a very broken AWT native peer implementation and Swing would be just fine.
Personally, I think SWT is a good alternative - and it already works with gcj.
The rest of your post is basically a non-sequitor.
Re:Native Java (Score:3, Informative)
Most of Swing, yes. The exceptions are the top-level containers (JFrame, JDialog, JWindow and JApplet) which extend the AWT components.
Re:Native Java (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't like swing... (Score:5, Informative)
Some info:
The Eclipse project [eclipse.org] (of which SWT is a part of)
SWT Guide (good intro to SWT) [eclipse.org]
SWT API Specification [eclipse.org]
SWT Articles (many regarding topics internal to the API) [eclipse.org] -- scroll down to SWT
Re:If you don't like swing... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) In contrast to the rest of Java, you have to remember to explicitly free everything you create.
2) Cross platform stuff goes out the window, unless you can make sure a SWT lib is installed everywhere you want it
At the very least, with an open source Swing, you could ship say, a linux binary, but also ship the class files for other clients.
Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:5, Informative)
Some people withing Sun seem to be scared though that an Open-Source Java standard could be "polluted" by Microsoft.
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:2)
The reason for making it open source is allow people outside of Sun to play with the code. There may be better ways to improve garbage collection and just-in-time compilation that Sun employees haven't thought of or haven't had time to do.
The GUI could use some work too. Sun probably doesn't know as much about Linux as OSS developers do. If OSS developers could use their knowledge of Linux to optimize the n
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:2)
I wouldn't put anything past Microsoft, but I don't see how they could do this without some pretty blatant backpedalling. MS has already gone to great lengths to reject both Java and Open Source...it's hard to imagine them participating in an Open-Source Java effort in any way.
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:2)
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:5, Interesting)
Newsflash: Microsoft patented [slashdot.org] the CRL layer, so all those "third parties" could be toast anytime Microsoft finds them "inonvenient".
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:4, Interesting)
Strangely, this fact seems to be constantly ignored by those driving the .GNU and Mono projects. I wonder why?
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:3, Informative)
Newsflash: Sun has plenty of patents on key aspects of Java APIs and the JVM (check the uspto site).
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you should not. You should look only at what rights and obligations are legally associated with the license that you get, and what patents and other intellectual property are known.
Here, we are talking about Java, and the JCP and JSPA don't satisfy me as licenses for an open standard. Furthermore, as a practical matter, there simply is no complete, open source implementation of the Java 2 platform. Overal
Re:Not as a whole but (Score:3, Insightful)
There is only one implementation of Java, together with its derivatives by licensees. As long as that is all there is, its license matters, because nobody has demonstrated so far that they are capable of producing an independent implementation.
Why not? I see you dropped my point about keeping old libraries around for old releases of Java if they work better.
You can't just mix and ma
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing open or standard about Microsoft's
The entire platform wasn't even created to solve a business problem, it was simply created to kill Java.
Well, that and because of
Java was created to solve an industry wide, 30 year problem. How do you turn software from an expense, into an asset?
You do that by m
Hey troll/Tool Of The Man (tm) (Score:3, Insightful)
And, it's not a puppet body like some other bodies you might be able to think of.
They added some nice features in
Re:Hey troll/Tool Of The Man (tm) (Score:3, Informative)
And, it's not a puppet body like some other bodies you might be able to think of.
Dude, pass me that crack. ECMA [ecma-international.org] and ISO [iso.org] have way more credibility than JCP. ISO is the standards organization.
Re:Hey troll/Tool Of The Man (tm) (Score:3, Informative)
What's the use of the ECMA standard, really? Perhaps the fact that Mono has to use Wine is not a good enough reality check for you?
Java is more open than .NET (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile, Java's JCP process allows open source projects like Apache and JBoss to contribute to the standardization of Java. No part of Java is not standardized this way, and as a result, nearly all JCPs have open source implementations including Tomcat and JBoss. These implementations, more often than not, dominate the field over pr
oh boy, here we go... (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect Microsoft will tolerate dotGNU, Mono, as long as they see it beneficial to do so. Also, the language and runtime is not much. The true power of .NET and Java is in the wide amount of libraries available to these languages. I really wish the Mono team good like to replicating that in a source compatible manner. It would be no small feat.
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:5, Insightful)
1. C Sharp the language is a standard, but this counts for little since the platform (corresponding to J2SE or J2EE) is really the Dotnet framework, which is not standardized and remains proprietary and patented.
2. Shared source is not open source, in fact, I doubt if many people here would be willing to accept the terms for looking at Rotor, let alone using it.
3. "Not stood in the way of" (yet) other implementations is a little different from actually supporting them. With the Java Platform, not only are there already multiple vendors and dozens of separate implementations, but the legal permission for their development has been set forth in the JSPA [apache.org]. No equivalent exists for Dotnet whatsoever.
(Yawn. Hope I'm not missing anything good on TV...)
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:2)
funniÂly adv. [reference.com]
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:5, Interesting)
This could easily be solved if they just shipped Sun's JVM with it, and had the installer agree to the terms.
Personally I would love a separate RedHat CD or DVD that had "NON GPL" software. I then could load stuff like a good JVM, and good video drivers.
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't. I like the pressure it puts on companies to Open Source their stuff. Non-Open Source software is inherently untrustworthy because you can't get an independent review of exactly what it's doing.
I don't want to end up with a security nightmare like you have on Windows desktops where it seems like every other program has some kind of call home feature that essentially turns the program into a trojan.
Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java (Score:3, Informative)
The Sun v. MicroSoft case was based on MS shipping a "Java" environment which did not follow the standard to Sun's satisfaction. The copyright on the environment was never in question: it belonged to MicroSoft.
If there's a GPL Java environment, you can only call it "Java(tm)" if it has not been
Time to start up the pool... (Score:5, Funny)
Sun's Support (Score:4, Insightful)
It'd be hard to do it without Sun's support since they have been known on occasion to get very mad about people making versions of Java without their support. Of course that was mainly about a non-standard version, so maybe it wouldn't matter as long as it followed the standard.
How far is RedHat into this? Planning, Writing, Compiling, Marketing? If they're only planning it, java may finally be dead before it gets done; of course java may outlive me, of course I may die this evening, we just don't know.
Re:Sun's Support (Score:2)
Cos I don't see any J2EE apps running in F5K companies gettin rewritten overnight. And all those phones that play those neat games (J2ME) won't disappear overnight.
Re:Sun's Support (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they don't like having their platform polluted. This helps my applications stay portable.
I sincerely hope they continue to keep implementors in line. Don't you?
There (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There (Score:5, Informative)
do not download that source code (Score:3, Insightful)
Any open source version of Java must be either a clean-room implementation, or it must wait for Sun to release the JDK sources under the LGPL, GPL, or BSD licenses. And even then, you may still have to worry about Sun's patents in some c
What was Blackdown? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What was Blackdown? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What was Blackdown? (Score:3, Informative)
Its actually fairy easy... (Score:4, Funny)
Just take one pound of fresh, dry-roasted beans (I prefer Sumatra myself, though Peruvian and Venezuelan are nice, too). Grind these to the desired consistancy, depending on one's brewing method of choice (I'm a 'french press' kinda guy myself, but auto-drip is the norm). Next, load the beans into the appropriate container (filters for the drips, wire mesh baskets for us pressers). Apply nearly-boiling hot water, allow a moment for the beans to steep. Pour into your favorite cup and voila! Instant Java.
Jeesh. Why everyone makes such a big deal out of that, is just beyond me. No wonder all these tech companies go out of business - they can't even make a goddamn cup of coffee!
sun should go for it (Score:4, Interesting)
And plus, sun wouldn't need to do any of the work themselves
Blackdown? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Blackdown? (Score:3, Informative)
A bridge between the open source community and the commercial software development world... [blackdown.org]
So apparently not Open Source.
Re:Blackdown? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good for the web (Score:5, Interesting)
Somebody make a current open source shockwave plugin!
Re:Good for the web (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good for the web (Score:2)
Secondly, what java programs have you not been able to try? Ever heard of J2EE. Stop using client-side java as an excuse.
RedHat's Rawhide (Score:3, Interesting)
be careful (Score:5, Insightful)
If this gets dragged into the JCP process or stays under Sun's "community source" umbrella, it will not be open source in the way that we know it. If people aren't free to "corrupt" the open source Java in any way they like, it will not be open source; for example, one project of key importance for Java on Linux would be native bindings to Gnome.
A closely related question to be answered is what the patent situation around any such "open source" version of Java will be; Sun currently holds several patents that effectively block fully compatible open source implementations. Will Sun dedicate those patents to the public domain? Or will the "open source Java" adopt a license that makes the code open source but lets Sun retain control over who gets to use it through patents?
To Sun, Linux is as much as a threat as Microsoft, and their strategy is the same: make the OS irrelevant by replacing it with a Sun-controlled platform that runs on top of the OS. The Linux community should be as paranoid about that occurring as Microsoft management is. Sun is, ultimately, not a friend of Linux.
Maybe Sun is serious about creating an "open source" version of Java in the sense we all use the term. But I will reserve my judgement until there is something concrete on the table. So far, every promise of opening up Java by Sun has turned out to be a smokescreen and a distraction.
Re:be careful (Score:2)
Sun's Jonathan Schwartz Opposes Open Source Java (Score:4, Informative)
Should Java be made fully open-source? The problem with open-source is that [victory] goes to volume, and that's evident in the Linux community today where ISVs [independent software vendors] are qualifying to Red Hat and abandoning everyone else. Why? Because Red Hat has volume. If Java were open-source, Microsoft could take it, deliver it as they saw fit and drive a definition of Java that was divergent from the one that the community wanted to be compatible. And to the victor would go the spoils of that nefarious action. To the extraordinary credit of the Java Community Process [JCP], we have a uniform compatible standard that now spans hundreds of millions of devices, hundreds of millions of smart cards, hundreds of millions of desktops and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of servers. So you have to really be careful in understanding the distinction between open-source and open standards.
More at http://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/de
Re:Sun's Jonathan Schwartz Opposes Open Source Jav (Score:3, Interesting)
To take Java to the next stage, ie mass consumer usage, Sun needs to do all in its power
Sun has been serious about it for a while !! (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, an Open Source Java Project:
Ant: The Open Source Java Project [onjava.com]
Ant: work in progress [apache.org]
That'll never happen! (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't it Kaffe? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's more likely GCJ (Score:4, Informative)
My guess (as original "inventor" of GCJ, but no longer associated with Red Hat except as share holder): To the extent that Sun is willing to open-source parts of JDK, they'll use that; if Sun is unwilling, they will use GCJ.
Re:No, it's more likely GCJ (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. The program gcj is a compiler, like javac, but the GCJ project and run-time includes a virtual machine. The command gij is a plug-in replacement for the java command (except for unimplemented features and bugs, of course).
Why start from scratch? (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, Classpath? (Score:5, Interesting)
stupid question? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're going to do it with Sun's support, then why do you need a clean room? Or, if you're going to do it in a clean room, why do you need Sun's support?
I don't see the need... (Score:4, Interesting)
Was this Larry Ellison's idea? (Score:5, Interesting)
OT: THANK YOU! (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be the final kick in the ass that gives Linux the momentum to move on top.
Re:OT: THANK YOU! (Score:3, Interesting)
C and even C++ are becoming tedious for some folks. While the control is nice (I appreciate it quite a bit), speed of programming is becoming an issue as it portability. With newer languages, the development process is becoming less and less.
This is where
Open Source less than Open Standards? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sun Software VP Jonathan Schwartz seems to consider open standards more important than Open Source. See the CNet article [com.com] from a couple of months ago.
Perhaps there's a sense that locking down more of the Java developer market is more important than keeping the intellectual property in the implementation of Java "hidden". Once you put the open source version out, you can hope yours will become the defacto standard. But why go to Red Hat to open the Java source? Couldn't you just open it up yourself?
Maybe
Java making progress (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems that Sun is recognising that Java in general was in danger of stagnation. Recently, we've had a major push into the mobile phone arena, the bundling of JREs with Dell and HP PCs, SDK 1.5, and now this.
This might well be in reaction to the threat posed by .NET, but it seems that Sun are actively seeking to innovate once again, before .NET has a chance to catch up
And that's, long-term, probably a good thing for the development communityIsn't blackdown OpenSource? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been a good idea for a while. (Score:3, Interesting)
Forget GCJ, just think of the advantages to Sun if there was a kernel driver to run plain java natively, if done right, and of course open enough to be compatible it could only bolster java greatly, especially now that
I have to admit I like java for some tasks but am apprehensive that the two biggest hyped technologies nowadays are both controlled by a single company each, and both have closed source reference implementations.
Done Before, or done right now? (Score:4, Interesting)
However how is this effort different from:
Kaffe - Open Source, way behind the times, in general more annoying that useful, IMO.
Blackdown JVMs - Best Java JVM available for free on Linux (again IMO). Uses Sun's code, has valuable contributions, but isn't maintained by a large group. As far as I know, only a handful of dedicated people, and only one or two are very public.
Also, why would Sun suddenly be willing to Open Source Java now when they weren't before? Have any of the open issues changed?
As far as I know it's a compatibility/brand issue. If Java were open source, anyone could grab the source, tweak it and release their own JVM. If there are a zillion JVMs running around it's possible some won't be compliant.
What about the JCK? It works fine, but you still run into the embrace and extend issue. Someone takes Java 1.4 and builds custom enhancements to support his/her own Javaesque features. Programms written for this JVM now no longer work on a stock 1.4 VM. Is this VM now legal "Java". I think Sun would say no.
What about the Java Community Process? Many anti-fork advocates might suggest just contributing to Java via regular channels. Do these channels work? If not, should they be repaired instead of or in addition to Open Source Java?
A reason to enlist Sun's Cooperation (Score:5, Informative)
too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
don't get me wrong. i love java, its the only thing on my resume, sole bread-n-butter for past 6 years, etc.
but the C# designers really know the market.
when i first read "C# = java done right" in a PR article, i said, "yeah right, what absolute BS".
but then, i attended my first c# training seminar last month, & having just completed a major java-to-c# porting project, i can say this much - C# has definitely won the windows-only-client-side battle. if you are developing an app that front-ends on a windows client ( that's pretty much ALL of wall street, given the heavy use of MS-Excel ), C# is simply the way to go.
6 years ago, i recall graduating from school & deciding to go into a Java-job. classmates were like - "what's java ? unproven stuff. use MFC. that's were the $$ is".
how wrong they were! C# is now in the same position - poised to skyrocket.
every single java concept has made it into C#.
furthermore C# has several useful notions ( delegates, boxed types, attribute annotations,assemblies etc ) not in Java.
finally, cross-language interop is a dead reality - i can write a C# class, my VB class can inherit from it, and my C++ class can inherit from my VB class, and call functions in Perl - the CLS & the common type system makes it easy for even a casual novice pgmmer.
once's the mono project attains fruition, c# on linux will be the defacto pgmming style - need i say more ?
from a reluctant C# convert
Re:too little, too late (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people will appreciate JDBC drivers for their local database, flexible security, true cross-platform working etc. Conversely,, we can probably get by without "attribute annotations" for a while.
Re:too little, too late (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about this: I recently talked to a publisher at a tradeshow. He told me that there were getting to be more C# books than Java books. Only problem is, *they're not moving*. Java books are still in demand, and they're looking for more. Not so with C#.
That's not a good sign for C#.
Re:too little, too late (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, sounds like you bought the whole PR pitch hook line and sinker. I can say from first hand experience C# is not all it's advertised to be. C# has some nice stuff like properties, but several important pieces are seriously hobbled for enterprise class server applications.
Too Late (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cool (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Forgive my ignorance, but (Score:2)
Re:Wasted effort ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't blame your bias on the language design, especially when you don't name anything to back it up.
What's the "much more modern approach to networked programming than Java?"
And don't say
Re:Wasted effort ? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's free enough for the uses of almost all users and that should be enough for everyone.
RH has already made the commitment to include only Open Source software in their distribution. Backing down from this would potentially damage some business relationships and alienate some of their users. Until now, they have included only partially complete OS versions of a Java VM. If you wanted the full Java VM, you had to get it from Blackdown, SUN, or some other vendor. RH probably feels they will be more competitive if they can include a full version of Java with their distribution. Open Source is the only way they can do this, and they are probably tired of waiting for the various other "clean room" efforts to meet their needs.
They should take into account the effects of potentially success of SCO attacks on IBM and Linux.
No, they should be wary of any contracts they enter into with SUN.
Especially creating a clean room implementation won't help anymore, it will always be SUN's IP.
Not true. IBM's trouble with SCO was not over a clean room implementation, but over the suspicion that a contract to view "proprietary" material was violated, and the fruits of that contract were implemented in other competing operating systems (IE, Linux). Also, SCO is trying to consider all components of AIX as a derivative work of Unix, and thus under their control. Provided that RH doesn't ask for any development help from SUN, the same situation shouldn't arise. Of more concern would be patents that SUN holds.
Why spend any effort on Java at all ?
Because it's still alive and well on the server side. Having an open source version of java would enable Red Hat to ship "ready to run" web application servers to enterprise customers.